 Seeing none, motion passes. We'll move on to agenda number four, discussion with the county regarding the 23rd Street site. And I think we'll ask Chairman Bill Gehring to speak first and just a moment, Chairman Bill Gehring. Alderman Dan Berg would like to say something. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say a few words on the letter that Alderperson Groff had written, saying that between 2000 and 2004, the Building Use Committee only gave out more or less the information that we wanted them, the council to hear. That was not true because we had over 80 meetings. Everything was in the paper, on the radio. All the meetings were open. Any Alderperson could come and go as they please. Even if there was a closed meeting, you would know well that you're all invited to stay. So I don't see any reason in the world why they say that we just gave the people what we wanted of it, because it was open for everybody. So I kind of take offense with this and I think Mr. Warner and Mr. Wangen would do the same because they put in a lot of hard, long time, I said three and a half years that I was with the Building Use Committee and we never kept anything from this council because we even had meetings with the committee to hold on these. And even several of the so-called new Alder Persons that were listed in here before the election, they even came forward and said to me that they were in favor of a certain place and not in favor of 23rd Street site. So they were following the papers and they were doing their homework and they knew about it. So I just wanted to say I really didn't appreciate this letter. Thank you. Thank you and Alderman Byrd. Yes, Oman Graw. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to remind everybody to hold on to these documents that came from the county because the city clerk will not be recapping these for anything that we report out. So hold on to these original documents so that you all have a record of what was what was sent to us by the county board before we came. Thank you Chairman Bill Gehring. Please proceed. Okay, thank you. Mayor, esteemed council persons, department heads and others. Speaking for myself and Adam Payne, we are certainly glad to be here tonight. I would like to make a few comments first and then talk a little bit about my July 5th letter that all of you have received after which Adam will be reviewing the negotiations that we went through for the past year and a half. And after that we will jointly answer your questions. First of all, I would like to say that when I was elected county board chairperson in December of the year 2002, one of my primary concerns expressed both to the media and to my board was that we enhanced relationships with the city. And also that we looked for shared services where possible. I have now been on the county board for 17 years and I think any of you who have been around in Sheboygan for at least that period of time know that at times there have been some bumps in the road. There have been some stormy relationships between the city and the county and my hope when I was elected county board chairperson being a rural county board supervisor being from the town of Sherman that we could somehow enhance the working relationship between the city and the county. To that end, I was greatly pleased when I was invited to a meeting with the mayor early on in my term as my first term as chairperson. Subsequent to that meeting, myself, Adam Payne and a number of other county board persons attended a city committee meeting and after that committee meeting I received a letter from the mayor, former mayor James Shram, dated February 7th, the year 2003 and you have a copy of that in your packet. And just I'd like to read the last sentence of that letter to you because I think that is the key that's a very important letter. The mayor wrote, this would foster the relationship with the city of Sheboygan and the county on our shared services, which would be a great opportunity for both units of government to work together. And what he meant by that was the exchange of land, the exchange of perhaps a parking lot for land at the North 23rd Street location. So I thought that I was getting my term of county board chairperson off on the right foot. Getting into the main issues that we're here for tonight, the first issue is the as is status of the land. Should the city purchase the land, should be able to work out an exchange. When initial negotiations started, the idea was put forth that it was, the land would be exchanged on an as is basis that you would take it as it was. Neither side really wavered from that position. And in fact, when we came up with a tentative agreement, the wording was as is basis. To my understanding, the city has done a phase, one environmental study and his access to any other records or studies or information that the DNR might have regarding the land at the North 23rd Street. If any members of the common council, the mayor have concerns about the environmental situation of the land at North 23rd Street, I would welcome any further study, any additional things that they wish to do to that land, a phase two, anything else that you can possibly do to see what's actually there. I welcome your looking at that. Also, it would seem something that you might want to do if in fact you continue to be interested in that land. Obviously architects and architectural drawings can do a lot with how a building is positioned on a land. I would certainly encourage you to talk with any potential architect regarding the studies that were done and see how the building could be fit on the land based upon what you know is actually there. Moving on then to the movement of the highway department and also the movement of the sheriff's department. I don't mean to be cavalier about this, but if you can tell me when levy constraints are going to end, when skyrocketing costs of health insurance are going to end, what the interest rates are going to be for the next 20 years, then I perhaps could tell you a little more certainly when the highway department will move west. I believe that within the next five, 10, 15 years the highway department will move west. Is it in any county plan yet? Well, the highway committee has been looking at putting in our capital plan for the next five years, dollars for acquiring land somewhere west in the community. It makes a lot of sense for the highway department to be more centrally located to the western part of the community. It would make it more efficient for everyone. Moving then to the question of when the sheriff's department might move west, I think is a little more difficult question. It's my understanding that the sheriff's department, when it was built in 70 or 71 in its current location, the architects told us that this building would be sufficient for the next 60 to 80 years. Well, I'm not sure if we'll actually have the building in that location for that long. What will happen is that shared services will move no matter where the city of Sheboygan should build their new police department. And I certainly am in favor of it going to the North 23rd Street site. But I'm hoping that whatever site you select will have enough space for shared services. And I can assure you that certain shared services will move to that new site as soon as a new police station does begin to be constructed. So at this point, I'd like to call upon Adam and then we can get back to questions. Thank you. That's of course, thank you. Welcome, Adam Payne. Thank you, Chairperson Montemayor and members of the council. It's a pleasure to be here. We appreciate this opportunity. You mentioned everyone should keep their copies and I don't blame the city clerk for not wanting to make a number more because we provided you with a fair amount of information. I brought some additional copies tonight and my charge by the chairman is to go through this a little bit and talk about the negotiation process and maybe share some bits of information that aren't necessarily common knowledge just to make sure we're all on the same page. So if I may, I do have some extra copies here. It's my intent to walk through this. Does anyone need a copy or can I provide any copies to anyone who's in the audience today? Anyone's? Okay, thank you. For better or for worse, my file on this is about this thick and we tried to boil it down to the most pertinent information for you to be able to glean through and get a sense of just what happened in that year, year and a half that we were negotiating on behalf of the county, on behalf of the city. And as Chairman Gehring shared with you, we wanted to respond quickly to the correspondence from the common council as a whole. Certainly it was a pertinent question to ask as to what's gonna happen with the future of the highway department, the sheriff's department as he pointed out that never was a point of discussion during our negotiations, but I think is a reasonable question to ask. So the first document is the letter. Then you have a letter dated all the way back to November 19th, 2002 from Mayor James Schramm, Alderman Michael Warner, Elder Persons Eldenberg and Dan Berg. So it shows just how far back we began initiating these discussions to see whether or not the city and the county could work together to better benefit taxpayers. On February 11th, we received a document that Chairman Gehring referred to from Mayor Schramm that I also thought was very encouraging because as Bill Gehring pointed out, it sounded as though we were definitely taking a positive step forward to work together for the betterment of taxpayers. You have in there a copy of the resolution that the county board as a whole passed unanimously supporting the transportation executive committees to negotiate with representatives of the city. Later, a letter from Chairman Bill Gehring to the county board after a tentative agreement was reached pointing out that it was reached and what the terms of that agreement were, a copy of the resolution in there, specifying specifically what those terms and conditions are, a copy of the five-year plan that includes all of the capital project requests that we have for the next five years. Anything over $100,000 goes in this. And as you saw from the letter, the one that's in there right now is for further improving our shooting range, which we're holding off on because we question whether or not we wanna put over $200,000 into an antiquated shooting range versus build a state-of-the-art one with you that both units of government can use. We also have in the 2004 five-year plan, obviously 2004 is behind us, but we still haven't moved on over, well, roughly $300,000 for evidence storage, law enforcement evidence storage. The county was considering building something to address that need as well, and we've held off on doing so. We've held off again until the city makes a site selection, so there again, if we have an opportunity to work together and build perhaps one state-of-the-art type evidence facility rather than two for each unit of government, perhaps that would be a win-win. Then you'll see the summary, and the summary really I think pretty succinctly, perhaps not succinctly enough, but I think lays out for you the step by step, what happened with the negotiations. There's a letter, a follow-up letter from our purchasing agent, Bernie Romer, to Alderperson Dan Berg, clarifying a number of shared services or shared resources, opportunities that certainly we would like to see further explored. And then finally, I also have a letter tonight that I'd like to distribute that you don't have, and this is in regard to the parking, because I anticipate some of you may be wondering, well, how did this city parking lot ever get into the equation to begin with? Why was that part of the agreement? And I'll touch on that in a moment, but I do have a letter from Jim to Beast, our building services director, that gets into the dollar and sense of why we found that attractive, not only for the county, but for the city. So with that, if I could draw your attention to the document entitled City, County, Land Sale Negotiations Summary of Activities, dated July 6th, 2004. If you could kindly put that in front of you, and those who wanna follow along. I'm not gonna go through every item in here, but I'm gonna try to touch on most of them quickly. As we just pointed out, back in November of 2002 is when this whole discussion was initiated with the county. The county did not initiate this discussion as some people have suggested. It was initiated by the city and further solidified on February 11th in correspondence from Mayor Shram, who again, asked County Board Chairman Gehring and the County Board to consider a land swap or express the city's interest in purchasing the North 23rd Street land. So obviously there was interest. On February 25th, after some informal meetings, if you will, there was a discussion of, well, the county has roughly four acres of vacant land there. It's got a sult shed on it. City doesn't need a sult shed. Do we really need to get that sult shed as part of the equation? And I believe city representatives said, well, what if we purchased two acres from the county and then got two acres from the Valreth Company? Then we'd have those four acres right in front. And so that was pursued. There was correspondence from the deputy chief on behalf of Chief Kirk to the executive vice president of the Valreth Company. We did have them beating with them on March 3rd, and at that time they expressed to us that they really weren't interested in selling two acres. That's obviously a prime area surrounded by residential, commercial, you name it, and that didn't interest them. So there went that. But that really then bore out the further discussions between the county and the city, because obviously if Valreth wasn't gonna sell two acres to support or add to R2, then they would need the full four. That was the key request from the building use committee, from Chief Kirk, from those representatives that we worked with on behalf of the city is that they needed four acres to build a new police department, and they thought that the North 23rd Street site was attractive. So the negotiations ensued. As you can see, March 18th, the Transportation Committee introduced a resolution to possibly entertain negotiations. That resolution was unanimously supported by the county board. I think there's a great deal of interest and support to try to work together, overcome barriers, save taxpayer dollars, unanimously supported. We had a joint meeting of the Transportation and Executive Committee on May 1st. On May 16th, you'll see that's when the county made their first proposal. And what we essentially agreed to to really hit the ground running was, why doesn't the county make a proposal? Why doesn't the city make a proposal? And then we'll come together and be able to have a first meeting where we're really looking at something. And that's exactly what happened. We made one, and as you can see, we were looking to sell 3.6 acres, hang on to a .4 acre driveway that we use about six to eight times a year to get some bigger trucks and highway machinery in there. So we would have shared use of that four acre driveway. Our total purchase price at that time was $630,000 for that 3.6 acres. As you can see, it was appraised at over $700,000. The county Exec and Transportation Committee decided upfront they were gonna discount that by one third because city taxpayers have already paid for a portion of that property. City taxpayers pay approximately one third toward the entire county operations. So that was immediately discounted. And then you can see that took the price to 472,000. Plus we had this salt shed to deal with. And the county needs the salt shed. So there was a great deal of concern predominantly by the Transportation Committee, Highway Commissioner Roger Lanning, who's here this evening to demonstrate that we really need a new salt shed if the city is going to acquire that full four acres. The city, as you can see on May 19th, made a proposal as well. They asked to purchase the 3.6 acres and they to reduce their out of pocket expense, which I thought was a rather, you know, I just thought it was a win-win suggestion to reduce their out of pocket expense. They have the improved parking lot, which is about a block and a half from the courthouse. And those of you who have been at the courthouse or the law enforcement center, know from time to time our parking down there is a real problem. It's very difficult to get parking, especially if you're gonna be there for more than a couple hours. So that was attractive to us. You can see there was a joint meeting of the Exec and City Building Use Committee on May 21st. They discussed their exchanges and then there was concerned about contamination and that continues to be a concern. And I think a legitimate concern. What is the level of contamination on this site? What is it gonna cost to clean that site up and make it attractive to build a police station? Well, at that time, the county agreed to share some previous studies because there has been some work done out there. There are studies out there that have been done by people who understand soil conditions and what you need to build a facility of that size. And that was provided. On July 23rd, we got back together. And as you can see, that continued to be a concern. And the county, as Chairman Gehring just commented again, said, hey, go out there and take a look at this. If you wanna do soil borings, what have you, do what you need to do to make sure you address that concern. My understanding, our understanding from the county is that the city did hire what, Northern Environmental to go out there, that they took a number of soil borings. And as you can see on October, about three, four months after our last meeting, so there was a delay in the negotiations, we received an offer from the city to purchase the property at a higher amount for more money. So that certainly gave us the impression that there must not be any contamination out there that we can't overcome, that our barriers to continuing to pursue. Otherwise, why would the city building use committee, Chief Kirk and others come back and say, we still want the property and we're willing to pay more for it. On October 8th, there was another Transportation Executive Committee to review this. As you can see on October 17th, we responded to that offer from the city. And we said, well, we'd still like to keep it at 3.6 acres. We wanna share this driveway. Why can't we share a 0.4 acre driveway that was a point of discussion? Again, discounted by one third. And in addition, accept the appraise value of the city parking lot. And the appraise value of the city parking lot at that time was 127,500. I have documentation, I think from Steve McLean stating that it was 127. So that was accepted and we reduced the price by that amount. On February 13th, there was a new proposal received from the city attorney. And at that point, it was discussed that maybe we should have some independent appraisals done. Maybe there's an opportunity to increase or have a higher value. Because I think that appraisal of 127 may not have been done for some time. And as you can see, there was a new appraisal and the city parking lot appraisal went from 125,000 to $326,000. So almost a $200,000 increase for the value of that property. That was wonderful from a standpoint of the city negotiations because that was more to take out of overall cost and reduce the out-of-pocket expense. And as we go on, you'll see that the county accepted that and said, fine, fine, we could use the parking. We know you wanna reduce the out-of-pocket expense. It continued to be a win-win situation from both camps' perspective. Going on to the third page. The easement, the 0.4 acre easement continued to be a concern, if you will. It seemed as though we got by the contamination issue that was study, the soil borings were done. Wasn't anything that couldn't be overcome. We were getting closer to a price and we seemed to, I mean, things were coming together but the easement continued to be a concern and essentially the city representatives were saying, we've got to have a full four acres. Our consultant is saying we have to have four acres to build a suitable police station and a one-story is more efficient operationally than a two-story. And they continued to make that point and to their credit, they were successful. Ultimately, the county board said, all right, we'll sell up the full four acres but we'd like to retain an easement on 30 feet of it, no longer the whole distance of the driveway but just enough so we can get our main machinery, our trucks into the side of that building and the highway commissioner estimated again that would be maybe six, eight times a year. And obviously the beauty of sharing a driveway or having an easement is you share the cost associated with the upkeep, the use of it, the maintenance, what have you. So though the full four acres would go to the city, they would own it. We would continue to have that easement and with that I think would come some shared responsibilities for maintaining it. March 29th, the day came when both the city building use committee representatives of the city, the exec transportation committee got together and it really was, it was a great day. It was a great day because they came to an agreement. They reached an agreement, there were some a little bit more jockeying on both parts that day. And essentially as you can see here, agreement was reached to sell the full four acre parcel adjacent to the county highway department to the city for $162,000. $162,750 is how much we're asking for the land. The county exec and transportation county board as a whole is asking for the land. The county was greed would reserve a 30 foot easement to get in and out of their building. The city will also contribute 137,500 to tear down or relocate or build new. The salt shed could stay there. The city wants to use that for storage or anything else. It's your salt shed, it would go with the property, but we still need another salt shed for county purposes and the 137,000 would be provided for that. So the total cost would be $300,250. The exec and transportation committee took that on to the full county board and the full county board approved that, I believe the vote was 25 to six. So it was very strong support amongst the county board as a whole to go forward. Very shortly after, after this agreement was reached, the slaps on the back, all that, we received correspondence from the city attorney and Chief Kirk raising again concern about that easement. And I can appreciate why he raised it. Excuse me. He received correspondence from the consultant, which doesn't appear to be at my fingertips. I was gonna read right from it. He received correspondence from your consultant that essentially said, hey, we gotta have a full four acres. If we don't have a full four acres unencumbered, you know, this easement, if that easement's gonna be there, then we may very well have to build a second story or change some things such that will reduce some of the efficiencies that can be gained. So in response to that consultant's recommendation, we received this correspondence and the executive and transportation committee got together and they said, you know, we reached an agreement, frankly, from our point of view, and I share it, I can't believe we can't share 0.4 acres to get in and out of a building six to eight times a year. I just can't believe that. And in my heart of heart believe that it's, we have more to gain by sharing it from a standpoint of shared maintenance, shared use, taxpayer savings. I really do believe that if we can't share a driveway, what can we share? That's my point of view. And I believe that's the county board's point of view. So again, we went forward with the agreement. It was approved by the full county board. All I had to do is turn the page over and I could see the correspondence. On April 19th, very shortly after, again, that agreement was reached between the building use committee and the county, a letter from Steve McLean and Chief Kirk as noted in correspondence to Deputy Chief, Kimme is recommending that the entire four acre site be on and numbered by any access easement in order to avoid construction of a second floor for the police station, which they advise against if at all possible. And in fact, in the email to the city, it says that if the easement must be granted, we will probably have to look at putting in elements of the operation on a second floor where they might not function as well. So I can appreciate where the chief was a little concerned about that and again, followed up. Now, obviously hindsight's 2020 and I know that you sense have looked at a 2.6 Sheridan Park site and some other sites that may be smaller than that. So apparently there may be room for some give and take here, but I can appreciate his concern and why he raised that. That moves me on to a very brief discussion that happened with the Valreth Company. And I don't know if all of you are aware of this, but from our perspective, I mean, things broke down and the city common council decided to go to Sheridan Park and for some very good reasons, notably the cost. You already own the land. Obviously you've rescinded that decision. You're now looking at another site. And the key reason we felt that the common council chose not to select the North 23rd Street site was twofold. One, the easement. And you've heard my comments about the easement. Two, the cost and perhaps more affordability to go to Sheridan Park. You've since rescinded that decision. Well, in October of 2004, there was a meeting at the Valreth Company that was actually initiated. Well, I don't recall who initiated. So I'm not gonna, I don't recall. So I don't wanna speculate, but we had a meeting at the Valreth Company that was initiated by the friends of Sheboygan because they were looking, how do we get the city and county back together here? And we went there, had a sit-down meeting and essentially what resulted from that meeting was an offer that, well, if all you're looking at is 0.4 acres, and it might be even less than that because now we're talking about 30-foot access. The Valreth Company, the officials that were there, and this was back in October, so obviously I can't hold them to this. But at that meeting, they said, you know, I think we could provide that amount of property. And the friends, in fact, offered to pay for it. So it wasn't gonna cost the city taxpayers anything further. Now, whether or not that information was shared with you at that time or not, I don't know. But my understanding is from some of you is it wasn't, at least not all of you. And to me, that was just a real opportunity that if it's the full four acres, that is desirable. And if the North 23rd Street site turns out to be the most cost-effective site in your deliberations, I think you can have a full four acres without even that little easement detracting from the operations and what you wanna achieve there. With that, that would be a synopsis of the negotiations and where we were and where we are. And I'll ask Chairman Gehring to join me. And if you have any questions, we'd be happy to field them. Alderman Serda. Thank you, Madam Chair, if I may ask my question. Mr. Payne, you had shared your concerns about the easement and the communication that the city had received from the consultant. Did you speak with the consultant directly? Because you seem to imply that maybe the city wasn't going to maybe share that easement, but it was actually the communication from the consultant that said it wasn't preferable to utilize that together? I did not speak to the consultant directly. Obviously we were somewhat disappointed to see that come very shortly after reaching agreement. After Mayor Schram and Chairman Gehring shook hands and everyone else in that room, we thought we were there. After a year we were there, then we saw the communication. But I guess I mentioned it the way I did is frankly to help to appreciate where Chief Kirk was coming from because he just received something from your consultant, your paid consultant saying that easement could continue to be a problem. Now whether or not that's still the case, I don't know, that's, I mean, I don't know, but no, I did not talk to the consultant directly. I just wanted clarification because I don't believe it was Chief Kirk making the concern for the easement just based upon his own preference that came from the consultant. It was a recommendation from the consultant, yep. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Serde. And Adam Payne, I understand from your recent words that now the Valrath Company will sell to the friends and the friends will pay for that bit of land so we need to know easement if we go for it. I can't say that for a fact because that meeting was back in October and perhaps the Valrath Company has different plans now. I have no idea what they would say today. All I can report on is what they said that day. And that day, after hearing how close we were and that it was just the easement that seemed to be the problem, there was a willingness on their part to work with the city and the county and overcome that. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Alderman Steffen. Yes, thank you. I do think this is helpful and I'm appreciative of Chairman Gehring and Mr. Payne being here tonight. But I would urge the council that I think we really should not work on the past so much, whatever happened, we've got to figure out where to put it and move forward. And I think I did have a chance to speak with Mr. Payne Madison at the event and he kind of echoed what Chairman Gehring said. You know, they've put so much time and effort into this. Yeah, they kind of like us to have a 23rd Street site but far more importantly, they want us to have a site that allows, has enough room that allows for shared services. So I think, you know, that's the direction we've got to go and that's what we should be looking at. Thank you, Alderman Steffen. Alderman Segali. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I don't mean to turn my back on you. This is for Alderman Graf. Other than what he just reported to us concerning the Valworth meeting, what else do you feel we do not know about this report then? This report that you have. You read it all. Right, you had said that there were things that the new council and you did not know or about some of these negotiations. Now he had just brought up about the Valworth company meeting. Is there anything else that you feel we should know? I guess what I don't know and what I'm, I don't believe a lot of the Alderman know who did not attend that meeting with, or anything else that may have been when brought up from the city's perspective. This is from the county's perspective and this is how they have interpreted it. And so at least now we have this information and I don't know, Alderman Berg has been on the building use committee and that's who all these negotiations were done with. Whereas now we're looking at doing negotiations with the entire committee of the whole. Okay, so what you are saying is now we have everything that was negotiated on the county's part, am I correct? I believe so. Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you Alderman Cigali. Thank you. Alderman Serda. Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to also extend a thank you to Mr. Gehring and Mr. Payne for putting the time and effort to present this information to the full council and not only us but the citizens. I know there's been a lot of talk about these conversations taking place and this just really clarifies things for us. And like Alderman Steffen says just allows us to move forward. So I again want to thank them. Thank you Alderman Serda. Alderman Groth. Thank you. I have a question or several questions. I know Alderman Steffen had said something several meetings ago and that's what prompted Alderman Serda to ask you to attend. And then I wrote the letter and asked but can you give me the answer to the question if the county does not plan to build on the 23rd Street site in the immediate future? Why should we build there? Why don't I start and then I'll pass the baton to Adam. I think the number one reason is as far as I know it's the only publicly owned site that's being considered that is currently not on the tax roll. Why would you take land that was on the tax roll and take it off the tax roll? Thank you Alderman. Thank you Chairman. Alderman Ben Akron. Thank you Madam Chief. I'm sorry. I believe Mr. Payne may have. Yes. Some more comments. I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing the reports from the county and from the city on this and clearly there's been so much information circulated and it's tough to get your arm around it but the way I would answer that question is the city of Sheboygan report that you bought and paid for by Kimmy and associates. I took the time to read this because I was challenged once on WHBL about some tidbit in it and I hadn't read it all and I took the time to do so and first and foremost after I read the report I thought wow we need a new police station in Sheboygan. We really do and I thought it was well done but what I found real interesting about this report and I'll just point out three pieces to answer your question. Why do I think that would be a good site? Chairman McGarren mentioned well obviously it may be the more cost effective it won't take future dollars off the private property tax rolls but in this report that you had done Chief Kirk selected a 15 person team to meet with this consultant to select sites which I think was very wise and the number one priority for the study that you had done was emphasized to establish the best location of a new police facility. Makes sense to me as you recall there were four or five different sites looked at including Sheridan Park. Those were the top four or five if I recall correctly and in here the criteria that was established by police department staff and others the consultants criteria important to a police facility were organized into five categories. The staff team reviewed the criteria list and confirmed that these issues were representative of what was important to selecting a site. Since some criteria were seen more important than others a value was assigned to each as an example a site having sufficient land for a functional design is the primary goal of this department and was assigned the highest value. In the report it said that the two-way property which was Sheridan Park scored the highest at 365. The site number four the Imperial Motel site scored the second highest at 346. So there were only 19 points between Sheridan Park and the Imperial Motel site. Well again hindsight is 20-20 the Imperial Motel site is no longer there. The third and other sites here weren't even close they were back in the 200s. So the consultant you paid good money to work with the police department and others said Sheridan Park is number one because of the cost based on the criteria Imperial Motel sites number two if I recall correctly you were looking at about a $800,000 to a million dollar purchase there and it says in here if site 2A Sheridan Park is ultimately judged to be unacceptable by the city the consultant would recommend site number four the Imperial Motel site as the second best option. The Imperial Motel site is only 100 yards from the North 23rd Street site and I have to believe that's why the city spent about a year a year and a half negotiating with us to purchase it. So this study as well as your last one that Mayor Perez shared with me that I guess the North 23rd Street site was your top two of 17 options or something like that. So I know you have a lot of work to do but clearly the studies that you're having done seem to continue to point back to North 23rd. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Bain. Yes Alderman Ben Akron. I have one problem with this. That parking lot over on the seventh and pen we're giving up 48 spaces that are filled. How, what are we gonna do with the people that are using them spaces now and how much is it gonna cost us to build another one where we are looking for spaces downtown to build a new parking lot. And also we collect the revenue off of those spaces. Was that ever taken into consideration? I would imagine the building use committee took that into consideration when they were doing the negotiations. Alderman Dan Berg, was that taken into consideration? Not as far as I'm concerned. Not as far as I was concerned because I was for Sheridan's Park from day one the minute I met Kimmy and associates when the lead man said that we had the best site in town. And I, from that day forward I was Sheridan's Park all the way and I didn't wanna get rid of that parking lot. Do you know what the other building use committee discussion was? Oh, there was so many discussions. About the parking lot and the space. Well that was all part of it, you know. But they had to figure out, they had to go through all the appraisals and all that stuff. Thank you Alderman Berg. Mayor Perez. Thank you Madam Chair. I believe Alderman Menachman asked about the potential loss revenue. That was an issue that I was concerned a little bit about too myself because I heard all kinds of rumors that that it was in a high $20,000 loss revenue. So I personally met with Mr. Ronald McDonald after discussing the matter with him. He confirmed that if there's a loss of revenue after all expenses are paid that would be around the area of $5,000. $5,000. Thank you Mayor Perez. Alderman Menachman does that answer your question? Yeah, but I got nothing. All right, go ahead. I want to talk to Mr. McDonald and he told me that if we had to replace that parking lot downtown it would cost us $1 million. We ripped down two houses, our pizza hut, relocated all those places and put in 51 spots. He told me it would cost us $1 million to replace that parking lot downtown. Thank you Alderman Menachman. Thank you Madam Chair. I just was wondering who initiated the exchange with the parking lot? Was it on the city that offered it or did the county ask for it? From my understanding, the city knew that the county was short on parking but as far as I know, the city offered the parking lot. I don't think the county went out. In the initial exchange of offers, I believe the city put down the parking lot. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Meyer. Thank you Bill Gearing. Just to add on that, if I may Chairperson. Yes please. The handout that I gave you in regards to the parking, I think Chairman Gearing's memories right on they knew we have a parking issue. Anyone who goes down there knows we have a parking issue and that was offered to reduce the out of pocket expense. The appraisal went from 127 to over 300,000. What interesting and what most taxpayers may not be aware is that the county at one point had in our five year plan building a $3 million parking ramp. And then we went from a parking ramp to perhaps buying the houses across the street from the lot and back to the courthouse. And then we went to the possibility of a corner. And that's all laid out for you from building services director Jim Tobis. But in short, we were looking at now, someday possibly building a parking ramp between three and four million or these other equations. And as you can see in the summary, if we went a parking ramp per stall, we're looking at $44,000. If we look at taking down a bunch of homes based on this estimate, we're looking at 13,000. And if we look at the exchange, we're looking at $6,000 for the already improved parking lot that the city has. And obviously would serve a purpose for us there. So from a taxpayer standpoint, we're talking about building new police station and future shared services opportunities. But if the county someday has to build a three to four million parking ramp, guess what? City taxpayers are gonna be footing about a million of that. So that's why again, we saw it as an attractive win-win opportunity. I'll leave some of our parking congestion now and in the future. And again, it further reduced the out-of-pocket expense for the city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Vice chairman, Mark Winkle is here tonight. He would like to speak on the parking lot issue. Would you allow that? Oh, yes, please. Supervisor Winkle, thank you for coming. Thank you, Ms. Marshmere. I'm the third district supervisor. The parking lot in question is not in my district. It lies just outside. I traveled past that 15 to 18 times a day. The use of that parking lot has changed dramatically since it was built for the SDS Corporation. I know there was an extreme cost, but the change has in fact been diminished. Don, I'm sure you're aware of that. I would defy anybody to drive by there on any day of the week at any time and show me that it's got 50% occupancy. Alderman Van Aken. Mr. Winkle, 48 stalls are rented. I don't care if there's a car there or not, they're rented out of 51. Well, some of the tenants who have occupancy or pay for occupancy there have approached the county board and requested that they be able to continue their occupancy and that was assured of them. It's not like we're gonna throw, using the old euphemism from Sunny Ridge, we're not throwing grandma out on the street. Okay, so you're gonna give them 48 back to the people? So you're selling 48 or renting 48. Back to the same people we're renting to. Correct. So you've got three parking lots that you're gonna use for your people that you need parking for. Where is this other parking coming from? Well, I don't know about your exact numbers, but on any given day, there's a 50% occupancy or less. You're telling me one way that you need it for your people and now you're telling me you're gonna rent it back to my people. I'm just saying that that parking lot is underutilized from what it was supposed to be when it was built. I'm telling you that 48 parking lots are cool. They're rented and you're telling me you're gonna rent them back and you're telling me you need them for your people. That cannot be. There's only 51 spaces. Yeah, I think that's enough debate about the parking lot. And I do know a chairperson, Montemayor that Chairman Gehring mentioned to me and I think is mentioned to the Mayor Perez that if we come back to this discussion of the parking lot, we would wanna honor the contract that you already have. I don't think we're gonna tell 48 people they can't park there, whether it's 48 or a different number. But the contract wouldn't have to be broken a month from now. If you have a two year lease, well, maybe it would be ongoing for two years and then provide it to the county. But most certainly the county would need it for our own employee and customer parking needs. Alderman Byrd. Yes, thank you Madam Chairman. A couple of questions. If I see your cap improvement plan correctly, you will be bonding essentially for about $430,000 for law enforcement shared services. Presumptive that these are currently offered on your law enforcement campus and that the fixed cost of maintenance, et cetera, for the shooting range and for the evidence storage is borne by the county taxpayers. Is that correct? Currently correct. Okay, and to some degree then freeing that space up will hopefully give the sheriff's department somewhat more longevity because you will then gain square footage, which then will put off the need to move to another site for a period of time. I guess the question I have is in the negotiations, it isn't only the cost of building a facility, it's a certain fixed cost that deal with maintenance, that deals with such things as janitorial services, et cetera. As part of the discussions, were any of the shared ongoing fixed costs discussed? These are the a shooting range, which I assume would be used by every law enforcement agent in the county and also the evidence storage. I think that's a very good question. The fixed cost did not come on the table, but I remember turning to Adam after one of the meetings and saying, look, what happens if we get this? How are we going to negotiate down the road what it's going to cost? So we certainly are aware of that, but we haven't come to any agreement. And as a county board chairperson, I admit we should share in those ongoing costs in addition to the initial cost. Thank you. One other quick question is that, I think you talked about future opportunities we need to look at specifically for planning shared services in the area of law enforcement. Do you currently have any committee mechanisms outside of your standing committees, like a shared services committee that allows that kind of discussion to take place? We do have a shared services committee. The shared services committee kind of went on, I would call it hiatus, when things broke down regarding the negotiations. Certainly they should be revitalized. I've heard that the city may be putting forth some type of an idea in that regard. And I'm totally for, again, reconvening a committee sitting down and moving forward. Thank you. Alderman Groft. To add to what the chairman said, we did, at the last council meeting, I believe Alderman Ratke brought in a document that was sent to shared services to look at evidence storage room and, or in evidence storage building and, and what? An epistol range. And work to begin immediately or to see what we could do jointly. Now, I know that wasn't sent to shared services, but it's gonna be sent to the law committee of the county board. And they will be looking at that, and that should be done at their, probably their next meeting or the last meeting in July. But that document was sent from this council to the county to look at those two opportunities for shared services. I'm glad to hear that has moved forward. I wasn't aware of exactly where it was in the political churn. Thank you, Alderman Groft. I think the intention is, no matter where we build, our intention is to share services that make a big difference. Thank you. Alderman Serda. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question was already answered. All right. I think Adam had something more to say or maybe not on the shared services issue. Did you want to? I'm not gonna belabor it on the shared services. Whether you look back 20 years in all the studies that have been done there, so many things that have been identified. And obviously we shouldn't rest on our laurels. A lot of good things have happened between the city and the county. I think our staff overall work fantastic together, but it's time to reach a little higher and in the memo specifically from our purchasing agent, a number of those shared services opportunities are identified. And when people hear the buzzword shared services, they're really out of just change that to property tax savings. That's what we're talking about. And from my point of view, I think all of us have the calling to do everything we can to reduce duplication, improve efficiencies operationally and get the bigger bang for the buck for the taxpayer. And that's why we're here this evening. That's why we negotiated for a year and a half. And that's why I continue to be optimistic and encouraged about the future. There are opportunities out there and we can make it happen. And one last note, because it wasn't raised on the dollars, but as you know in the summary and in what the county board passed, right now $162,000 for the land, 120 or so 30 for the moving the salt shed. But at one point in the final months of Mayor Shram's tenure, he contacted Chairman Gehring and asked, well, how can we make this even more palatable? And Chairman Gehring expressed interest in Mayor Shram's suggestion, which I think is a good one. Instead of the city providing the county this money, handing it across the board, couldn't we put this in some type of shared services capital improvement fund or something like that? If we're looking to build evidence storage, a shooting range and number of the other items that have been identified and we're better off building it together, we can build a more efficient state of the art improvements and do so at less cost to the taxpayer because we're not duplicating, let's do it. And if we put that 300,000 or so that we discussed into a shared services type fund, we could draw from that for those shared capital improvements. You also identified that we have over $500,000 in our current five year plan for evidence storage, a shooting range. Right now we have $800,000 that have been discussed in the last couple of years for law enforcement improvements. Why don't we leverage that to the best of our ability and save taxpayer dollars? I know Chairman Gehring discussed that with the Transportation and Executive Committee. They're certainly open to that. That wasn't part of what the county board ultimately approved, but frankly, I think they would be open to it. And frankly, I think it's the right thing to do. Thank you. Alderman Graub. Thank you. Can I ask a question on top of that question or that what you just said regarding, it started out being close to a million dollars that I still think a lot of people confuse with the motel property that at one point we were gonna purchase. And that was a million dollars. And I think a lot of people just move that to what it's gonna cost us for the 23rd Street site. Now I know in your outline here, you said that the out-of-pocket expense is like 100, I wanna say 162,000, but I can't find it right now. But is there any way, and I understand that maybe there possibly is or it may have been discussed that the city wouldn't have to have any out-of-pocket expense at all, that we could maybe do some type of arrangement or work on so that what we may borrow under our capital plan, we might have to wait until we decide to do something jointly and then utilize what you have in your capital plan and what we need to put in our capital plan and work together. So upfront we wouldn't have to pay any dollars out-of-pocket. Well, if I'm hearing your question correctly, I think that's pretty much what Adam just described. And I wanted to make sure about that. Where the former mayor approached me and I certainly wholeheartedly agreed that the money could, so to speak, be put in a lock box and applied as the shooting, the pistol range was in fact built in the evidence storage. So that would have to pass to full county board. It's my belief that the executive and transportation committee are behind that. I feel that the full county board would approve it, but then you never know until all the buttons are pushed, but yes, Alderman Graham. Thank you, Alderman Graham. Are there any further questions? Mayor Juan Paz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any questions, but I think at this point, as apparently we seem to be closing down the presentation here, I think it's very important for us to keep in mind that whether we bill at the 23rd site or not, I think it's important to remember that we need to keep a good, healthy work in relationship with the county. I say that in particular because there are some rumors out there, some ugly rumors that the county is wanting to take advantage of the city and so forth, but I remind the council and the community that they represent the same people we represent, and their interest there is the people and the taxpayer, and they have that at heart. To me, it is extremely important that I as mayor and the council as a common council work very cooperatively with the county and surrounding areas, but in particular the county, there are so many things that we could do together as a team that we've talked about and talked about and never really quite gotten around to doing it. And at this point, I think that the opportunities that are before us provide that golden opportunity to say, we're gonna quit talking about it, we're gonna start doing it. And in doing so, I think the taxpayers are going to thank us for that. Thank you, Mayor Perez. Alderman Serta. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just my final words, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank the county supervisors who came out tonight. And just to be informed, because as some of the documents that were referred to us does state the importance that although we're generating discussion to make these informed decisions, the ultimate call is the county supervisors decision and the elder persons here. So I think this process is good and I'd again be remiss if we didn't thank those for the coming. Thank you, Alderman Serta. Any further questions? Yes, Alderman Grot. Thank you, I have one more. With the negotiation with the land and everything, it says that that was automatically reduced by one third. Now, when we started talking about jointly constructing the evidence storage and things like that, is that also discounted one third immediately or is that? I think we'd have, I'm talking off the top of my head now, I think we'd have to sit down and look at usage and pro rate upon usage somehow and whether it's one third, I would tend to think it would not be one third but I don't know. And what about this, and the other question was the salt storage shed, would the city have to contribute something to a new salt storage shed too or? Right, that was one thing that the Transportation Committee wanted to make sure and the Highway Commissioner that we were made whole on the salt shed. Would that be something that would be reduced by one third also or? I think that might have come up during negotiations but that wasn't part of either final offer. If you would want to reduce the cost of the salt shed by one third, we'd really need to go back and negotiations everything would be on the table again. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Graf. Alderman Radke. Thank you Madam Chairperson. Alderman Graf brought up a good question about the salt shed and I would ask if we may ask Chief Kirk if there's been any talk of any type of cost negotiations between the two sides and if it's been brought into effect, if we could. Chief Kirk. Thank you very much for allowing me to address Alderman Radke's question or concern. First I wish to say thank you to the county for being here. It's excellent that they were brought here tonight. Adam Payne was correct in many of the things he said tonight and since my name was mentioned I know I'm strained just a bit but I will get to your point. On the 19th Adam and Adam is correct that the city attorney and I co-authored the letter over to the county because we were concerned our consultants said please you need four acres do not go without the four acres so that's why we reintroduced this concern. Now as far as the bargaining, the city attorney was involved and he was our bargaining agent so to speak in these negotiations he would bring back periodic notifications. As far as dollar amounts on assault shed there was some discussion on a dollar amounts as far as the terms of those discussions or negotiations I'd have to look at my records but I think it'd be more accurately portrayed by the city attorney who was our bargaining agent at that time. Thank you chief. If I could make one further comment. I wish to say thank you to the common council and to the mayor for continuing this process. Thank you. Alderman Ratley does that answer your questions? Very much so thank you. Thank you. Could I just have one more response of something. I was on the personnel committee of the county HR committee for I think 12, 15 years before elected county board chairperson. I think when you negotiate it's the total package the total cost the bottom line of the package not the specific items. So while you could talk about attempting to reduce the contribution for the salt shed then the county probably would have said well we need a little more of the land. So bottom line. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you madam chair. With the cost of the salt shed Alderman Graf the council might want to talk to Tom Holton to see when we made the incinerator of the salt shed if we could vamp it and maybe change some things to allow shared services as that as a salt shed. I don't know if it'll work but it'd be worth looking into. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Vanderwill. Alderman Eldenberg. Yes thank you madam chairman. I think we've had a profitable discussion this evening and I think we would be remiss if we didn't bring forward some motion to keep the process going. So if this is the end of discussion I would move that we reopen negotiations with the county and that the mayor appointed negotiation team to be confirmed at the next council meeting. Second. Oh do you have the motion? I'm ready down the way. Who tried to restate your motion Alderman. No. Exactly. Thank you. Move that the mayor appoint a negotiation team I think excuse me that we reopen negotiations with the county and that the mayor appoint a negotiation team to be confirmed at the next council meeting. The motion has been made and seconded. Correct. To reopen the negotiations with the county and have the mayor appoint a negotiation team to be approved at the next council meeting. Any discussion? I guess so. Alderman Stepp. Thank you madam. I guess I agree with Alderman Berge that there was a motion needed to wrap up conversation but this isn't one I can support I think we should keep the avenues open but we're getting a report from our architectural firm that we're spending good money for. I'd kind of want to wait. Why would we want to go into negotiations with one when they might not be the one we picked? I don't see any logic in going putting the cart before the horse so to speak and I guess I my motion I would encourage the county council just to wait until the report comes in and then we can deal with that. Nice points. Yes madam chairman. I think for me sooner or later we will be moving from the concept stage and talking about dollars. Whichever site we choose I think number one it's reasonable to believe that the 23rd Street site has enjoyed a good deal I guess of time, energy and consideration and I think to get a it's also the easiest site for us to negotiate and get reasonably firm costs on just because we get firm costs does that mean necessarily that this will be the site that will ultimately be chosen? No it just means that this is a site where I think we can explore and sharpen our pencils and get down to the point that we can look at actual cost sites and in addition to those actual cost sites a part of the negotiation can consider some of the things we've been talking about like for example the shared evidence storage for example the shared cost if you would for the shooting range I think those are items that likely we can begin to cost out and begin to negotiate because those will be very transparent and will be portable from one site to the other so if you would like to amend the motion to also include that I think that would be a favorable amendment. Thank you manager. Just to let you know regarding the Vandervaart site because that is one that has been just recently brought up I spoke with representatives from Vandervaart this morning and asked them to get a proposal together as to what they were looking for and what they were offering and what they'd be willing to do and so forth and send that to council and then I asked them if they would be available for our next committee of the whole meeting to present in person and answer questions of the other persons at that particular time and at that particular time a similar motion I thought could be made for them also and anyone else who might need to do a presentation. I think we have to get down to the nitty gritty and get some more community of the whole meetings together so we move. So this action is taken in a timely fashion. Thank you Alvin Gruff. Aldrin Danberg. Sabinash had 30 days to come back with the results of these four sites, correct? Now that should be coming up pretty soon. Pretty soon is right. Five sites. Yeah, well whatever, why can't we just before we start negotiating see what sites, what the values he's got on these sites, what numbers he comes up with and then whatever say we pick, choose two sites and if one is the 23rd Street and one is Vandervaart now we start negotiating. I can see your point Aldrin Danberg. Like Aldrin Berge said about the pistol range and storage there's a document going to public protection and safety. They're gonna be looking at that already now to see what's gonna happen to that. So if we start negotiating all over again why don't we just because Sabinash that should be by the end of this month. Yes. We can make our decision at the end of the month then. Now Aldrin Berge did have a pretty right that it looks like 23rd is probably gonna be one of the three. Thank you Aldrin Danberg. Aldrin Segali. Thank you Madam Chair. I agree with Aldrin and Stefan. I think we're putting the cart before the horse here to try to re-establish negotiations with the North 23rd Street site. We have done that for a year and a half. Now we need to look at some of the other ones and then bring them all together like the Vandervaart site and some of those situations the citizens of Sheboygan need to hear what Vandervaart says. So before you start negotiations with some other one North 23rd Street you need to hear from all of these other companies so that this council and the taxpayers of Sheboygan can have a full view of what is available out there. Thank you Aldrin Segali. Aldrin Serda. Thank you Madam Chair. Although I respect your opinion Alderperson Berge I believe that your motion would be digressing the progress that we made here. If anything I think we've learned by our mistake the building use committee there was speculation that there wasn't complete information being shared and I thought that's why we're here as a committee of the whole to explore this site and I'm sure the citizens at home watching this everything's open they're seeing how this process is going I'm willing to put in the time and I'm sure many of you are here I think by creating that special committee to do that negotiations would take away from what we already did. Let's leave it open to the public and if we have to put in the time let's do it. Thank you. Thank you Aldrin Serda. Aldrin Berge. Thank you Madam Chairman. I think in the efficiency of operation the thought of 12 Alderman negotiating with some 35 supervisors on an issue like this seems to be a rather aggressive and I think cumbersome vehicle to get down some basic choices. A negotiation for me is just that. Any negotiation would come back to both bodies. It means that the parties sit down and refine I think some of the good discussion we've had here regarding who pays for what, what are the fixed costs, if you would that joint services would be seen on either site and I don't really see that having that information available would necessarily detract from the process and would just speed it up especially when it comes to looking at that one particular site. Thank you Alderman Aldenberg. Alderman Radke. Thank you Madam Chair. I agree with my colleagues. We have the people from the county here this evening. I don't want to send in the message hey we're going to negotiate and then all of a sudden at the very end we're going to pull it back again and say no we're not going to go that way. That's not a good idea. And as far as like the Alderman Danberg talked about the pistol range and things, resolution 720506 is coming before public protection safety committee tomorrow night. That is something I talked to Inspector Tanhecken at the Sheriff's Department about just this morning he said that something needs to be done ASAP because they need to get their pistol range up and running and moving. They've had some computer issues with that for quite some time. They're kind of putting things together to keep it running but they need to get moving on this thing and he said ASAP because the funding could be drying up before we get to the point. So he said he's been prodding the chief but the chief of course has been waiting to see what's happening here with us and but there's this running out of time there. So that's why we need to get moving on that. So we can't really bring that in but I agree we can't start negotiating in something right now because Mr. Sabinash has got four sites to come back with. And what if that's the bottom of the four? We don't know so. Thank you Alderman Radke. Any further discussion on the motion? Yes, Chief Kerr. Just a brief update Zimmerman to my belief we'll get back to us by the end of this week with I believe their findings or at least a settlement. I'm sure that the line is close, yes. Thank you chief. Any further? Yes, Chairman Bill Gehrig. I guess I don't mean to be seen as budding in on your deliberations tonight but I would really prefer that the council would really narrow it down to which site they want before they begin negotiating with the county again. It was a long and arduous process so perhaps the best thing to do is figure out whether you're really interested in the county site and then negotiate with us. Thank you Bill Gehrig. Does that influence you at all? Based upon Chairman Gehrig's comment I will withdraw the motion. I will withdraw in a second. Any further discussion on the presentation that the county has given to us? Madam Chairman. Yes, all of the graph. I'd like to thank the county representatives also for coming in and sharing the information with us and also I'm sure you'll be available for any additional questions that may come up in the remaining couple months that I'm sure we'll be discussing the police station and facility in the future. I also thank you. We all have heard your words. The community has heard your words. Thank you so much. Moving on. Council agenda number five. Alderman Graf. Thank you Your Honor. I would make a motion as far as the item five which is a communication 24-05-06 by Marianne Pitner stating several concerns regarding the police station and water feature, dog run building of a fire station and small stores being driven out by Walmart. And then communication number 2705-06 which is a communication from John Winter stating his thoughts on narrowing down the sites for the police station and communication item number seven which is submitting a communication from John Winter stating his opinions on new list of sites for the police station. That all three of those communications be filed. Number eight. Well I was going to do eight as the RO was, but I can. Yes, please. Okay. Okay. Then item number eight, the RO regarding communication from Dimplan. I'm stating that she is asking the council please give police station the opportunity or police department the opportunity to share their concerns. Item number nine, which, oh I'll go to item number eight then right now. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded to file agenda number five, number six, number seven, and number eight. Any further discussion? Seeing Alderman Vanderweel. Thank you Madam Chair. Were these individuals informed that we were going to be discussing their communications tonight? I'm sorry Alderman Vanderweel, I did not talk with any of them. Then I would prefer to hold these until they're aware that we were discussing it in case they have something to say about it. Any further? Alderman Dan Burke. Usually when they, in committee when something like this is on the agenda, there's people should be present, notified and said that if they don't show up, find an ending, but they have the right to be notified like Alderman Vanderweely said that if they have something to say maybe they should be notified. Thank you Alderman Dan Burke. Who knows the Robert's rules of off-holding or which one takes precedent? Yes, the board. Yes? I'm not sure. I can just withdraw the motion. I will draw up the second. The motion has been withdrawn and the second has been withdrawn. We will simply hold these communications until the guests, until the writers have been notified and we'll address them again. Yes Alderman Burke. No, discussion? And given that we're holding, can we also, can I make an amendment to that to take with that then items number nine, 10 and 11, which also involve communications from citizens who likely were not notified. So if we can just hold that amendment. Oh, it's a marvelous motion. We move to hold all communications except all communications. The only thing. Yes. Normally, you know, when we received all these communications and they were all presented to the council and then referred to various committees. And if anybody looks on our website, which is available to everybody and if anybody looks at what's hanging on the various floors in the office and they know these committee, the whole meetings are open to the public. When we advertise it, we're going to discuss the police station. You know, somebody could have been here without asking them. So, I agree with you. But we can hold them. Alderman, oops, Alderman Zagali. Just to make a point, there are some people, argument graph that do not have a computer. I realize that. So, I mean, this is the only way for letter or for phone call. Do they know that they should come to the meeting? Thank you. Thank you Alderman Zagali. Any further discussion on the motion to hold? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Me. You. Yes. Sure. There will be no discussion of Zimmerman report. It's not available. The schedule for public input on a Wednesday evening and a Saturday morning. I was hoping we could have the first public input this coming Saturday morning here, nine o'clock in the morning till 1130. And next Wednesday evening, seven till nine. Yes. Here's a 20 second. It's a 20. It's a 20? No, that's honest. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you, Alderman Zagali. Do those dates sound acceptable? Yeah. And this is public input. This is no decisions. This is getting public input. Yeah, Alderman Serda. Thank you, Madam Chair, just for the record, I will be unavailable on Saturday, the 16th. Thank you, Alderman Serda. Any further discussion? And seven, 20, was the other date? Got to entertain a motion. Wednesday. I'm not sure if I'm gonna be able to make it two on Saturday, but I will try. You will have access to all the information that is gathered. Okay, thank you. Alderman Vanderweel. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you could be more specific on what the input is gonna be regarding and let's say the time is one more time, I missed the time. Who knows where the public will want to tell us? Will it be about the Zimmerman Report or the police station? What were their feelings about the sites that we have chosen and where they think it should be and what other concerns they have about the police station. Whatever they want to tell us. Okay. Thank you, Alderman Vanderweel. Yes, Alderman Graf. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's just gonna say more than likely the public hearings will go as long as there are people there to say something, even if we set a time like for Saturday from nine to 1130. And then I don't believe there was a time set for the Wednesday, was it? Seven till nine is what I proposed. Okay, I'm sorry I didn't get that. Alderman Vanderweel. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, but was that gonna be here in council chambers? Okay, thank you. And I guess I'm assuming that after the Zimmerman Report comes out and we narrow it down, we're gonna have this again. Oh yes, as soon as possible. With no public input. Public input again after the Zimmerman Report? Oh, I hadn't, no, I hadn't, I hadn't, I had not considered that. I was considering it what they had to say about all of the sites right now. And perhaps we will have the Zimmerman Report before Saturday. And then some of that information can be shared with the public. Thank you, Alderman Vanderweel. Any further discussion? Do adjourn? Well. Why do you wanna vote on? Yeah, the public input was simply information. I don't think we have to move or second or vote on that. So I'll take your motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.