We will call the 15th regular meeting of the Common Council to order. Sue, would you call the roll please? Bowman? Here. Berg? Here. Bonet? Aye. Serda? Here. Graf? Here. Manny? Here. Montemayor? Here. Perez? Here. Peterson? Excuse. Rindflash? Absent. Sagali? Here. Stefan? Here. Vanakren? Here. Vanderweel? Here. And Warner? Here. Thirteen present? Cormes present. Alderman Orner? Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the minutes of the last Common Council meeting be approved, and that the same stand is entered on record. It's been moved in second at minutes of the previous Council meeting stand approved and the same entered on record under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman Manny, would you lead us in a pledge, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Steve, confirmations of appointments. I need a chance. This was dated October 18th. I hereby submit the following appointment for your consideration. Fran Berg to be considered for appointment to the mayor's special international committee to fill the unexpired term of Jane Wong-Coutser term, expires 430.05 signed by the mayor. And that will lie over. Oh, OK. Moving to second approved appointments under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you, Steve. OK. Public forum. Mr. Frank Kozan. Mr. Kozan, can you give me your home address again, please? 2829 Erie Avenue. Erie Avenue? Yes. And we'll have five minutes, please. I would like to display this so that my email address and phone number are available to anybody watching. I'm trying to collect information about all the parks, not just shared in park. If there are citizens out there who have information stories about firsthand experience of other efforts to use park lands, such as Shooting Park, Veterans Park, Moose Park, Cleveland Park, and even our venerable Fountain Park, please contact me at fjkozan, koczan, at yahoo.com, phone number 452-6955. The last time I was here, I expressed some feelings and opinions. Today I would like to focus on facts.  Is that a surprise to people? If you go to the site, Sheridan Park is level, the residences to the north on Virginia and the south on New Jersey are on lots that slope downward from west to east. This is not natural. This is an anomaly. The only way it can happen is if it's filled land. I researched this. I went to the library. I found two sources. This in the 1941 Atlas. See if Sheboygan sketched shortly after the Civil War. And this is part of the well-known map that hangs on the library wall. You can see from these close examination that originally the land was not level, where Sheridan Park exists. It is a fact that in the Kimi report, there is no reference to the fact that this is filled land. If it is landfill, that's one thing. If it's filled land, it's another. The Kimi report simply says the land may not be legally available for development or maybe a contentious public issue. Because of this, the similar sized residential block adjacent to the site was also considered. The Kimi report also says that $10,000 is budgeted for soils survey and soils tests. When I talked to the DNR and to the people in our own engineering department, they said, you know, you don't really know what's in filled land until you do test doorings. Well, the money is there. And the only way you'll know what's in that is to do the test doorings. Because one of the contentions is that 23rd Street is too expensive because of the landfill issue there. We might have a landfill issue at Sheridan Park. I talked to the DNR. They said it could be methane issues. What kind of materials were in there? I got three documents from their website. And one of the things that the documents pointed out was basically you can develop any site that you want. All you have to do is be willing to meet the costs of dealing with the waste, the fill materials. If fill materials are taken off site and when you're going to excavate for the police station, they would be taken off site. They have to be disposed of. They have to be treated. There are costs here. And perhaps those costs will not make the Sheridan Park site as attractive. There are aesthetic issues, which apparently don't matter much. There are community issues, which apparently don't matter much. But there are issues that the DNR will hold your feet to the fire over. Council, I must say bluntly, as a group, has thumbed its nose at the citizens. But you cannot thumb your nose at the DNR. I would suggest that the prudent thing to do would be to investigate the status of the Sheridan Park site because of its filled land status. Thank you. Thank you. Vicki Meyer. Vicki, can I get your address again, please? 3107 North 26th Street. And that's in Sheboygan, right? Yes, Sheboygan. And you have five minutes. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I would like to address several issues, one of them being the Sheboygan Comprehensive Plan. And for those of you that don't know, this is a guide that is for the future development of our city. It's a plan that was put together with the Common Council and the City Plan Commission. This plan shows the need for Sheboygan to reinvest in many of its parks. It also calls for work with the community to develop a long-range program for the revitalization of park land. But this plan is being ignored. The city would rather build in our parks. The City Plan Commission opposed building in Sheridan Park. They were ignored. On August 2nd, when it was voted to destroy Sheridan Park, I contacted my alderman to say how upset I was about the decision to destroy a park. Alderman Warner never responded to me. I feel I was ignored. So a group of strangers came together and we formed a group called Friends of Sheboygan's Parks. Our goal was to save Sheridan Park. We submitted over 2,900 names from people wanting a referendum to save Sheridan Park. 300 of these signatures were from Sheridan Park neighbors. These signatures are the voices of your constituents, the silent majority. When this crusade to save Sheridan Park started, it was only about saving a park. But now it has turned into much more. Now it is about being heard. Heard by the people elected as our voice in this city government. And it is also about change. Change in the form of a new council this April. So at this time, I would like to announce my intention to run for alderman in the 7th district. And I would also like to challenge other people in Sheboygan who have been disappointed with our city council to come forward. And we can make a difference. Thank you. Tony Madden. Tony, I need your address, please. 1434 Indiana Avenue, Sheboygan. And you have five minutes.  There you go. Thank you. OK. Thank you to our city council and to our mayor for the time and effort that you give to our community. I know that your authority comes with sacrifice and much consideration. And that we are all here to do what we feel is the right thing. I appreciate this opportunity to be heard by individuals whose decisions affect us all. I'm here to voice my concerns regarding the proposed destruction of Sheridan Park for the purpose of building a police station on the site. This piece of Mother Earth has given much to myself and my family, especially my children ages two and four. I feel the need to speak for my children and their playmates, their neighbors, and their children's children to name a few populations who couldn't be here tonight, but who will definitely be affected by our actions on behalf of Sheridan Park. You may have read my letter, which was published in the Sheboygan Press, in which I referred to Sheridan Park as an urban oasis. I did offer a dictionary's definition of oasis, which was admitted. It says that an oasis is, number one, a fertile green area in an arid region, and number two, something providing relief from the usual, a refuge. So I was not just being poetic. In my letter, I wrote about my feeling of shock when reading the news that your group had decided to build a police station across from Sheridan Elementary School, replacing my neighborhood park. It was just before broad days. I remember we had family visiting from out of state, and we were entering a restaurant for breakfast. And I felt a physical shock to my system when I read the headlines at the newsstand. We've always been very proud of Sheboygan. We still are, but we were all sickened by that headline. My husband and I had been keeping tabs on the issue. We read about different options for the police site, and we knew that different ideas were on the table at different times before this decision came out. We knew that Sheridan Park was an option. We just never thought that it was a serious option. It was absolutely incredible to us, and we were not alone. Since then, I've been at the park with my children, as usual, enjoying it even more this summer with the new renovations. And I've heard other neighbors speaking up about their own disbelief. I've joined the Friends of Sheboygan's parks, and I've circulated petition papers myself in an effort to have this decision overturned. So many people that I've spoken with said that they too were surprised that the city would take back a park rather than develop a new area. My husband and I have been to the park many times with our children. They need a big space in which to run. They need a place to ride their little bikes and trikes and to have outside voices. I believe that we all need big spaces. Remember that we can't all choose the circumstances that have us living where we live, especially the children. And children from urban neighborhoods really, really need the beautiful, spacious, forgiving simplicity of the land and air and shade and breeze that our park provides. I can testify to the great feelings I've experienced as a mother when I'm pushing my children on the swings at Sheridan Park, looking at their innocent faces and enjoying the simple, safe pleasures in the park. You can't believe how nice and quiet it seems in that park after the sounds of the city, which can be very inappropriate for children's ears. And we hear them all day and night, especially in the summer. Some of our neighbors can't be with their kids when they want to and they want a nice place to send them. Some of the kids need to get away from it all and hang out there, not to mention the many adults who visit the park for a getaway. I shudder to think of the crime that will increase if we take away this one peaceful patch of land from a neighborhood that's already stressed from the traffic and commerce all around. This will mean a new set of alleys and driveways and distracted drivers and unsavory characters introduced to this area. And I can only imagine, and I hope that you will imagine, how important this oasis, this refuge, may be in the future to citizens who have to search far and near for a patch of green grass. We just don't know how important this could be. We need to weigh this decision very carefully, and I believe it is better to wait sometimes. If there's too much opposition to a thing, as there clearly is in this case, why not give it more consideration? I beg you to listen to the voice of the majority now that we know you really require this input and you have it. I believe that our citizens support a police station in the right time and in the right place. Do not blemish our generation's legacy to Sheboygan. Do not allow more green space to go forever. Please honor the city founders who gave this park to the people of Sheboygan past, present, and future. And I also have some comments from a neighbor who couldn't be here. If I could use the rest of my time, I have a letter from Patricia Nyus. I'm sorry that your time is up. Thank you. Mr. Beenan, Mr. Beenan, Mr. Beenan, please. Mr. Beenan, can you give me your home address? Sure, I'm 1817 South 15th Street in Sheboygan. Okay. And you will have five minutes, sir. Thank you. Sure. Thanks to my city, mayor, the council for this chance. I again appreciate your commitment and I honor your effort. I speak again as on August 2nd to support the saving of Sheridan Park. This council knows the results of the petition drive. Over 3,000 signatures from citizen voters. My point here is single. It deals with my petitioning and signature gathering. I went out on numerous occasions, but the occasion I described was my first time on a warm Thursday evening in August. Between 5.30 and 7 p.m., it was a good time. Most of the doors were open and people were outside in the backyard or moving about in the house. I hadn't experienced this sort of door-to-door petitioning before and I was a bit apprehensive. I visited two square city blocks, eight sides, and I found the following. Of approximately 45 homes, there were five or six houses where no one answered the door. At three homes, persons chose not to sign the petition and the rest did sign and that with little or no discussion on my part. I simply presented the petition and asked for their support. One of the three who refused to sign as I came down the opposite side of the street on the other side came out of his house, a young man in about his mid-30s and he walked across the street and he said, give it to me. I'll sign it. This took place in a neighborhood in the sixth district, 12th Ward. Several blocks removed from my own neighborhood and longtime friends. I didn't want to impose on their friendship. The sixth district and the 12th Ward is my home district in Ward. I had fully intended to continue my canvassing and I did acquire many other signatures but at other times and in other locations because the 3,000 signatures were rather soon acquired. This success surprised me and again leads me to believe very firmly that given a chance to vote in a referendum, the city would choose in a landslide to save Sheridan Park. Thanks. Judy, Judy Dremel. Is Judy Dremel here? Judy, can you give me your home address please? 1323 New Jersey Avenue. Say again, 13 what? 1323 New Jersey Avenue. Let's cross from the park. In Sheboygan? Yes, ma'am. All right, and you will have five minutes. Okay, the first thing I want to do is thank Mr. Warner because he placed me in a group of people that I never thought I would be in. I am a vocal minority.  We, the small minorities, change things that need to be changed. I would like to submit this letter to the Common Council from my neighbor Patty. As you notice, I'm a nurse, I'm not a speaker so I'm terrified. I would like to put my glasses on. In 1932, on November 3rd, a Judge Van Pelt rules against city in the controversy about the courthouse site. Now I will read the title sentence in the first paragraph. It says Fountain Park cannot be traded by the city of Sheboygan to the county of Sheboygan in exchange for a present courthouse site without further litigation, according to a ruling by Judge Clayton F. Van Pelt of Fond du Lac, received the morning of the clerk report by a Hickey. I'd like to submit that also. I would like to, I guess this is a kind of an emotional plea. I know all you people are talking about the million dollars and that is a lot of money. Believe me, I know I have a disabled child that chewed up a million dollars in less than six months. Now, this child of mine has a lot of sick days, but on the well days, we're able to walk over to the park. That's one of the reasons why we purchased the house that has been in our family or my husband's family for five generations. His grandfather's father built the house and his grandmother moved in when she was six years old. And there has been a member of the family there ever since we've watched the neighborhood grow up. Yes, the park was beautiful at one time, but it did have a fountain, it did have a little waiting pool for the family's children. And my mother-in-law proceeded to disrobe in that park at the age of three and run through the, so yeah, we have a lot of history in that park. My mother-in-law now resides up in the Lutheran cemetery. So, you know, my father-in-law courted her in that park. They one last walk around before he took her home. And I would hate to see it go. I personally would hate to see it go. As far as the crime goes, I have lived in this neighborhood for four years. I walk my dog every night between two and three in the morning. See, I have to do a check, a health check on my daughter every night. And after I do a health check on my daughter, then I have to on-wind. And that on-winding is I'm out with my dog. And I have never been approached except by one person at one time. And that was to find directions to his car because he had a little bit too much to drink and he couldn't see it. But I walk all over the place. I was kicked out of the park by some police officers all about a month ago when I was talking to a woman about what choices she had in an abusive situation. It was quiet, it was, there was nobody around and she was able to open up to me and I was able to give her some advice there. So yeah, I have used the park quite often. I find the park a wonderful place. The kids are in it all the time. I don't know who said that nobody goes to that park because that's a fallacy. It is true that during the winter time, they're not there as often as they are in the summertime. But I have also a seven-year-old son and he loves it. He rides his bike all the time in it. It's one of the few places I allow him to ride his bike because the area is just too busy. As far as crime goes, we do have a neighbor that lives behind lock fences, locked doors, and she's all ready to condemn Sheridan School for drugs. My son goes to Sheridan School. We do not have a drug problem. Her children do not go to Sheridan School. I don't see how anybody condemned something that they don't go to or take at.   It's a good neighborhood. We have a minor. Excuse me. I'm sorry, Vicki, or Judy, I'm sorry.  Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Warner. We'll file for our agency accepting and adopting all resolutions, substitute resolutions, and for our agency to be accepted. Moving in second, all our O's be accepted and filed. Our C's adopted and ordinance is substitute ordinance. We put upon their passage. Under discussion, Alderman Sugali. Thank you, Your Honor. I would just like to poll 15-9. And I would just like to say that Ron and Linda Schunk, myself and the neighbors that signed the petition, still feel that a far away stop is needed at the corners of 18th and Meade. So we are still gonna be in pursuant of that. So thank you very much. Thank you. This is 15-1 through 15-14. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Bowman. Burke. Boney. Serda. Graf. Manny. Montemayor. Perez. Sugali. Steffen. Van Akron. Vanderweel. And Warner. 13 ayes. Motion carried. 15-15 and 15-16 to be referred. 15-17 by city clerk submitting findings regarding the petition submitted on October 6, 2004. Headed preserved Sheridan Park forever, saved Sheridan Park forever. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to take 15-18 at the same time, please. On that, I would move to file a council document 15-17 and the petition, as well as council document 15-18. Second. We have motion to second before us under discussion. Alderman Perez. Your Honor, I'd like to move that we divide the question. I'd like to address each issue separately. That's fine. Okay, under discussion. Alderman Warner. Under discussion, Your Honor. I've made it clear numerous times that I support building a new police station in Sheridan Park. The common council made a historic decision on August 2nd, by selecting Sheridan Park as a location for a new police station. That was the biggest step forward the project has taken in 40 years of debate. A few weeks later, the council reaffirmed its vote and again confirmed its choice. Today, we have another decision to make. Some have said we should listen to the people and I believe we have. We have heard from those for and against our decision, from those on both sides. I applaud those that have signed this petition in good faith. It is their right to do so. The people in my district have spoken also. Some signed the petition and many did not. The majority of the people I have talked to believe we should move forward, not backwards. They realize not everyone will be happy with our decision but that it's time to go forward and I agree. I stand firm in my decision to support building a new police station in Sheridan Park and I also stand firm in a belief that to make decisions impacting our city based on which way the wind is blowing or who can make the loudest noise is not right. The city attorney has made it clear that this petition is not illegal means to overturn our previous decision. I do not support the Californiaization of our city or our state and believe strongly in our representative form of government in this country. It is our duty as elected representatives of the people to study the facts. Do the homework and make the choices we believe are in the best interest of the city of Sheboygan as a whole. I believe filing this is the right thing to do and we'll support doing so. In the October 7th issue of the Plymouth Review there were two articles. One examined the issue of building a police station in Sheridan Park from the view of the people who own homes and live in the neighborhood. Those people clearly want the station built in Sheridan Park. The second article was an editorial opinion, one which I agree with and I'm going to read that. Review perspectives, column read as such. Can 3,300 people be wrong? In this case, maybe. The group friends of Sheboygan's parks presented a petition signed by approximately 3,300 people to the city of Sheboygan Wednesday morning calling for a referendum on saving Sheridan Park. Sheboygan Common Council voted August 2nd in favor of building a new police station at the park. Since then, people concerned about losing a park with historic value to the city have rallied to Sheridan Park's defense. Why didn't they speak up before the council voted to build at Sheridan Park? Friends, members said they did not believe that the city would really bulldoze the park to build a police station. However, many people have spoken in favor of building at Sheridan Park. Sheboygan Police Chief David Kirk, Deputy Chief Bob Weiss, 11 alderman and residents from the Sheridan Park neighborhood among them. The last group may be the most important. While it is true that a police station could be built anywhere, building at Sheridan Park would address some very real problems in that neighborhood. The people who know best what happens in that neighborhood want a police station there. They want gang and drug activity at the park to end. Your Honor, order, please. Yes, please be quiet back there. Otherwise, I wouldn't have to ask you. They may be outnumbered by more than 100 to one by those who signed the Friends of Sheboygan's Parks Petition. But their concerns ought to carry a greater moral weight. They are placing peace above trees and safe places above green spaces. Of course, there is the little matter that Sheboygan truly needs a new police station. In fact, it has needed one for the better part of three decades. What police do not need is another delay. If the signatures on a petition prove to be valid, then the city attorney would determine if the council should address the petition. The question here appears to be whether a council action can be undone by direct legislation or a referendum. Assuming that the petition passes legal muster and the council puts the question on a spring ballot, what does this mean for the Sheboygan Police Department and is it fair? The desire to preserve green space in urban areas is laudable. The passion for parks is admirable, but the mission is misguided. The issue should not have surprised anybody. The city has held meetings for the past four years on where to build a new police station and Sheridan Park has always been among the choices. The time to event Sheridan Park was long before August 2nd. The decision was controversial and certainly disappointing to many, but it was reached following a lengthy and proper process of study and discussion. To overturn that decision now, to preserve a seldom used park as opposed to solving real needs by police and residents is akin to not seeing the forest for the trees. It puts principle ahead of priority and sadly it will not accomplish one of the presumed goals of the Friends of Sheboygan Parks, improve the quality of life. I agree and it is time to accept and move on. Alderman Perez, you didn't speak on 17 also. Yes, your honor, but I believe we're gonna split the question, so I'm not quite sure how Alderman Warner's comments relate to just simply filing the finance of city clerks, which I don't have any problem. That's what I mean. I don't have any problem with filing the finance because that's what we should do appropriately, but I believe what you meant, what you intended Alderman Warner's to speak towards 1518. Alderman Warner. Motion wants to accept and file the R.R.O. 1517 and the petition. If he's splitting it 1518, there's another discussion. Okay. So you wanna speak on 1518? I wanna speak on 1518 when the time is appropriate. 1517, I have no problem with filing. Okay. Sue. Did you want to speak on your findings? Basically, just you have the copies of the documents. I did receive the petitions. They were totally reviewed. I verified that there were 3,303 signatures submitted and 2,952 were found valid. I discounted or rejected 351. And the reasons that I rejected them are outlined attached to the document and the friends know that when they came in to get it, I went over it with them. And basically my end result is I did put in the cost for processing this petition, which was in excess of about $3,500. And I am certifying that the number of signatures received exceeds the number required by statutes for the petition to be considered in proper form. And that's my report. Okay. Alderman Montaner. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Does 1517 is simply your report? That's correct. That we're filing. It is not the petitions. This is my report. And 1518 is Steve's information to us. Correct. Correct. Okay, that's all I wanted to make it clear. Thank you. Go ahead. Alderman Montaner. The motion on 1517 was to file the report of officer, the city clerk and the petition. Both. Okay. I have another question then. Go ahead. Thank you. If I vote to file 1517, Steve, does that preclude me from bringing a resolution in at the next meeting that would provide for the council to decide if there will be a referendum or not? No, it would not preclude you from doing that. You could do that on any subject at any time. Alderman Montaner. Thank you, Steve. It would not be binding as direct legislation, but you could certainly bring in a document to request a referendum. Thank you. Back to you, Alderman Press. Thank you, Mayor. Just a point of clarification. I guess I haven't heard your ruling on splitting the question. I keep hearing Alderman Montaner say that we're gonna take a vote on 1517 and 1518. Correct. And that's the way it's going unless you get a second, unless you wanna make a motion or split the... I moved to split the question already. There's a second. Okay. We have motion and a second before us. Okay, under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. I think that it would be very appropriate. I think that Sue has done an incredible work validating and confirming all the senators that she came to finalize and realize that it was a big job, $3,200 expended. Sue, thank you for the hard work that you did. It would be very appropriate for the city council to say thank you and file it. And then we could move on to our bigger issue, which is 1518, which deals whether or not the issue is direct legislation or not, which I believe it's not. And I will address that issue at the appropriate time. So I would like to please ask the city council to support splitting the question. It's not gonna make a big difference anyway. All we're doing is voting on one thing and then the next. Alderman Berg. I'll wait. Now, Alderman, you're going to speak on, excuse me, do you there? I want to speak on 1518, the filing of the petition. Okay, if we don't file 1518 tonight, what's going to happen is the little head of Tabor is going to start poking its head into your bogey here and you all know what it did to Colorado. If we don't file 1518, our hands are going to be tied in the future and this council won't be able to make any moves on their own. And also I was going to say that this whole Sheridan Park issue has turned into nothing but a political arena. I was going to say that you can watch your newspapers, listen to your radio, who is going to start coming out, taking out papers for Alderman or running for the mayor. And tonight, the first one step forward. So I'm asking you people, I told you in April, we're going to make some tough decisions on this council. We got to stand firm, stand up and be counted and stick to your vote. So I suggest that we file 1518, please. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Alderman Perez. Mayor, I'm sorry. We are voting to split the question. If that doesn't pass, I'm going to go back to file 1518 first. And I will speak then. Thank you. Point of order, yeah, I think the question is that we'll vote to split either way, right? I mean, we can go ahead, Alderman Graf. A point of order, your honor. We never in the past voted on splitting the question. When an Alderman wanted to split the question, we just split it. All right, is there any other discussion? Chief, did you have something you want to contribute to your department head before we vote? I'm splitting the question. No, on this, on 17, 1517. So we have to point out, because that's why he was speaking on 1517. I know he was. I know he was. Go ahead, Chief. If I understand this correct, I'm speaking as to the police location at Sheridan Park. If this is 1517, I believe that's to the findings of Sue, and I believe I should probably wait till the discussion at 1218, so I can sit down and I'll come back. 1518, that's fine, and we'll speak then, all right. I didn't know if you wanted to or not, all right. Sue, would you call, if there's another discussion, call the roll on 1517. This is just to file my report, that's all we're doing. Everybody understand that? Okay, Berg, to file my report. Okay, Bonet, Serta, Graf, Manny, Montemayor, Perez, Sigali, Stefan, Van Akron, Vanderwheel, Warner, and Bauman. 13 eyes. Okay, motion carried, 1518. Now, Alderman Perez, you want to speak on 1518. Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. I believe that this is another real good indication of how passionate this issue has become to both advocates of the police station at Sheridan Park and also advocates of the people who would not want to have the police park built at Sheridan Park. I have always been, and I've said it many times, and I'm gonna say it one more time, a strong supporter of public safety, in particular firefighters and police officers. My position tonight is not one in opposition to a police station being built. And I've made it very clear before, it's opposition to the police station being built at Sheridan Park. The issue, we can craft the issue any way we want to, but in my mind, and what I read from the people who are speaking to us, VL 3000 signatures, the issue is not whether we are required by law to enact legislation subject to direct legislation because we don't have to do that. I think that's been made pretty clear.  They understand that. What they're coming to us asking is, above all this, above all the issues that you've spoken, is this council strong enough to say, let's take it to the people and let them decide? Just one time, people have come to us. One time, they've cared enough so much that they brought in more than 3000 signatures and said, please take it to the people to see if they want it there. Instead of us saying how dare you, we should be saying humbly, thank you. This is one time that I can remember where the people took it upon themselves to offer themselves as a partner to us to say, let's do it together. We could have so much goodwill built with the people of Sheboyga. Right now the city is almost split in half and I take that to be horrible. That's horrific times for me. I don't know what I want to remember being an alderman during this time because this has been an issue that has torn me apart. To ignore all these signatures would be tantamount to being tyrannical. With all due respect to Alderman Berg, when the county submitted signatures, I believe, sir, you said signatures like that and those numbers are nothing to sneeze at. These signatures are nothing to sneeze at also. I hope that this council takes a breather, relaxes and I would ask that we also consider perhaps putting together a committee. I like to sit down with people who have a hard time agreeing, sit down with people, talk things over, committee of two aldermen who favor putting the police station at Sheridan Park, two who don't, the mayor of your honor, chief of police and two people from the Friends of the Cheburegon Parks. Sit down at the table, try to sort things out and we're gonna have a much, much happier community if we do that to ram down anything at anybody's throat. It's the worst thing anybody can do just because we have the votes. That's the worst thing to do. Power is not to be used excessively. Power is to be used wisely and I think we can use the power that this council has very wisely and we can come out ahead. All of us can come out ahead. We can hold our head up high and say, we weren't taken over. Nobody tied our hands. Nobody's trying to do that. You have 3,000 people asking you, please. And we're saying, how dare you? I think we should just say, thank you. Okay, thank you. All in on Stefan. I guess my first is to the city attorney. A question of procedure. We just filed the city clerk's report. This is your findings. Wouldn't the correct thing to do? I mean, no matter how you feel would be to file this and then like Alderman Montemayor said, if you felt you wanted to listen to this then you bring in a resolution suggesting we have a binding or non binding whatever she wants to do. I mean, this document doesn't necessarily, we're just accepting your report, right? We're not saying we agree with it. We're just accepting it. It wouldn't, if somebody was in support of it, wouldn't the correct procedure be to bring in a resolution? Or how does this turn into a resolution? I guess that's why I want a little help on it. It's not a resolution, Alderman Stefan. It's legal advice to the council who I provide legal services to that the petition submitted on its face as direct legislation under the statute. And the statute says that if you get enough signatures, could submit it to the council and the council has to either act on that petition within 30 days, adopt it, verbatim, or put it to a binding referendum. And you gotta take that, decide to do one of those two things within 30 days. Now the opinion is to the effect that you don't have to take either of those options because in my opinion it's not a, it doesn't meet the test for appropriate direct legislation. So my advice is you take it, you can accept it for a petition of the will of 3,000 or 2,900 people like you would on the number of other petitions that are submitted to the council. And you can do with it as you will. You can decide to do nothing with it, file it, you can choose if you wish to repeal the resolution that you adopted in August. And you can choose to put an issue about Sheridan Park on a referendum, binding referendum, an advisory referendum. I guess that's my opinion to the council is you can do really whatever you want or nothing on the petition, but you don't have to, in my opinion, treat it as binding direct legislation that you have to either adopt or put on a binding referendum. And I understand that, I guess my question is 1518. Are we voting on what to do with the petition or are we just voting on your report of it, which would obviously mean no matter what our feeling is, it's like the other one. We just accept and file it because we're just accepting your report of the petition itself. I think it was made, all of them step in also to file the petition, correct? I think you should view the, I understand the question that the document 1518, it's on its face as a report of officer by myself on the issue. It's not a petition, but I think the council should take it as the petition has been submitted to the city. And really, before you, the clerk has said that there is filed with her, their appropriate signatures are there. You don't have to, as I say, take any action on it and it just dies of its own accord if you don't take any action within 30 days. But you could, I think, file the petition if that's what you wanted to do. Alderman Draw. Thank you, that was my question. The first motion that was made on 1517 was to accept and file the RO Suisse report as well as the petition. And you just called the roll on that and was that unanimous? 13, yeah. And so the petition is filed. And that's why I think, and I can't speak for anybody else, but because Alderman Montemire had gotten up and said, does that stop me from bringing a resolution or a document in at the next council meeting to require all this and the answer to that was, no, it does not. So she's still free to do that or any of us could bring something in to require a referendum or to do anything else. But as of right now, this council filed that petition that was presented. Correct. Okay, everybody understands? I thought you understood that when you asked for a division of the question that that's what was going on. Okay. Let me say, if I could, further to Alderman Montemire's question about bringing in a document at the next meeting. To be consistent, if you do that, there probably should be some action on the council's part either to, set aside its August 2nd decision at the same time, and then, or to hold it in abeyance until the results of a referendum or something. So you don't end up with too conflicting where you got the council saying one thing and a referendum decision saying another if it went to that. You understand what I'm saying? Thank you. Yes. Okay. I'll talk with you, Steve. Alderman. If I have a chance, I'd also just like to say, there was a letter to the editor that accused me of thwarting the democratic process and I don't believe I'm doing that. I didn't respond directly to the letter. I hope that the Friends of Sheridan Park and the individuals assigned the petition realize that I'm providing, in my view and my judgment, the best legal advice I can for the city and I think it's pretty clear, case law is clear, that what was submitted is not an appropriate subject for direct legislation. No intent whatsoever to try to silence individuals with their, having their right to redress what they consider as grievances to the council and to be heard. And I think the council is hearing what's being submitted. The issue is whether or not to, at least as it relates to my opinion, as to whether or not the council has to treat that as binding direct legislation. Thank you. Alderman Serta. Thank you, Your Honor. I would also be in agreement with you, Mr. McLean, that you have provided us with the correct information and just to expound on that, you did a wonderful job in explaining, and I'll just explain a little bit to the citizens watching at home and those in the galley here. What you submitted to us and correct me at any time if I am wrong, the Wisconsin State Statue says that in proposing this legislation for a referendum that it says here, let's see, resolution directly or put the proposed ordinance or resolution without alteration, so meaning that it should be a proposed, but indeed we've already acted upon this. It's already a resolution. Furthermore, it says here that it cannot repeal an existing ordinance or resolution, which I stated. It may not exceed the legislative powers conferred upon the governing municipal body, and also the must be legislative as opposed to administrative or executive in nature, which clearly says here that the resolution thus as sought to be passed is administrative and character rather than legislative. So it's clearly defined that according to the Wisconsin State Statue that we can't actually move forward in the referendum. I mean, we could, but it goes against what the Wisconsin State Statue says. Thank you. Yeah, again, just to be clear, you could still, council could still choose to repeal the August 2nd resolution. You still could put the issue to a binding referendum. It is important to mention though, there's a reason why we have these guidelines. There's gotta be a reason why there's guidelines such as this, and I think Alderman Berg had nailed it right on the head when he says this could be just ourselves inching our way towards Tabor. Alderman Manny. Thank you, Alderman. Thank you, Your Honor. Question for C. McLean. I believe I'm correct when I assumed that if the August decision were moved to be rescinded, that that would need to come by motion from one of those who had voted affirmatively for it. Is that correct? No, that would be on a reconsideration, but I think anybody could bring in a document to rescind the August 2nd resolution. No. Okay, thank you. Then just a couple of comments. I do agree with Alderman Werck in principle about a representational government. We cannot run the city by referendum. The problem for me is in the whole area of information, I don't think we do a good enough job in inviting commentary from our citizens, and thus what we understood as being a public process of more than two years, in considering Sheridan Park, for the population, it was not that at all. They never truly considered it a viable option, until it was a done deal. If we were more forthright in having hearings and distinctly saying these are two final sites being considered, that would be very helpful. We had done that months and months ago. It's also easy for people to read the paper and assume from a headline that what's noted is what's going to be, and that's not the way things really are either. So in conjunction, those things certainly have worked against the good of the whole, and the fair democratic process wherein we're all heard, and information is very clear on the table in a broad way. The other issue for me that was problematic in the vote was that some information on our desks was misleading. And I remember very clearly being told, I forget by which alder person, I believe it was Swongamon, but maybe not so, that nine of 13 families who were approached, adjacent to Sheridan Park, who lived there, said they were in favor of the police station being on that site. So we didn't have enough information that was concrete that reflected public opinion. That concern is a very viable concern, and that's why we're seeing what we see today as being a big part of the struggle with the decision having been made. That's why I leaned towards inviting more public commentary and slowing down the process and reconsidering. My last vote reflected that fact. We need an alternative document in the hand if we're going to reconsider by a referendum, obviously the document at hand legally is not adequate. That is up to us to do, if in fact that's the best way to go. I still have my heart on an alternative site that Alderman Perez would make possible by a small committee coming together and people from opposite sides of the table to look at an alternative site and see if we can't make that happen. But I guess what I really want is a motion to consider holding an abeyance to the August vote for a certain timeframe. I'd like commentary about that at this point. Okay, thank you. Alderman Perez, back to you. I'm sorry, you made a motion? No. A couple of things and I'll be quite on this issue in our honor. I think I would have used my two times up too. One is, city attorney McLean, is there anything tonight that Alderman Montemayor needs to attempt to do to prepare a resolution asking for a referendum? I take it not. She can come in with that document. Come in with that document at any time? And by the same token I come in with it. The only caveat to that is as far as claiming obviously the longer you go and the council starts spending more and more money on Sheridan Park, architects, design and so forth. You want to even to the next stage enter in the contract to start construction or something like that. You get to a point where you put the city in a very difficult situation where you've got a contract, build a building and all of a sudden you're saying, we're not going to build in the park. And I would hope that at least for a couple of weeks or a month we would stop that to see what's going to happen. The next point I wanted to make, it's just a very simple point is that I realize that the statutes say we don't have to do, we don't have to call for a referendum. I mean that's our prerogative. We cannot be compelled to call for a referendum by the number of signatures. It does not say you can't. And that also sends a big message to the communities in the state of Wisconsin that although the statutes prohibit and provide for certain things, they don't deny other things also. So again, I'll make it the point that I made earlier. The issue is not whether this is direct legislation or not, I think clearly everybody can see that. The issue is, are we going to go above that and be better men and women to say, let's do what's right here, take it to the people? They say no, fine. If they say yes, fine. But we will have done our job. It's true quality, true representatives. That's all I'm saying. Thank you. Alderman Verde. Thank you. As far as people knowing about using Sheridan Park, I had a letter in Edder's mailbox long before we even went into negotiations with the county and there was nothing but positive answers on that. But we didn't get any of this negative stuff until after our first vote. Then we were asked to rescind, didn't happen. We already took two votes. The people had enough time beforehand to bring in their problems before. But all of a sudden everything came together at one time. But I still say we should stick together and file that referendum. And as far as Alderman Perez saying about my vote on the county board with those 9,600 votes that they wanted on the referendum, I was in favor of it.  That's a heck of a big different story than using Sheridan Park as a police station. That's why I said there's nothing to sneeze at. Neither are these signatures from these people. I don't sneeze at that. But you gotta look at where you're gonna be saving money and the people that have been calling me, asked me today, please don't change your vote. You gotta get this situation settled once and for all. You can keep on changing this, changing that.  Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Montemire, back to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When we did the first vote, very first vote, I thought, well, lost, we're gonna tear down the park, that's the end of it. The next morning, people started calling me and said, what happened, Marilyn? What happened? And I explained it to them and I received many calls that very first morning after that very first vote. And people were so surprised at what had happened and said to me, is there anything we can do? And I simply said on the telephone, well, we haven't broken ground yet. I don't know, see what you can do. I thought it was a done deal that night until the public called me the next morning and the next morning and the next morning. And probably they called me because I had voted to not tear down the park. There were many calls. Many people were very surprised. I didn't call them, they called me. Thank you. Alderman Orner. I thank you, Your Honor. First, I think the city attorney has clearly given us direction regarding our choices. And I thank him for that. He did a great job of putting that together. The United States of America is a representative republic. It's founded on the most basic principle that the people elect representatives are willing to spend their time studying issues, reviewing facts, making decisions based on those facts, while taking it into consideration the greater good and need of the entire community. Our forefathers knew that if decisions were made based on which way the wind was blowing or solely on emotion or by the loud noises of a vocal group, the best choices for the greater good would not be made. We are elected to wade through the facts, emotions, opinions, and special interests and reach a reasonable and responsible decision. That is in the best overall interests of the entire city. I believe we have already done that not once but twice. In 1956, then United States Senator John F. Kennedy dismissed the idea that as a senator, his job was to mirror the constituents position. As the senator stated, such a view assumes that the people of Massachusetts, Reed Sheboygan, sent me to Washington Reed City Hall to serve merely as a seismograph to record shifts in public opinion. The voters selected us because they had confidence in our judgment and our ability to exercise judgment from a position where we could determine what were their own best interests as part of the nation's interest reg cities. This means that we must on occasion lead, inform, correct, and sometimes even ignore public opinion for which we were elected. The premise remains the same today. We have done the work, we have studied the facts. For four years, we have looked at building sites, done space and needs assessments, answered questions and intended over 80 meetings. We've stopped the process to investigate building next to the courthouse when asked. We've stopped the process from moving forward when we were looking at the Imperial Motel site to look at the county side on 23rd Street. We did soil borings there, we did environmental studies there. We spent $50,000 to this point just on this one four year stretch of trying to get to where we are today over 49 sites have been considered. The experts, the committees, and the employees of the Sheboyin Police Department as well as this council have done the work. And I say the employees because they sat for hours in meetings going through details and documents in their departments and providing information to the experts at Kimmy on what they would need for space, how much space they needed to do their work every day and they put their opinions in there and those opinions were weighted in that report. Everyone's got it, it's in there, it's a fact. The number one site selected is shared in park. The city attorney's opinion is clear, this petition does not meet the legal muster and filing that was the right thing to do. Right here in my hand, I hold the names of at least 115 people that agree with the council's previous decisions. I did not have to solicit the support of these people. I did not have to go door to door to get these. They came forward on their own. Why? Because they believe we made the right choice before and they believe that we should make the right choice again. Robert LaTrey supporting shared in park as a new police station. Carol Depachter who lives over on Salt 14 Street in excellent letter supports the police station and shared in park. The residents of the Shabuigan Regency House, all of them are they nothing? 20-some residents, Arnold W. Geshe supports a building in shared in park. A list of signatures from the neighbors of shared in park. Yes, neighbors of shared in park that support building the police station there. Right here, Gina Steinhardt who lives on Maryland Avenue who's been working very hard to take care of her neighborhood believes that shared in park is the proper place. Stacy Gutshaw believes shared in park is the proper place. I did not even get all the documents from the positive emails and documents that came through a people that support it. Doreen Lindsey, she supports it. Cindy Hare, she supports it. As well does her husband. Dennis Murray and his wife support it. Bob Richards on Pine View Court support it. Beverly Deconich supports it. I have more of these at home. I can bring them in next time. We have Frank Deconich and we have Thomas Deconich. They all support our decision. And lastly but certainly not least the Shabuigan Professional Police Association. 67 members or whatever it is strong. That's 115 people right there. Alderman Perez was at our building use meeting. One of them this year, just the other day. And at that meeting, Roger Lam came forward. And Roger Lam had a document that he sent to this council and everyone's aware of it of building the police station back further and maintaining maybe a quarter to a third of the front part of shared in park on 14th Street as a park. As a park. Maintaining some of the property. It's right here. The press didn't put it in. They probably should have. They probably should have talked to Roger. It's extremely not. It's wonderful. It's a great idea. The committee has asked that as these things go forward for the RFPs that that be included as something the architects consider. So you see, we've all been there. We've been doing the work and I do think it's time to move forward and I will call the question. Yeah. Alderman Serta. Thank you, Your Honor. One question. Last time. One of the things that I would ask my fellow older persons is specifically those who are voting to save shared in park that you not question the integrity of my vote when I vote to build the police station there. I think if there's one thing we can all agree on tonight is that the individuals who want to save shared in park do not represent 100% of the community of Sheboygan. And therefore I'm not forgetting those individuals who have spoken to me and who have called me and they want to see it there. So I am representing them. I am listening to them. It's just the other side of that. I think I am somewhat disappointed tonight and I'm sure there are some of you here too. I was hoping that we wouldn't have to do this issue again. I was hoping that it would be finished tonight but it sounds like it's gonna be moving forward but I also see a parallel in this issue when compared to the presidential election tomorrow. I was just speaking with a constituent in my district and if there's one thing I said is I said tomorrow with our presidential election I hope there's such a wide enough margin so that there's no questions and that the process wouldn't be delayed that by Wednesday we'd have a new president. And here I can see that this could be starting a slippery slope and just elongating this process. I'm done. I was wishing we could just end this tonight. And lastly, and I think it needs to be said that my vote will in addition send a message to the police department no more delays, no more excuses. Thank you. Alderman Serda? All right, sorry. Alderman Sugali, you had your late going. I guess I'm not understanding how many processes we have to go through before our voices are heard. We voted to have Sheridan Park. We voted against resending our vote. Now somebody else wants to do a resolution so that we can do this petition. We filed the petition. I guess I'm like Bonnie Serda. I'm tired of this. We're waiting here for a police station. They've waited 40 years. So we just keep doing resolution after resolution. So another 40 years has passed and I'm dead and buried. I mean, this has got to stop. It has got to stop and it's got to stop now. These people are waiting, they deserve it. My vote will be the way that I have been voting. The people in my area who have called me, as they said, they stick to your guns. I'm gonna stick to my guns. I'm listening to them. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Montemare, last time. Right, last time he called the question two people ago. But people had their lights blinking. So I'm gonna honor it. All right, thank you, thank you. I certainly will support a police station on the 23rd Street site after all the work and the negotiations and the discussions and the many closed meetings, the many, many meetings that were done with the county, the discussions, the negotiations, I certainly will support that. And I hope we could move to that quickly. The city needs a police station. We need a safer building. We need a larger building. The citizens deserve a new police station. The officers need better facilities in which to do their work. And a wonderful police station can be erected on the 23rd Street site as was negotiated with the county and we thought had come to the agreement with the county. Thank you. Okay, Chief, you're going to speak on this document. First off, I'm somewhat mixed. I have mixed feelings about this in the sense that I'm excited that this discussion is going on. It's about the need for a police department. I didn't think I'd hear this for years. I've been here since 1977. They've talked about it at that time that I think what they said was kid, don't worry about the facility. You'll get yourself a new police department soon or something to that effect. Merit's been your number one priority almost seven years ago. I think we cannot point fingers at those who took your assignment lightly. They, Mike Warner, Dan Berg, Bill Wangeman and assortment of others who are no longer on that committee building use took it very, very serious. Mike is absolutely right. We've had over 80 meetings on this issue. I've had a committee of 15 people look at building need assessments. It's Stubenrock and Kimmy who came back and said this is what our department needs. Yet after that, people question, do you really need that large of a police department chief? I'm not sure and I start to see and maybe I know why we don't have a police department yet. People say that we need a police department yet the action doesn't lead to a new police department. We go from one site to another site to another site. As far as 23rd Street, that was a tentative agreement. We talked to our architects about that. They said, stay away from that site unless you get all four acres. We went back to deal with four acres. They said, no, it's not negotiable. At that time, we were waiting yet on the city attorney's response from the League of Municipalities on the use of a park because we went with our number two spot that was the hotel. We then deal and Alderman Warner is absolutely correct. We went to deal with the Imperial Motel site, which was our number two site. And meanwhile, we then take another break. We take another stop and we deal with the county to get four acres on that location. We did not get four acres on that location. Then that began in March and we came to a tentative agreement in March of that year of this year. In April, our architect said, you need all four acres. April 29th, the county says, no, we're not gonna negotiate with four acres. Then in June, June 23rd, to be exact, the legal opinion comes back, you can use a park. That's always been a number one spot. That was this number one spot from Stubenrock and Kimmy. This has been a lengthy and proper study of these sites. We looked at 49 different sites. It was four years of effort, yet there's at times when Alderman then said, now we have to study this, we have to study this. So on one hand, I'm very excited that this discussion is continuing. Yet on the other hand, I say, when will it end? There was a proper study. There were four studies in 1990 on a police department site, or what the needs were. 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997. We then studied it again. Kimmy and Stubenrock, 2001. Alderman Warner, the exact dollar amount was $50,339 we spent on this, this study. There are several reasons, and I commend the Building Use Committee for taking their job serious. They came out, they took it serious, they studied it. They came out with what the mayor had asked, a recommendation to this common council. Was it gonna be popular? Absolutely not. We discussed about this decision. We knew it was going to raise some issues. Yet, these issues did not arise after Stubenrock and Kimmy left. They were here when we talked about that park and it was gonna be controversial. You're absolutely right, they knew it was, but it was still the right park. And there's the right spot. There's several reasons why that was chosen. There's two sides to every situation. Access, the focus of the study was access to the city's AS 400, the computer system, because the computer system will stay at City Hall. We are obligated by previous agreements with the Sporting County Sheriff's Department that we share our data and our crime software, our records management system on the city computers. We have two AS 400s, we have to connect to City Hall. If in fact we move someplace else and we take that computer system with us, we are, the city is responsible to maintain that connection for the Sporting County Sheriff's Department. So we began to look at this and there's several positives to share it in site location. It's a 2.62 acre site, yet if you take 13th Street and Alderman Warner mentioned it before, if you move that police department back further to the east, if you close down 13th Street, you build on 13th Street that right away, there is land and it's up to the architect to take a look at that land to see if you can have a small area up front to be used as a park. That 2.62 acre site now becomes over three acres. You're looking at four acres on 23rd Street which is ideal for a one-story site. If you go 2.6 acres, take 13th Street, you're over three acre site on Sheridan Park. It's ideal with the layout of that land to build a two-story police department. Access, access at Sheridan Park on 14th Street is to the public main thoroughfare as access to the transit, visibility. I loved Imperial Motel site because of the visibility. I love Sheridan Park because of the visibility. Because of its location on the main thoroughfare, the visibility you can't hide a police department. When people need a police department, you have to know where it is and you don't, some of the 49 sites we looked at were tucked away at various locations yet we studied them. So it's in the downtown area, Sheridan Park, that's ideal for community policing efforts. It's ideal, I think it will revitalize an area of the city. Community policing efforts are not in the middle of an area such as the industrial park or 23rd Street where there is no neighborhood. I also believe Sheridan Park will not hinder any Sheridan Services efforts. As we looked at Sheridan Park and were directed and chose Sheridan Park, we are now in negotiations with the Sheridan's department for property and evidence, storage at the grass clipping spot that we've been dealing with to the Department of Public Works and Tom Houlton for quite a time to get that land available so we can do some shared services at that location, but that will not hinder if we choose Sheridan Park shared services. The land, zero acquisition, zero relocation, very small dollar amount for demolition work at that location. If you look at various locations you must deal with and I learned this quite quickly dealing with Rich Gebhardt, you must determine what is acquisition, how much for relocation. Some of these sites we're looking at over a million dollars, the two million dollars just to acquire the land and relocate some of the businesses. Sheridan Park does not have that. Green space, certainly I care about green space. Shpoigens, I believe the second is ranked number two in the state for the acreage of parks. We must remember if you build, you may use green space, unless of course you use a brown space or you use some old area that you tear down, demolish, then again that cost to the acquisition fees. Taxes, other sites we looked at, you're taking property off the tax rolls chief, you can't take that because you're taking property off the tax rolls. So we looked for something that we won't take off the tax rolls. Soil borings, sure we've done environmental studies on North 23rd Street, we were led to believe that the park is vacant land until tonight, that's the first I heard of that, but we expected less to be used in soil borings and testing at Sheridan Park because we thought it was a virgin land or vacant land for many, many, many years. So what I really say here tonight is listen, this is a proper study, it's a lengthy study, it's been over four years. Mayor, I think you must commend your older men who sat on building use. They did exactly what you asked of them. I do not believe that we should tear down Mr. Warner or Dan Berg because of what they come here tonight. They come here tonight as those members on the building use committee that you gave an assignment to. They took it very, very serious. We've had 80 meetings on this and they came up with a ruling and a finding that I support. I think Sheridan Park is the number one spot at this time. Thank you, Mayor. Bear with me for a moment on this. Thank you, Chief, for your comments. Ever since we began a focused effort two and a half years ago to choose a site in which to build a police station, I have said that our number one priority must be to ensure the safety of our neighborhoods, our streets, our playgrounds, our children, and our families. Building a new police station is about setting priorities and speaks to the very principles that we as a community represent and those of us as elected leaders are willing to defend. There have been efforts to link my support towards one initiative or another. However, I steadfastly stand in support of keeping our neighborhoods and families safe and ensuring our officers who are sworn to protect us are given the resources they need. Repeatedly, I have commented on how this process is not about one person's wishes or one committee or even about doing what's popular. It's about our principles, who we are as a community and whether or not we value the safety of our friends and families and if we stand in support of our police station. Our efforts over the past two and a half years were focused on a discussion which has its origins over 40 years ago. When police chief Kirk came to Sheboygan in 79, 77, 77, the topic of the police station was being discussed, yet nothing happened. No decisions, no leadership, nothing. Due to the lack of secure areas, general safety concerns, meager resources, and confined work areas, Sheboygan police facility has repeatedly been recognized by Wisconsin law enforcement officials as the state's worst. This is a dubious honor that we must put to rest. We have held over 80 meetings, disbairs repeating, over 80 meetings in the past two and a half years in which we listened to the public, our police officers, hired experts, and reviewed 49 different site locations for a police station. After two and a half years, 80 meetings and the consideration of 49 different sites, our hired experts, our police department, and this council chose Sheridan Park as a site for our new police station. Sheridan Park was cited by Kimmy and Associates as the most desirable site to build upon and was centrally located. Our police department felt it best suited their needs and gave them the resources they need to protect and serve our community. Given the shortcomings of the other 48 sites studied during 80 plus meetings, a decision needed to be made. This council made that decision. This council plays principle above politics and public safety above popularity. Your decision to build our community's police station as Sheridan Park was a courageous one. And I stand by you. I stand with you and I'm ready and willing to ensure Shabuigan doesn't wait another 40 years before a police station is built. The safety of our children, our families, our playgrounds, our neighbors is always and has been always and will be my number one priority. Former president Jimmy Carter once commented that leadership is not about popularity. It is not about galvanizing existing public opinion and shaping it into policy. Leadership is about vision and courage. And on occasion, leaders must show people where they need to go, even if it's not necessarily where they want to go. I believe it's about doing what is right, what our principles and our values tell us we must do. Where would we be as a nation, a state and a community if we only made the popular decisions? History provides us with two vivid reminders of the courageous decisions leaders are sometimes required to make. Nearly 100 years ago, would women have been given the right to vote if it weren't for the first few states who courageously went against public opinion and opened the voting polls to them? Or in 1957, when President Eisenhower sent federal troops into southern states like Alabama to desegregate our schools, he stood by principles of right and wrong, despite the prevailing opinion in many of those states. We are left here with a decision. It's a decision about priorities. For myself, it is not about making the popular decision. It is about public safety, about protecting the various very things we cherish, neighborhoods, playgrounds, children and families. As elected officials, we take an oath to uphold the laws of our community. We must in turn support those who are sworn to protect and serve our community. Supporting a police station at Sheridan Park is not about disregarding the will of the people. It is about ensuring the very basic human needs of safety, whether it be on our front lawn on a summer evening or walking along a sidewalk with our children. I have always believed there is no greater duty for elected officials than to ensure the safety of those who have elected them. Delay now will effectively kill the efforts to build a police station. Do we save a park in the name of sacrificing the safety of our community? In the name of denying our police officers the resources they need to perform their duties? How many of us will want to be remembered for saving a park but for sacrificing the safety of our police officers? We must have the courage and wisdom to stand up for public safety and stand up for our police department. I support building a police station at Sheridan Park. That decision and support may make me unpopular to some. I may get ridiculed on the editorial pages of the press but I will always choose public safety over our parks, principle and value over popularity and I will stand in support of every man and woman who wears a uniform puts on a badge in order to protect myself, my family and this community. So after 80 meetings, 49 site reviews in nearly 40 years of talk, nearly 40 years of talk, stand with me, stand with our police officers, stand up for the principles and choose a future filled with hope rather than fear of opportunity rather than regret. Stand by our decision to build a police station at Sheridan Park, stand up for the safety of our community and stand together as we take a historic step in our city's history. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now with that, would you call the roll please? 1518. I guess it's for filing. Right, yes it's for filing. The city attorney's opinion, yes. Is that correct, Steve? Steve, that's correct. Yes, it's for filing. Boney. Aye. Serta. Aye. Graf. Boney. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. No. Sagali. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweal. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Anberg. Aye. 12 ayes, 1 no. Motion carried. 1519 and 20, 1519 and 1520 will lie over. 1521 through 1530 to be referred. 1531 by Alderman Graf. Establishing the date for a hearing and passage of the 2005 budget. Alderman Graf. Your Honor, I'll move that the resolution be put upon its passage. It's been moved in second at the resolution be put upon its passage under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Serta. Aye. Graf. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Aye. Sagali. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Ann Bonane. Aye. 13 ayes. Motion carried. 1532 by Alderman Graf authorizing a Mayor's Special International Committee to donate $2,500 of their fundraising money to the International Affairs Section, City of Subami, to aid in the earthquake relief efforts. Alderman Graf. And I'll ask for suspension of the rules please. Second for suspension. Is there any discussion? Alderman Serta. Thank you, Your Honor. I was wondering if you could just explain to those of us who aren't familiar with what we do over in Japan and just give us some insight. In a minute, as soon as we get suspension and put the motion on the floor. Sounds good. Okay, if there's no objection, suspension proceeds, sir. Then, Your Honor, I would move that the resolution be put upon as passage. Move to second resolution be put upon as passage. Under discussion. Alderman Bauman, would you like to? Go ahead. Thank you for turning my mic on. Thank you, Your Honor. The funding, which came actually out of passion from myself, and of course, after I explained the situations of the earthquake and the damages which had resulted within the Degada Prefecture in Japan. We called a special meeting of the International Committee. The damages resulted from two major quakes within two days of proximity. The first quake was nearly eight on the Richter scale and the second one came at seven point, whatever, I can't remember anymore, six point eight, something like that. There have been numerous aftershocks thereafter. And this past Thursday at the emergency meeting that we did hold, it was at the mayor's recommendation after I had spoken to him that we asked for $2,000 to give to the residents of the Degada Prefecture for earthquake relief. And the relief would have been for humanitarian aid, for food, for water, for medical expenses. And also this would be for the thousands of people who were displaced from their homes in the area. As a matter of fact, just today I received another email from Japan that in the city of Sabami, they were shaken out of their beds again this morning from another quake that had another aftershock I should state, which was on four, number four in the Richter scale, he stated. And they're constantly living in fear at the moment until things finally settled down. Could be weeks, could be hopefully just weeks before this all comes to an end. It has virtually interrupted train service from the areas of Tokyo to Degada, which is the main line for transportation for these people for work. Many of them do not use their own private automobiles because private transportation is very expensive with fuel costing over $10 per liter. So they don't really buy fuel that fast or that often. So they do definitely use their trains and other forms of public transportation. So this is again, why we have asked that the amount of $2,500 be given because the mayor did state that instead of 2,000, well, we make it 2,500. I said, sounds good to me. We'll see what committee says. Committee came to a unanimous agreement that yes, it should be used. And thank you very much for the recommendation, your honor. And thank you also to the National Committee for making a recommendation. And we hope the council passes this. Thank you, Alderman Bowman. Does that answer your question? Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you, your honor. I just wanted to ask Alderman Bowman to explain where the money was coming from. Thank you again. The monies, of course, are from, as we stated earlier, the International Committee. The funds are raised through donations by the citizenry, believe it or not, through Taste of Sheboygan County. Various broadfries that we do hold. But the main fundraiser, of course, being Taste of Sheboygan County, which I'll put a plug in for, has always held the first Sunday in March. Again, Alderman Bowman, you may have to answer a few more. Alderman Perez. No, no questions for you. Okay, thank you. In fact, I wanted to thank you for your compassion. I'm a great humanitarian effort. And with all due respect to Alderman Bowman and Alderman Groff, I am probably gonna be the only vote going against this. And it's mainly due to philosophical reasons. I understand the tragedy that has occurred in Japan. But we have so many needs here in Sheboygan locally. We have senior citizens who came pay medicine. They came buy food. The homespun post is being closed. The Boys and Girls Clubs are being threatened. We're transit is being threatened. I just feel from a philosophical standpoint that although we should look out for our neighbors and the world, we need to take care of business at home. So it's mainly philosophical. Okay. Alderman Montemere. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I was going to say, thank you, Alderman Bowman. And I'm so glad to hear that the money is already there and it won't come from us. I'll support you in your efforts to do this with our sister's city. Thank you, Alderman Baum. Alderman Graut. Thank you. And I just wanted to reiterate that there's no tax dollars connected with this at all. It's all from community projects that were raised by members of the International Committee. Also, these monies are supposed to be used according to the goals and the reason there is an International Committee is to create an atmosphere of friendship with international residences and people in other countries. And we do have a sister city in Germany and we do have this sister city in Sabami.  This is really the only monies that we've ever donated to help them where they are living. So that's why we did it. Thank you, Alderman Graut. Very good. Alderman Warner. I thank you and I too would like to thank Alderman Baum and the International Committee for their effort to expand the goodwill across the sea to our sister city, Sabami in Japan. I'll support this effort for our sister city in Sabami. This past summer I had the opportunity to go to Lakeland College and welcome visiting students from Sabami on behalf of Mayor Schramm who could not be there. And these are some great people. I think the small gesture on our part will be well received and very much appreciated by them. And that really is the purpose of the International Committee. Yes, it is. Again, thanks Dennis. You and the committee do an excellent job so keep up the good work and appreciate that. Okay, after another discussion would you call the roll please? Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Segali? Aye. Stefan? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Anserta? Aye. 12 ayes, one no. Motion carried. 1533 by Alderman Stefan. Okay. Alderman Stefan? Your Honor, I move that the resolution I would just mention that the redevelopment authority did review this earlier today and approved it. Would you like to read what we're... Well, I'm going to turn it over to city attorney to explain the Jumanji redevelopment. Graal Leece? Graal Leece. Thank you Alderman Stefan. I believe all the Alderman have a copy of what's called amended and restated ground lease that was handed out. And I believe also the report of committee from the redevelopment authority who met at 5.15 tonight and approved these changes subject to council's approval. Just by way of background, council approved the ground lease a month or so ago and we executed the ground lease with Jumanji Salon & Spa Incorporated early last week and it was acceptable to the developer they were getting ready to... they had submitted a copy of the ground lease to their lending institution associated bank over a month ago and hadn't heard back from them so assumed that their financing was okay. They did have some discussion sort of at the end of the hour but they thought they had resolved that. To make a long story short the ground lease was entered into at that time the developers realized that they wanted to put the ground lease or the land in the name of an LLC that they created that's the same entity or the same individuals as the corporation. So redevelopment authority at the last regular meeting last Thursday agreed to consent it to the assignment of the original ground lease to this Daisy LLC which is Mr. and Mrs. Keith as members. Any event they were set to close Friday afternoon with the bank on the lending and the bank oh and behold raised a number of issues at the last minute sent me a fax about 3 o'clock Friday afternoon with a number of changes that they wanted to see in the ground lease and also asking that we consent to what they call the landlord's release and it was my response that we needed to get redevelopment authority approval to do that and also council approval to amend the ground lease so redevelopment authority called a special meeting earlier this afternoon and this was put on the agenda over the weekend assuming the redevelopment authority would get a quorum and would meet. Anyway, on to the proposed changes to the ground lease again these are basically requested by the bank in order to close the loan for the funding to the Salon people to build their shanty on the south pier. First is that this lease on first page this lease amends and supersedes its entirety that certain ground lease dated October 22nd. Down at the bottom is the first substantive change in surrender of premises. It provides that the landlord shall provide prior written notice of such election to tenants' mortgagee and provided that lender or its successors in the sign shall have consented to such election by landlord to have all tenants improvements removed or demolished and cleared such prior consent of lenders shall not be unreasonably withheld. What that is is that the original provision called for it's an 85-year lease at the end of the lease at the cities, the redevelopment authority's option the tenant either surrenders the premises as is with the building on there well maintained in decent safe and sanitary condition or the redevelopment authority can tell the tenant demolish the building return to us clean slate. The bank doesn't particularly care for that because if they still have money in it they're not crazy about the city just telling them to tear down the building that is the collateral for whatever alone might still be outstanding. So they've requested and I think it's a reasonable request that they get prior notice if we intend to do that and they have the right to consent to that and they won't be unreasonable about their consent. I think that's reasonable request. Page 5 is the double underlined portion at the top of the page this deals with fixtures and equipment, tenant and landlord acknowledge and agree that any and all alterations, additions and improvements constructed by or on behalf of tenant on the premises and all fixtures shall remain subject to lender's security agreement such collateral regardless of anything to the contrary in the lease. Again this is the lender's attempt to maintain their security interest in the premises. They're alone in money to build the building. They want to have some security in the building and I think that's, you know, the developer didn't ask for that but the lender is asking for that. I think it's a reasonable request on the lender's part. It's kind of analogous to subordinating a mortgage to a lender when you've got a mortgage on property so that they can finance the construction. If anybody has any questions feel free to ask. I'll try to go as quickly as I can through these. Page 10 section on effect of condemnation and they requested in 801 and 802 the language is the same in both sections that they're requesting adding that in the event of condemnation by landlord or the city, landlord would provide the lender with prior written, should be prior written notice of its intention to condemn in part or whole of the premises. In addition landlord and borrower acknowledge and agree that lender's security interest shall attach to and continue in tenants' respective interests in any such award. The rationale the bank has for this and it's in the circumstances I think it's reasonable is unlike most landlord-tenant situations the landlord hears the redevelopment authority they've got the right to condemn the tenant as does the city of the right to condemn. It's not too often where the landlord if they ask the tenant to do something or the tenant says no the landlord can turn around and take it anyway. So this gives the lender prior written notice in the event the city or redevelopment authority would seek to condemn its tenant which would be a rare situation in any event and acknowledges that the lender's interest would continue in the tenant's interest in any condemnation award. Again, I think it's a reasonable request by a lender. Page 12, tenants' assignment. Tenant shall not assign or transfer this lease without landlord's prior written consent and then they requested adding notwithstanding the foregoing upon substantial completion of the construction of the premises lender shall have the unqualified right to assign the tenants' rights under the lease upon default under the lender's security agreement and loan documents except as otherwise prohibited by applicable law lender shall provide landlord with prior written notice of any such assignment. This has been a not just with this lender but it's also been an issue with another ground lease we've been working on with proposed SBA financing where the lenders want to be able to in the event that they have to foreclose on the property because the tenant's not making the payments on the loan they want to be able to assign the lease to some third party without having to get our consent so that they can hopefully get their money out of it or continue to get payments from their new S&E. The original request was that there be right to assignment at any time without our consent. This is kind of a compromise language. This deals with this only kicks in upon substantial completion of the construction of the premises. Prior to that if the building is not complete and there's a default and the lender takes over the property the lender would have to get the city's consent to assign it to some third party. But once the building is substantially complete the lender would not have to get consent from the landlord being the redevelopment authority prior to the assignment. As far as precedent on the other side of the river on the riverfront side with the shanties our leases have language both ways. The former Darrow Man buildings where priority sign and harbor wins and that middle building are have language that requires prior approval by the landlord for any assignment. Although the couple of the others that were built down there the LJM building I think the Holbrook buildings has language just like this that says need prior consent prior to substantial completion of construction but after that the lender could assign to some third party without the city's consent. Debated about it the redevelopment authority debated about it but felt that this was a reasonable request on the lender's part and in order to effectuate the loan so that we can get some buildings up there on the south pier it was felt that it was reasonable to agree to this. The protection the city still has although they could assign assuming there was a default the lender took it over and assigned the lease balance of the lease to somebody else they'd still have to meet the zoning on the site and the zoning as you recall it's a plan unit development each particular site gets zoned for particular use and really in order to change that use they'd have to come before the plan commission to request a change anyway so there would be some oversight by the city on whatever new use might be going in there. So in the scope of things we felt redevelopment authority felt it was a reasonable request there also the final change was just to insert the lender I don't think that shows up it doesn't show up on this black line copy but page 14 there those blanks at the bottom of the page were filled in in the final form with the name and address of the bank and the contact person at the bank who would receive notice when it was required under the lease. Then the other item that they had requested is called a landlord's release and that has to do with basically the personal property that would be on the site as collateral to the lender's loan that the landlord would agree to subordinate any interest that the redevelopment authority might have in that collateral to the rights of the secured party, the lender. The redevelopment authority felt that that was also a legitimate request again it's an attempt on the lender's part to avoid in the event of default that we could wipe out the lender's entire security interest. So again redevelopment authority agreed with that and is recommending that the council approve these amendments as well. Any discussion? Hearing none, would you call her all? Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Sagali? Aye. Stefan? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderwheel? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Serda? Aye. And Graf? Aye. Thirteen Ayes. We'll be referred. 1541 through 1545 will lie over. 1546 by public protection and safety recommending authorizing the 10% match of $8,636 as a contribution to the MEG unit grant from the 2005 budget general fund criminal investigation regular salaries account. Alderman, Warner? I thank you, Your Honor. First, I have to move for suspension of the rules. Is there any objections to suspension? Proceed. All right. On that, I would move to accept and adopt the report of committee. We have motion to be forced in a second to accept and adopt the report of committee. Alderman Warner? Under discussion, Your Honor, in the past for whatever reason for 12 years, the MEG unit portion of this, the city's match of 10% of the wages were simply forwarded into that fund and taken care of somehow. And for some reason, we don't really know where it just didn't get through finance or through the council in that type of a manner. But during the budget review process, it was determined that this should go through council. And the problem with this is that it's a timing issue. In order to receive the normal 90% of the MEG unit and lieutenants wages as a grant, we have to have this in by the end of the week. We need that 10% match in by the end of the week. And these amounts are for salary benefits and everything included. So 90% of that median lieutenant salary is covered by grant money if we spend this 10%. The Public Protection Safety Committee recommends approval of this. And I did talk to Alderman Groff over the weekend to let him know that this was coming through. So he was aware of it. And I don't know if the chief has anything to add. But it's pretty important. We've been getting 90% of those wages. I also have Kurt Brasser, who will be the lead lieutenant in the MEG unit if anyone would have any questions as far as the application. But for the past 12 years when we had our officer in charge of this MEG unit, as far as the match requirements, it's 75% is federal dollars, 50% state, and 10% is match money from the city. And salary fringe benefits paid by units of local government to persons or personnel assigned to working in this unit may be used as match money. So for the past 12 years when this grant was applied for we automatically proceeded with it because we have personnel in there. Therefore we used that match money as their salaries. So this time under scrutiny of tighter budgets and things of this nature it was brought to our attention. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Another discussion, would you call the roll? Please. Montemayor. Perez. Segali. Stefan. Van Akron. Van Derweel. Warner. Bowman. Berg. Bonet. Serta. Graf. Manni. Motion carried. We will lie over. 1551 by Public Works recommending entering into a development agreement with Walmart concerning certain required public road improvements serving the area of the Walmart project located at South Taylor Drive in Washington Avenue. Alderman Bowman. Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to ask that we, actually I'll make the motion that we refer this to the committee of the whole. Second. We refer this to the committee of the whole under discussion. Reason for referral, Your Honor, is because of the fact that this information was available to the Public Works Committee, but really not to the rest of the council. And needless to say, some of the questions that some of the council may not have had answered could be answered in the committee of the whole meeting. So this is the reason for asking this question. Second. Correct. Okay. We have a motion. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. Just make sure that that's not going to have a negative impact on a project at all. Paulette? It's out far enough that we're okay. Just to know what their timing is and things like that basically so that the council knows we probably have time for the project. I guess in terms of the timing, the critical thing we're looking for is to close on the property. That's really what's I guess driving our schedule. Obviously construction wouldn't look until next spring. So I guess my question would be to the council is how would that track from there if it is referred? It will go to committee of the whole and it depends on the chairman and then it comes back to council for final approval. Approximately two weeks after that. Yes. With that we'd probably be looking at another extension with the seller with some dollar amount specified. So it would delay that which obviously we're not looking to do at this point. Alderman Warner. I guess I would ask Dan, do we have anything scheduled for the next council meeting? We could do it to the committee about two weeks. Two weeks? I'm not sure what the schedule is for Alderman next Monday. Two weeks, the 15th before the 15th would work. Probably a committee of the whole. Probably the best, get everyone here. And then that could go right to council directly from committee of the whole right to council. Thank you. We have a motion before us. All in favor of the motion? Opposed? No. 52 to be referred. 1440, resolution by Alderman Groff, Steffenburg, Manny, and Montemire. Authorizing a transfer of appropriations in the 2004 budget. Alderman Groff. Thank you, Your Honor. That and document 1441, which is also a resolution to authorize a transfer of appropriations in the 2004 budget. I would move that those two resolutions be put upon their passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Perez. Cigali. Steffen. Van Akron. Van Der Wiel. Werner. Bellman. Berg. Boney. Serda. Groff. Manny. I would move that those two resolutions be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Cigali. Steffen. Van Akron. Werner. Bellman. Berg. Boney. Serda. Groff. Manny. Montemayor. Perez. Motion carried. 1449, general ordinance by Alderman Warner, Van Der Wiel, Ryan Flesch, and Serda relating to a no parking area so as to add Barron's Parkway on both sides from South Business Drive, County Trunk OK to a .1200 feet west thereof. Alderman. Cigali. This is an area, the Barron's Parkway, my husband has worked in that area for 13 years for universal lithographers and I know up until recently they were having the semis and that are no longer parking on the street so I would have to vote no on this one. Thank you. Alderman Warner. I think I would move the general ordinance be put upon its passage. Moved in second ordinance be put upon its passage. Alderman Cigali's concerns on that this is the east part of it that 1200 feet I think where if you park a car on there you can't even drive through there with a truck where they have that island or whatever that runs through it so I don't think I'm not sure maybe Silas can update me since he works over in that area that it's only the first 1200 feet of Barron's Parkway. It's not the entire stretch but what happens if you there was one instance where they had a fire truck was trying to get out there and it was a car an employee of the company was parking on the place where where that median strip is and they couldn't drive through there they had to go over the median and drive around the car because the employee didn't want to park in a parking lot and that's the section that we're talking about I guess if not Barron's Parkway from OK to a point 1200 feet west of OK in the area where they have that median that goes and if you park a car there the trucks can't drive past it just that area yes not the other part down by French where the my understanding if it isn't we'll look at it I think all in in January we may have something thank you owner I don't travel that way a whole lot I don't go that way but fire truck had to come in we actually had to physically have somebody back out of there and I believe Alderman Warner's correct that it's just where that median is right there you guys sure you don't want to double check just before we pass it and bring it back in no satisfied okay we have a motion to second before us would you call the roll please Stefan van Akron van der Wiel Warner Bowman Berg Bonnet Serta Graf Manny Montemayor Perez and Segali 12 eyes 1 no motion carried 1451 by Alderman Warner van der Wiel Serta and Rainflesh many of the code entitled entitled fire protection and prevention so as to update the chapter limit fireworks displays clarify penalties in reference current state and national codes adopted by the city Alderman Warner I would make a motion to general ordinance put upon its passage we have motion to second before us under discussion under discussion your honor in some cases this brings us into compliance with state and national codes this was a lengthy effort by Mike Hutz and the fire department and the city assistant city attorney was involved in this also to help ensure the safety of our citizens and the safe discharge of fireworks at special events such as the 4th of July in the city when the committee recommends passing general discussion would you call the roll please van Akron van der Wiel Warner Bowman Berg Bonnet Serta Graf Manny Montemayor Perez Segali and Stefan Thirteen Eyes Motion period 1553 city attorney it's an arrow by the city clerk's communication from all the person Richard Manny to all the other persons regarding support in an overture to labor with regard to the budget and that we will send to seller agreements 1554 is a committee report by public protection safety regarding mayor's executive budget review referred to proposed budgets budget cuts for the police department fire department building inspection emergency operation center civil defense police and fire commission sanitation department was approved and that will lie over and I also have a communication I'm sending to the council that will go to the November 26 budget meeting and it is a suggestions and where we can lower tax on it by one more percent so I'll send that along I need a motion all in Warner I would move to approve no I need a motion to go I'm sorry I was looking at last one talking talking to my comrade I'm out of a move to convene closed session under the exemption provided in section nineteen point eight five one G the Wisconsin staff for the purpose of conferring with legal counsel for the city who is rendering oral advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the common counsel with respect to case number 04 CVO 04 English matter bed and breakfast at L for city at L we have a motion to second before us to go into closed session under discussion hearing none would you take the roll Bowman Berg Bonet Serta Graf Manny Montemayor Perez Segali Stefan Van Akron Vanderweel and Warner thirteen eyes motion carry take five minutes and we'll get right back grab a soda we'll be right back