The committee of the whole is called to order. Thank you for coming here tonight and a happy Halloween everybody. Would you call the roll please? Bowman. Here. Beaver. Here. Ebert. Here. Serda. Here. Davis. Here. Excuse me. Raph is here. Kittleson. Here. Manning. Here. Meyer. Here. Montemarro. Here. Radke. Here. Seagaling. Here. Stefan. Excuse. Van Akron. Here. Vanderwee Lee. Excuse. Thirteen are present, a quorum is present. Thank you, Alderman Graf. Agenda item number two, we're going to forego for right now because I don't have the minutes. Agenda item number three, RC number 2690506 by finance agenda item 1471. Your committee to whom was referred RO number 3150506 by the city plan commission and resolution number 1360506 by Alderperson Graf, Manny and Sushia approving the revised capital improvements program recommended by the capital improvements commission for the program period 2006-2010 and adopting the 2006 program for implementation recommends that the program be amended to fund the police facility at $7 million in 2007 and city hall remodeling at $3 million in 2007 and approve as amended. Alderman Graf. Madam Chairperson, I would move it this time that the RC be accepted and adopted and that the resolution be put upon its passage. Are there a second? Second. It's been moved and approved, moved and seconded. The RC 2690506 be approved as amended. Discussion. I was wondering if maybe Rich, could you address us first? I see you've given us a handout and we'd like to hear your information about money. Thank you. Thank you. I guess I'll just briefly go over the main points of what I tried to put in the two pages. If the committee and the council decide to issue the bonds for the police facility in 2006, there will be additional increases in the tax levies for 2006 and 2007 budgets. And there will be additional operating costs incurred when the building is completed in 2007. Issuing the police facility bonds in 2006 will increase the tax levy by half percent, up to four and a half percent for the 2006 budget. This would fund four months of interest from June 2006 to October 2006. Issuing the police facility bonds in 2006 would increase the tax levy about one percent for the 2007 budget and bring the tax levy increase for that year to approximately 5.4 percent. The major concern is the 2007 operating budget. Under the state tax levy limit, the council will not be able to increase the tax levy more than two percent for all operational cost increases for the 2007 budget. A two percent increase in the tax levy for the general fund would be approximately $277,000. With other anticipated revenue decreases, there'll be no growth in revenues for the old seven budget. The general fund would incur mandatory expenditure increases including step and longevity wage increases, health plan increases, and utility and energy increases. If the construction of the police facility begins in June 2006 and is completed in the following June, the council will have to provide for one half of the anticipated annual utilities and maintenance costs of $464,000 within the 2007 budget. The increase in the operational cost for the police facility needs a determined source of recurring funding before we can make a commitment for construction or it'll mean that our services and current employees will need to be reduced in 2007. Are there any questions? Mr. Gephardt, after all that information, what is your recommendation about when we should do the bonding? Because that's what you're talking about, right? I guess there are a couple of elements in here. One is the timing of the debt issuance, the other is the timing of the construction. Normally they go hand in hand at the same time. There are some other options that could be done within locking into some of the debt versus the construction time, but that's not our normal process, our usual process is after we receive the bids in that we know the exact amount of the contract or for a large project like this, you wanna know what your bids are so you don't borrow too much or too little. And then the month following, you have the bids that you would issue the debt. But I guess as far as my recommendation is, I guess my, as I said, you're emphasizing that my main concern right now is the 2007 operating budget. If we were to wait a portion of a year to start this at the beginning of old seven, then we would not have the additional operating cost in old seven. So I guess my recommendation would be the same as the finance committee's recommendation at this point. Thank you, Mr. Gephard. Alderman Dan Burke. We got a million set aside already for the pre-separation, right? There is available for in funding, yes. If we could start in June 206, why isn't it possible to borrow half of that seven million to get the project in gear and instead of, say we borrowed four million, then in 207 instead of 12,700,000, we'd only have to borrow eight million if we would borrow the four million for 206. The problem comes in when you, the council lets a contract to the construction company for building the new police facility. And I would assume it'll be around the $7 million area. We would have to provide that funding before we can let that contract. So we have to have those funds available to us before we can sign that contract because that's one of the elements on there that we do have provided for the funding to pay for the construction. I think it would be difficult, I guess I would might have to turn to others on it, but we have in some cases split some of the projects. In this case, we could do it between the remodeling of city hall and the new building. I mean, those two functions could be split, but I think it would be very difficult to hand a contract to a contractor and said this is half a contract, build a half of a building for us. You know, we would have to have the full money to let the contract for the full building. Thank you, Mr. Gephart. Thank you. I got one more. On the ratings here, it says the police department number one, city parks number three, but we're ready to go ahead in 206 to borrow 125,000 and I guess 400,000 out of block grant money. That's almost a half a million dollars just for parks. And if that's gonna happen, then in your DPW budget, you better put $30,000, $40,000 for all the damages that are done to the city parks because right now there's a lot of damage done to these city parks. Mr. Savanash, about, because why talk about borrowing money in 206 if we have to find out his timeline? Before we talk to Mr. Savanash, I see that Alderman Sigali would like to ask one question or do you wanna ask it after we talk to Mr. Savanash? I'd like to ask it now. Mr. Rich, now Alderman Burke said we had a million dollars put away. Okay, now you said we have some funds available. Are you saying it's less than a million dollars? No, I didn't. Because I've seen in the paper like 290,000. Now if that's the case, where is the rest of the money? The money has been provided in the capital project fund for most of that funding. We do have a contract obviously with Zimmerman as part of that. There is also a council has reserved 550,000 of the general fund fund balance that is reserved for the project but has not been appropriated yet. But otherwise it's in the capital project fund at this point. And if you wanna ask it, now if you wanna wait in your place to serve it. Alderman Manning. Thank you Madam Chair. Simple detail, the operational cost estimate for 2007 at $464,000 in change is based on the square foot of what size building? I think that was, well that was the full annual cost that we want to be half of that that would be probably incurred in 07. But that was for what they had requested in the capital improvements program. And I might have to turn to Mr. Sabanation. Is that 65,000 square feet? When they first were looking at this in, you remember Al? Was this based on the 80,000 square foot building, the original, is it $464,000 operating cost? It may have been, I'm not sure the square footage. It was the, I know the police department had looked at other buildings for recently constructed similar facilities in the state. And they kind of took an average of those facilities of what it would take to, for utilities and maintenance. And does that answer your question? I don't realize that it's not very precise, but it's what we have right now to go by. All in service, something forward together. Thank you Madam Chair. I look at these numbers and I'm wondering sometimes if we're working ourselves backwards. You've outlined for us that there could be a shortfall of operational costs for this new facility of $464,420. I guess I'm waiting for a suggestion on how to make that work. To me it seems that we have a bill coming due and whether we like it or not, we're gonna have to pay that bill just by putting it off. I have no answers here in front of me on how we're still gonna do this, but yet this council has decided that we're going to make a police station a priority. We need to see some numbers on how to make that work. You've outlined here that services, cuts for services or current employees, what is your projection in terms of, because I'm sure you had to outline how many positions we're gonna have to cut in order to meet this shortfall and how much is that? Well, again, it would be half of that amount for all seven would be impacted about two months. That's just for one year, correct? So we're looking at like two months. For half of a year, yes. So how many positions are we looking at? For 230,000 from the, while we've gauged in the past, it would probably be five people. And then for each additional year and going into then the following year, 464, so then more people then? And again, right now, no one really knows what's gonna happen in 2008. We don't have anything from the state as far as our legislation that's gonna impact municipalities, whether there be levy limits, whether there be any funding increases or decreases and shared revenues. We really don't know beyond that. Do you see similarities in other municipalities where they're putting off capital improvement projects because of similar revenue issues that this is, because I foresee with these numbers that we don't have room to do anything in the future. Right now under the state constraints, a lot of communities are very concerned. Some of them are looking at Laos 406. I cannot really speak for their capital projects. Sometimes we exchange comments or emails in reference to the operating budget, but I have not really heard about their capital project levels. And lastly, just with the $1.7 million that we'll be spending and increases on parks, have you equated that to, and maybe Tom Holton could help also, as how much we're gonna need an additional employee support for these parks now with the new additions and stuff? I would have to turn to Tom on that. The improvements for the parks are basically replacement of existing restroom facilities, so there wouldn't know at Cleveland Park, at Vets Park, repair, work at Qantas Park, replacing King Park, so there aren't any new structures other than the splash pad at End Park, which really, that's not gonna be anything of high maintenance, so I guess what I'm saying is there wouldn't be any requests for additional employees of those new facilities. Actually, it's probably saved us some money with the new equipment. Okay, so we're saying that at End Park we're gonna be putting in a splash pad, or I just have some concerns, I guess I would use the analogy that it makes sense to borrow for a home, borrowing money for a home, but not necessarily borrowing money for a swing set in the backyard. I perceive that as a want, not necessarily a necessity. We've already outlined some money from the community block grants, which makes sense because we are improving our parks, but to borrow money, that's where I have some concerns considering the information that was just told to us. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Alderman Serta. Alderman Elgin-Burke. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. And I'm understanding that your assessment correctly, we know what the next two years are going to be in terms of bumping up against the levee limit. The only way around that, however, would be to go to referenda, now is referenda for bonding only or can we go to referenda for operational costs? Because again, the levee limit is comprised of a number of things. Yes, I believe that legislation does allow for you to go to referenda for operating costs, but the timing of it is a little bit difficult to know what your total cost is and then to get it into an election. But because we basically are putting the budgets together in the fall and generally we have a spring election, we may have a fall election in the whole six, but. So, yes, I think that is an alternative that the legislation does provide. The unfortunate, the decision we need to make is by November so that you can put a budget together and roll that up and do that. I guess the second question, do you have any sense of what an economic model would be for 2008, 2009? Because one of the thoughts is, right now we're bumping up against a number of unknowns. In other words, a meet our law that may rule in favor of the unions and thus require us to either, if you would find additional money or lay off a significant amount of staff, and also perhaps unknown operating costs in terms of energy and things like that. Is there anything that you have that senses that I guess are you an optimist or a pessimist starting on 11 2008? I guess I'm always a pessimist, but I gotta be honest at that point, right? That's always the conservative approach, but I guess just knowing that what we've been hearing from Madison, we got the race between for the governor coming up, I'd assume both sides will be saying, continue to be saying no new taxes or tax restraints. So I assume the dialogue is not gonna change too much in Madison. It's a question yet, whether they're gonna try for Tabor or whether it's gonna be within the state statute, but I would assume there will probably see some restraints. I think going back into the 70s or so in Wisconsin, there is, they had a level of tax limits and restraints and they lasted about eight years. So if that's any gauge to go by. I, if I may insert in here, did find a reference in here in the Kaplan improvements program in the description for the, from the police department reference to the maintenance that they were looking at other facilities such as Oak Creek that was at 60,000 square feet. And they kind of ratio that to a department of for Sheboygan of 80,000 square feet. And so they put in $290,000 for utilities and maintenance repairs. And then also another 174,000 for three maintenance personnel. And of course, we might be able to cut back on a maintenance personnel if it's adjacent to City Hall, but also maybe the utilities might be going up with the energy situation. So you may have some offsets there. Thank you, Mr. Gappard. Mr. Berg, does that answer your questions? Alderman Berg, thank you so much. Alderman Radke and then perhaps we can go on to Mr. Sabanich. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We're sitting here talking about swing sets. We're talking about all kinds of neat little things and Alderman Berg just brought up a very good word. It's called unknown. The biggest unknown we have here today is how much is this thing going to cost us?  Is there any plans and paper? I mean, we're sitting here tossing about all these numbers, but nobody has said what this thing is gonna cost. There's no plan on the table. So let's quit wasting time and get to the bottom of this thing. Thank you, Alderman Radke. Alderman Graf. Thank you. I agree with what Alderman Radke said, and that's one of the reasons if we move into 2007, the capital improvements for 2007 will be worked on all next year during 2006. The new capital improvements commission will be voting on what is needed in there once they get the figures and the drawings or whatever we need from Zimmerman and associates to do this police facility. And I agree we should probably move on to Mr. Sabinash if he's ready to give us some information. I hope that he will be able to. Thank you, Alderman Graf. Mr. Sabinash, thank you for being here. My pleasure. I think that one of the questions that had come to fruition over the preceding months was a question of duration and schedule. And so today I came to hopefully address those questions as the committee sees fit to proceed with the project. I wanted to talk at the outset about some architectural terminology so that I think everybody will hopefully understand how we as architects proceed with the design of a building. There are distinct phases that are written into our contract which are common within the industry. The first phase that I wanna talk about and give you a framework of a schematic design and what schematic design is. Schematic design is the idea phase. It's the time when all ideas are provided and as many options that exist are considered by the owner to facilitate the best design possible. The phase that follows that is called design development. That's what I would refer to as the reality phase. That's when the engineers start working intensively on the project and they start imposing their will upon the design. So they'll help us to make sure that ductwork is sized adequately that ductwork work crosses beams and so forth has been taken into account. The next phase is construction documents as the time when we make very few changes to the design will enhance what's there but will generally keep the footprint of the building uniform. I'll be working on putting as much information on paper so that the contractors who are pricing the project in question have as much information available to them so that they're all bidding on the same work and it's that point that we have a major release of the documents. That timeframe that I've described has always been envisioned as about seven months. From the time we go ahead to begin reconsidering where we are in terms of the design it would take us about seven months to get to the point where we're ready to go out on the street and solicit bids from contractors. It's likely that the bidding phase which would follow the construction administration phase would take about a month to two months. In the ideal sense probably about a month to bid and a month to mobilize and get contracts in place and that that would be followed dependent upon the time of the year that that entire process culminated by the construction administration phase of our contract. More importantly for the city it's the time when the contractor is feverishly working to build the project that we've identified in the construction documents. That will have variation in it again depending on the year. If we looked at the time where we sit now and said well where would we be if we proceed into the next budgeting process maybe into November get approval around Thanksgiving well where does that seven months fall? The seven months if we begin at December 1st would go until June of 2006 and if we say it's about a month, month to mobilize, month to bid that we get a starting in earnest with a contractor on site in September. If somebody said can you improve on that schedule? The answer would be yes but within limits. I can't lop off five months but I could maybe look at five weeks. I could look at two weeks but you'd be realistically looking at a project that started construction around Labor Day of 2006. The alternatives that were discussed were if you started in 2007 and the contractor began working in 2007 then we would work backwards which is one of the ways that Rich had described you. You work from a finite deadline and then you add your time in front rather than adding the time at the back and seeing where you end up. There are certain strategic advantages to that. If we start in September 1st that's not, we're really knocking on the door of winter at the beginning of September. And so the question that I would have is have we compressed the ability or have we provided the ability for the contractor to compress his schedule so that we're not bearing undue costs for winter construction if we didn't have to and are we making the contractor accelerate his process to where we pay a premium? We would probably like to avoid both. Realistically work back from a 2007 start timeframe. We had the project basically starting up in the first quarter of 2007 in March of that year. We would be bidding at the tail end of 2006 and then starting construction in the early part of 2007, January, February. We see some strategic advantages in that and that if the contractor's able to get access to the site the very beginning of 2007 it's likely that they could complete the construction within a year. Our thought on September as the starting point leads us to a conclusion that it's more likely that it would take 12 to 14 months to build the project. They're just not gonna be as good at building in November, December of 2006 as they will be when they have access to the good weather that comes with the spring. So we think that although the timeframes are fairly close that it's likely we can probably compress the construction duration that's good for you because you pay less for general conditions. And there's really not that much of a differential if we're talking about a January 1st or a February 1st versus a September 1st. We see those timeframes as being very close. So then when we look at how much time that you would like to have with committees and review of the project it seems likely that beginning next year and planning the project seems to make some sense. And if it fits your fiscal requirements then that seems to make sense on two fronts. She was very clear, I thank you so much. Does the council have any questions? Odin Sagali. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you could answer this question that's part of Rich's, it says in reference to inflationary costs you, Mr. Sabin, I should expect cost increases for construction for 2006 to 2007 to be around 7% and with letting contracts in early 2007 we'd be losing six month inflation and cut 7% to 3.5%. Can we be sure of that? Well, I wish my crystal ball was that good because I probably would be on Wall Street. It's not, I can say this, when we generated the cost related to the project we used $2006. So the project as it's currently formulated in terms of construction cost and other project cost is a 2006 number. I would agree that if you started the project and there is a lot of debate in the office and within the contracting industry that we pulled to try to determine what that inflation cost was going to be. The general feeling was we've gone through a number of different heart spikes and medium spikes within the industry and the construction industry has traditionally had adjustments in certain time frames but it has generally been a stable inflationary environment in most cases. There are certain, if a hurricane goes through Florida and the price of plywood goes up, the industry's always been fairly good at absorbing those incidents. But what it tends to do is it tends to go ahead at a fairly stable or fairly low inflation cycle and then it'll just spike. And it seems that most of the products that we've encountered to date have just been absorbed into the latest spike which is about a three-year spike which is generally longer than most of the spikes we've seen in the industry. And so when the contractors we talked to looked at it they said it's probably more like 5% but the consumer price index is about two and a half if you wanted to cover yourself say seven and so we did that because we don't know and we're using all of our tools to try to determine what that is but again it's a forecast and people who forecast something other than about 10% two years ago were wrong. So we have that caution. As it relates to the inflation it is correct that if you start and a project is six months ahead of the other that the thing to be aware of is that you are really taking half a year of inflation out of the project equation. And so if the forecast were correct and seven were the right number theoretically six month duration would save you about 3% across the cost of the project. I don't know that the six month is actually correct based on where we currently sit. I think it's closer to four months, September to January rather than six months but again we could potentially look at ways to improve on the 2007 schedule. If there was a 2006 schedule which was the early start schedule in the 2007 there are ways because we're dealing with a whole year that we could look at accelerating that schedule to get you into the timeframe you're looking for. I would still suggest that what we're trying to avoid is a contractor holding a bid for an extended duration. I don't wanna get into 90, 120 day holds on their bid. So I'd like to keep the start date as close as possible to the bid date because again anytime you put 90 and 100 day limits onto bid or qualify bids in that way the natural tendency in the industry is to charge a little more than they would otherwise. So I look at the current schedule and say maybe it's closer to five or four months of difference and what you have to consider is it's a forecast of what the industry thinks inflation is gonna be and those are, they're not always correct. Even from contractors. We use contractors a lot to verify our assumptions and they hedge their bets as well as ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Segali does that answer your question? Sure does. Thank you. Alderman Dan Byrd. You read yourself now. Mr. Savanage. You would be comfortable and more relaxed with starting in the spring of 207. Like you said, that would give you time to work with bids and all that stuff. Well, we're dealing with a complex project. Right. So the more time that we have as part of the planning process, the more latitude we have that as I've said before, we work within timeframes but there are times that as a designer, sometimes it just isn't working and you have to go back to the drawing board and you go back and you go back and you go back and so there is certainly more time built in the second timeframe to cover if something isn't working that there's time in the schedule to address it. Whereas if you started immediately and said, boy, I gotta be out in June. There's less latitude in that schedule to deal with what if it just isn't working for some reason and now if I lose two weeks, now the schedule starts to drive pretty heavily what happens on the design. We don't wanna ignore the schedule but it certainly would be more comfortable if within the schedule there was latitude to deal with administrative protocols that we haven't really covered yet. What if something just isn't working as a designer and you gotta start working on the weekends to make sure when you bring something back on Tuesday to be viewed, it works. I think that the one schedule has more latitude and the other has less. But from my own perspective, it's not so much that one has more time in it, it's that I don't think the first schedule gets you out when you should be out. It's a weird time. To be starting in September is not only it hasn't been done, contractors work in bad weather all the time. This is Wisconsin. But the guy pouring concrete and the Mason who's out on site who's working with gloves on just isn't as productive as the guy who's working in March and April. I've said this before. I wish that there was a formula that showed everything but sometimes things just seem more appropriate when you view them using the little voice in the back of your head. And September's just an awkward time to be starting a project. Okay. Aldenberg, does that answer your question? Like I say, I was all for pushing for 206. But if he, he's the man we hired and he's more comfortable with the 207, then I will go along with the 207 as much as I don't like to. But he makes a lot of sense because like I said, I was in the building trades for 15 years and I know where he's coming from.  Thank you, Aldenberg. Alderman Stephan. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the other questions and maybe it's, we're just not aware. I know there's your meeting behind the scenes with people. The concern I had with pushing it to 2006 was I wasn't comfortable knowing that $7 million was the magic number.  I was on the finance committee six months ago when you said, here's 18 million. And granted that included some stuff that we've probably cut out now. And I guess whether it's 2006 or 2007, do you have a feeling yet whether $7 million builds what we need for a police station because a lot was made of Jamesville and they're five million and everybody said, well, that really doesn't count because it's only good for 10 years. I don't wanna be here in 10 years again if we build a $7 million police station. I guess just like your comments on that. Well, we haven't looked at a $7 million solution. And I think that that merits a lot of conversation with the men who carry the weapons that are in this room. We haven't had that yet. If the council deemed it appropriate that that was the funding level, that would be the first thing we would talk about is how do you skin a $7 million cat? And if it came back that there were problems programmatically or for whatever reason, then we would bring it back to whatever authority existed to return that information to, to talk about the things that were either significant sacrifices or significant problems to try to come up with a solution to them. But it would be there. That's a significantly different number. So there would be significant changes. And there again, 2007 allows more conversation, more time to make those, to see what we get for seven, what we get for 10, what we get for 13, whatever the case is. Yes. Thank you, Alderman Steffen. Alderman Graf. Thank you. I was just gonna mention exactly what you said. If we, if we do it in 2007, we have another year of capital improvements to look at it and to advise. But also it's really the million dollars that we had or that we have plus the $7 million dollars. You're looking at eight million or eight and a half million if you include the, the, the contract that we've already let and so forth. So we can always make that adjustment in 2006, 2004, 2007. Thank you, Alderman Graf. Alderman Serda. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can see the, I can see one advantage though in starting in 2006 as far as in terms of the conservative schedule. Because if there's one thing I've been told over and over and reiterated is that typically when you set a date in certain deadlines, they're usually exceeded because construction at times can be unknown on foreseen. So by using the conservative schedule, we could still be pushing things out. Whereas going in 2007, we have more flex time but still again, there's no guarantees. I know in the report it had mentioned underpinning of this current structure and that there's a lot of unforeseen costs with that and it can be very difficult when starting and stopping with that. So again, this could get longer and longer. And I was also wondering if you could clarify the construction schedule. In 2006, we're looking at possibly winter. In 2007, you mentioned January and February. There doesn't seem to be a real difference there in terms of Wisconsin's weather. Well, I had in the, the formula that I used, I had mobilization in January, start of construction in February. Seeing as we have some demolition, February is a okay month for demo. You're really keeping your fingers crossed that we don't have a brutal winter but March is not a horrible time to begin excavation. You could, if we have a really cold winter, it could get delayed. There's no doubt about that. But philosophically, it would impact the project under construction probably more acutely. What we would love to be able to say is that when you already have the contractor on site, well, when you already have the contractor on site, the natural tendencies, you're probably going to pay more for those delays than if it happened early in the schedule because they've made other commitments for manpower and other project sites and the like. The thing that I look at relative to the schedule is if we're straddling winter at the time when it's critical, and I'm looking at a September start, my construction is 12 to 14 months. In concept, if I can accelerate the construction on the latter project, the two months difference in that construction schedule really makes a big difference. I mean, general conditions on a project of this magnitude can be 50 to $100,000 for a couple of months for job trailer, project management, project superintendent, insurance, et cetera. So the idea is can you avoid, in concept, having the, and aside from my feed, this is a major capital expenditure. If you can compress that construction schedule, if you can consolidate and get good bids, that's where you're going to save the most money. And so if I have a 14 month construction duration and I can potentially cut it to 12 months, even potentially 10, Janesville is built in 10 months, that's going to save you more money than you'd probably see just by accelerating the schedule. Sometimes you can accelerate the schedule so much that you get into a strange time and you don't actually save yourself any money by the end of the effort. So you could potentially, September, October, November, you see, I mean, there's almost a four month differential. If you took the pessimistic viewpoint and said 14 months on the more aggressive schedule and we had a good winter, you could potentially see a 10 month construction on the other project and that four months actually disappeared. You finished at the same point in that schedule. So I can always say that as an architect, it's always better if you have more time in the schedule to do design because it leaves you the ability to address unforeseen issues. But you still have to be respectful of the schedule. If the schedule tends to go on at Infinitum as an architect, I don't do well from a profitability standpoint and I do want to do well. But I also want to be able to control not only the architecture schedule, but I want to control the construction schedule. And I think that you're also playing within that timeframe the opportunity that exists by bidding a project at the end of the year. Contractors are looking for backlog. This will be a big project. Contractor wants to have a nice 2007, it's going to be very competitive in that marketplace at the end of the year. And again, that September timeframe is just, it's an awkward timeframe. I can't get enclosed. I can't get a roof on. I can't achieve the things that I would normally be trying to achieve within the schedule. You're not going to fail in a September construction duration, but I don't know that I've maximized the value of the contractor by condensing his time. One thing just to reiterate too, by using the conservative schedule in 2006, we do a lot. It could work to our favor that if there is an unforeseen problem at this site that we are pushing that off, that is one benefit. Typically when using a conservative schedule, it's helpful in terms of the costs versus allotting for more flex time. Well, I need to make sure that I've got enough time in to do the best construction documents that I can. The better the construction documents, the more likely that we're going to have contractors are bidding the same work and the more competitive they'll be. So the way I view our schedule, it's a project you're going to be living in for a long, long time. I don't necessarily want to rush our schedule just to do that. I have to be respectful of that schedule again, but I want to do a good design. I want to do the design that works. It would be unfortunate if as a result of a bad design that was rushed, the police department had to hire four more people. I mean, think about what that cost is over the duration of a project or they're 5% less efficient as an organization. Those are bad things to do and that's what we're trying to avoid by having adequate planning time at the outset and then also again, strategically positioning your project so that it is highly desirable to the contracting entities of the world is also important. And I fully respect that given that September date, but if there was a potential, maybe you had to go back and rework something during you said the schedule phase. It allots for that time to give you a more time and then pushes it off into maybe pretty similar to January, February. And there is a finite stop time in the schedule as it's currently devised. I mean, we're working with that seven month block. You could say, well, I really want to start. I'm not so concerned with when you finish, but I really want to start. I mean, I could start tomorrow. I could get done with my planning phase and the project can sit until the time that it's strategically appropriate to be released. So there is latitude in the definition of how the work could proceed so that, again, it's placed appropriately in the marketplace. And if there was a time to stop, it's just before bidding. You can sit in my drawer for a couple of months and it certainly hurts nobody by having that intellectual property sitting in a drawer if it's so desired and that's a possibility. If you said, I really want to start, we could start, but I don't want to extend seven months into nine months or 10 months because I don't know that you're going to get value out of that. Thank you, Mr. Sabanash. Thank you, Alderman Sarada. Alderman Eldenburg. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I guess I'm very much appreciative of both Mr. Gebhardt and Mr. Sabanash. I think you've made some very clear and convincing arguments for waiting and I think you both would be horrible timeshare salesman because I walked in tonight feeling like there was going to be some level of pressure to make a decision and I think you've argued very effectively for your position of taking some time and designing the best station rather than having a slap a $7 million price tag on it and have you go from there. However, that being said, are there some reasonable costs that we know we are going to incur that could be placed in say 2006? One thing I think of if we demolish the police garage, you're going to have to have some place for the squad cars. Well, I know that that's going to be part of your program development. One thought would be if we can quickly make a decision is the footprint large enough to accommodate fleet services or are we better off looking, for example, at relocating fleet services at the Municipal Service Building where I think construction costs would be significantly lower? We know we're going to have to put the fleet someplace. We know that we have to be ready for that sometime in early 2007. I guess are those realistic discussions to have that could assist us or allow us to, if you would start some of the project now knowing they're going to be costs that are incurred in the future? Yes, I would tend to say that as part of the evolution of the project budget, those kinds of discussions are going to be had with the police department to determine what's going to be included in the project and what won't. I would add that because I think I need to. I don't want somebody else coming in to say this. We could go through more exotic methods of delivering the project than we're talking about. We could do bid pages for footings and foundations and the like and accelerate all of the schedules in place. In most instances, municipalities don't want to do that because there are more uncertainties that are coming after commitments have been made in construction dollars, but there are ways to accelerate the construction side. It's just that more often than not, I find municipalities want to know what the total cost is, not that the footing and foundation package seems to be in line and then they hit with a, the fourth bid package down the line and find out that their budget has a problem. So most of the time we're talking about a single prime bid and that's the scenario that I painted out was how do you get a contractor, a person that you will contract with to provide all of the building services? But again, if you said there were specific criteria that dictated that you accelerate the construction schedule, there are mechanisms to do that. I don't want to make it seem that there's only one way to deliver it. There are more than one way to deliver a project like this. And I think, you know, along with that, there's relocation of the fleet and the impact if you would on police and city hall operations, if you're opening ground in November and December, because obviously sooner or later you're going to, you know, have to attach it to this building. And I guess there's some question on how, and again, those are design questions, but how are we going to, if you would run the business of government during the time you've got backhose and all the other things that are digging up our back lot? And I trust you've had some experience with that and we have some thoughts on that. It will be, staging the project will be a particular concern, especially for contractors who are dealing on fairly restrictive sites. They'll be looking for laydown space. They'll be looking for employee parking, aside from your own parking needs and the needs of the downtown as a whole. So there will be particular challenges. They'll have to be overcome on the site, but given the magnitude of the project, you'll be dealing with a certain sophistication level of the contractors who'll be working on it. And most of those contractors have dealt with those types of issues before. Thank you, Mr. Aldenberg. Alderman Aldenberg. Mark Alderman-Sagali. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. First of all, we just got word tonight through someone that there is some design going through the internet concerning the new police station. Did that come from you so that we make everybody know if they come on the internet, whether that design was from you or not? We haven't started the design of the project on this site. So whatever is out there, does not have my fingerprints on it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Sagali. Finance committee. Okay, supposedly we have a million dollars here set aside for this initially. Now, whether we do or not doesn't, I never got an answer to that. But when it comes down to the idea phase and design development, et cetera, do we have money now that in 2006, we could start the initial phase of this and then do the borrowing in 2007 that we could kind of do this up a little bit where it wouldn't be as much of a cost altogether? Do we have enough to initially give Mr. Savanesh that he would be able to start on the designs, et cetera, on the police station? Oh, yes, we do. Yes, we do. Alderman Grash. Rich, we do have that. Yes, as I mentioned, the money is in the capital projects fund and we do have a contract with Zimmerman Design. It's somewhere over a half million dollars for designing this project. It is encumbered. The purchase order has been led on that. The money is there and that was one of the first phases that the council had let. That's already happening. That's already happening. And there might even be some left over in that to begin like say, for instance, we had talked about a demolition or something like that. We might be able to start something like that but I can't say that for sure. It kind of depends on the design and the rest of Mr. Savanesh's work that he's been to do for us. Thank you, Alderman Grash. Alderman Manning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Three questions. Right now in our document, we basically plus money saved and ready to go, we have about eight million dollars we're talking about to build whatever size police station that might build. My question then is what square footage might that build? And secondarily, what design would you go with? Is this going to be two story, three story and third, given that limited amount of dollars from your perspective, can you build a site at a certain number of square feet that is more readily expandable in 10 to 15 years than might not be? Could you go through that first one? I was thinking about your third one. How many square feet can we get for eight million? General terms. We haven't worked through that and the reason I'm not trying to be evasive but there are really two cost model factors that we've worked with in the budget. One is cost per square foot and anticipated construction costs for vehicle storage and others for the balance of the building. And when we ran an initial cost model based on the 10 million dollar project that seemed to be coming out of finance, it was about a 65,000 square foot facility. That would need and still hasn't had input from the PD. If there was a dollar value less than that, you're more effective at reducing construction costs by cutting the building piece rather than the vehicle storage piece. But what you cut first is really a discussion between the police department that we haven't had. So if, and I'm gonna use wildly different numbers that are in the report just to demonstrate, if the building costs $200 a square foot and the vehicle storage costs $100 a square foot, clearly I'm more effective at reducing construction costs by cutting the building cost and cutting the square footage in the building than the vehicle storage. But we have not had those discussions. So I don't, if somebody said $8 million, it's gonna be less than 65,000 square feet, clearly. And I would hazard a guess not being the chief of police, he'd say, we'll get rid of the vehicle storage first and leave me as much program as I could get. But I don't know that. In terms of expansion and in terms of multi-story, when we did the first projection on site, we're looking at a fairly large building. It was the base building program. We're down to something less than 65,000 square feet. So anything that reduces the amount of building on the site is likely a good thing. It's a tight site. Give us more latitude and give us more options. I would tend to say I don't wanna do anything more than two stories because the function of the building works best at one story and two stories and two stories being the same model that we had taken a look at on the previous site, which is vehicle storage evidence and some training functions at the lower level and then the balance of the police department functions at the upper level. Now within that design, it might be that it's all of that stuff at grade and the equivalent of the second floor of this building might be the police department. It might be that's all underneath the police department. The police department's at the first floor of this building. We haven't gone through that yet. In terms of strategies for expansion, I would tend to say that if we're looking at police department expansion, it's better to leave a space on site for an expansion rather than building on top of it. And that's just based on the nature of expanding on top of functioning buildings. It's one thing to build on top of this building, which would be difficult in and of itself. But it's not a 24 seven kind of building. I can take disruptions. I can have things that happen on the weekend even that would have minimal impact on how this building function. I can't do that on a police department building. So when it gets to the point where it's time to tear the roof off and say, hey, we're gonna be building on top of you. What happens on the floor beneath that construction is often disruptive, almost unilaterally can't be weathertight adequately. And so it's very difficult to add on top of the building. So I would tend to want to restrict and reserve portions of the site for expansion in areas that seem to be appropriate rather than building on top. But given that we have a tight site on top might be the only scenario. There are ways to deal with how that roof would be framed that would make it less disruptive, but it's more initial cost. But tend to want to make it a floor right away rather than a roof, but you pay for that. You pay for that to be a floor rather than a roof. I guess one additional. My mind in picturing a, call it 58,000 square foot building somewhere in there, 55, 58, two story is there then enough space in that footprint that's still available on this ground level to add a 20,000 expansion to story adjacent later. Yeah, and concept, yes, I can attest to whether it's in the right place. It might be that when we get through with it, just depending on the plan, it's almost if you looked at a T-shaped building, you'd probably want to reserve space on the ends or maybe space in sort of in the haunches. But that's based on where we think strategically we might expand. And I put that in the context of if you said, well, maybe I want to add a range in the future. That's completely different than I want to expand patrol. And so we would look at where the expansion is likely to be then come up with a strategy for implementing it. One of which might be the garage space would be converted at some point. I mean, that's a viable strategy as well, but we haven't gotten to that point yet. Thank you. We'll go on with a few more questions, but I think it's just having that she's given us lots of information. I'll bet all of you have decided how you're going to vote. Alderman Ratkin. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have money still set aside. I believe it's one of a million dollars or something. So the figure I keep hearing about here. Now with that money set aside, maybe Tom Holton could possibly answer this question. We've got a 90-year-old garage back there that is going to be going as part of this project. There are a lot of unknowns out in that 90-year-old garage. There could be asbestos. There could be ground contamination. There could be a variety of different things due to the fact that at one time did fuel the vehicles here until they took the tanks and things away. Would it be advisable to study that particular issue this year and use some of that money this year to take care of that and get that part of the work done ahead of time and still let Mr. Sabinash do what he needs to do because that in and of itself could create a delay in the entire construction schedule. Could it not? Mr. Sabinash will be addressing those kinds of things as he gets started. It would be advisable to do any studies related to contaminants and environmental. You might do a phase one environmental or something of that ilk. It would be wise to do it now. Until we get into it, I don't know, but there might be mechanisms that try to avoid tearing that building down that we haven't considered yet. So we're at the time when all those ideas are valid ideas. That's the idea phase. And if we find out that there's something that's relatively insurmountable, there are still avenues available to us to try to avoid having to deal with that issue at this point. We get down the road and we're into construction documents and we've encumbered them with lion's share of our fee. That would be a bad time to find that out. So we're in the investigation stage. We're in the idea stage and those types of things are advisable now. I would have a, if you're envisioning putting money into this building, I would have this building analyzed the same way. Thank you, I'll be right back. Perhaps we can have the last two questions and then let's take a vote. Alderman Kittlesaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that those of us who did go to Jamesville, our understanding was they had a building committee that was formed with people, the key players that were going to be involved. You hashed this out for a number of months and then reported back to council with the findings and then they were kept informed. The communication was kept ongoing as the project progressed, am I correct? That's correct, they had a building needs committee that I think consisted of the chief of police, deputy chief, three Alderman, business owner, another woman that was a resident who was an interior designer and I think the assistant city manager and those people reported back on progress. I have to add that it was a progress project that went on hold for three years because they were dealing with some of the same issues you are in terms of state funding. The building use committee will be meeting and of course the police department will be in on that and Mr. Sabanash will be in on that and of course all you Alderman can come and watch and listen and participate also. Thank you Alderman Kittlesaw. Alderman Serda. Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me Mr. Sabanash too. I feel like my questions are coming a little bit too late because we've already established this site but I haven't had the opportunity to speak to you concerning some of the concerns I had. In the report it does mention that it's a possibility of using the first floor of this existing building with the addition as far as occupying it and if you could just expound on the $3 million cost associated with this building in order to build the structure and adjacent to this one. It just seems like I haven't been told what that $3 million will actually entail. Yeah I haven't, that was off some previous work that I believe the city had solicited so the numbers related to City Hall we haven't been charged with analyzing at this point. So I haven't seen them nor have we had a chance to take a look at what that buys for the city at this point. So I can't answer that question today. In terms of the first floor space versus other alternatives it's one of the design questions that we'll just have to answer. I know that the space in this building will have a premium, it will be at a premium and it may very well be that because of the staging of the project it benefits us to have the police department at a completely freestanding building. We looked at it and said it would be seemingly a good idea to try to keep the front door in the same place but there will be access challenges and other issues that will come to fruition and come to bear as we develop that design. So I know that it's doable but there may very well be more compelling reasons to have the police department in its own building. I know that from a staging standpoint it would be better if the building was a freestanding building and then in terms of City Hall it's always good to have a space that you can let the contractor work in and they basically would have the whole first floor and then if you looked at City Hall as a composite to have a place to be remodeled to move other departments into while their floor then gets remodeled to make some sense to try to leave the first floor vacant but how that works out we would have to consider with the chief and with the building committee and find out what's the best scenario. Thank you. I hate to say that any of those options is off the table but again from a remodeling standpoint and from an ability to stage a remodeling of City Hall it does make sense to have some space left available if PD just kept its presence on the first floor that option wouldn't exist. So there might be a compelling reason to say all move for PD. Thank you Alderman Serda. We have a motion on the floor to recommend to Council to accept and adopt the report of committee number 269-0506. And pass the resolution. And pass the resolution. Yes. Alderman Graf will you take the roll or Alderman Berg? Just a roll or? No, the vote, sorry. The vote. You want to roll a call of vote though.  Okay, Bowman, D-Berg, E-Berg, Serda. Graf will be aye. Kittleson. Manny. Meyer. Montemure. Aye. Radke. Sagali. Stefan. Van Akron. 11 ayes, two noes. Motion carries. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Second? All in favor? Aye. Opposed?


Hey guys, it's Kendra from Six Sisters Stuff and today we are getting all warm and cozy for the holidays And so we thought what better way to celebrate than by sharing our favorite holiday finger food with you guys And so today we're gonna be making some Oreo truffles with a little holiday spin on them And we make these for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve and pretty much every Eve because they're just that good But before we get started don't forget to subscribe to our channel and let's get cooking We're gonna start with one package of Oreo cookies and three to four candy canes And we're just gonna mix that in a food processor or blender until it's a crumbly mixture And then we're gonna add the frosting back in as well as eight ounces of cream cheese And you're gonna put that back on the blender and blend until it makes a smooth cookie dough like consistency And you're gonna take a cookie sheet and cover it with foil and start to make your truffles So we just take a little chunk and roll it into a little ball We usually like to do about one inch size balls and then put it on the cookie sheet And I wouldn't say to go any bigger because they take a little while to freeze And so we're gonna put those in the freezer for about 30 minutes to an hour And then while those are freezing we'll make our chocolate So I like to use white chocolate, but you can use milk chocolate or dark chocolate They just get a little rich. So we usually do white chocolate So after they're done freezing take them out and dip them in the white chocolate and then this park It's fun because the kids can help you can add candy cane or sprinkles on top Really any holiday treat or favorite kind of flavor you have and Here's the finished product. Enjoy


Hey guys, it's Nate, aka the Foot Accountant. Welcome back to the channel and we need to talk about the market today with what came out. First of all though, I wanted to enter FIFA Ultimate Team. I just downloaded the new update, the new patch and pitch notes, whatever they're gonna do today. And I want to do kind of a market talk video. I know there's a lot of people opening rewards right now. It is Thursday. I'm recording this just before rewards do come out. So I don't have rewards yet for you guys. I'll be doing those on stream later tonight. My Twitch link is below in the description. I do stream there. But I want to talk about what happened today on FIFA Ultimate Team and of course show you guys who you should have voted for. For this player pick, SBC. Parasitch the main man. That's who we're voting for. We would love to see a Parasitch card for footies.  So basically what my video was about yesterday, you guys probably saw. I mentioned the Team of the Week SBCs coming out into the game. They were put in the code and a lot of times when we see stuff put in the code like this, that stuff comes within the next 24 hours. These SBCs followed suit. They came out today and I'm very happy with EA and the requirements that they are asking for these SBCs. The untradable 81 plus SBC cost you about 16,000 coins, which is crazy to me. This is an 81 rated squad and it cost you 14, 15, 16,000 coins to do one of them. This should be so cheap that it's unreal and this is out for two weeks. This SBC is out for two weeks. Crazy, crazy stuff that this SBC is out for so long. But as always, and I'm gonna talk about this a little bit more today. The first couple of days when the SBC comes out, that is when everything is the most popular. It's the same with every promo. The first couple days when a big SBC drops, it is repeatable. The first couple days are the most hype when people are doing these SBCs the most. We're gonna talk about that today. But this untradable 81 plus is about 16,000 coins to do. The 84 plus from scratch is around 40,000 coins and all you need is an 83 rated squad and 20 chemistry. So literally you can go buy the cheapest 83 rated players on the market to do this SBC. But that's the catch. That's why this SBC is 40K. Because look how cheap, or look how expensive, excuse me, they're not cheap, they're expensive. Look how expensive these cards are. 4,000 coins plus for all of these 83 rated cards that you need for this team. And even 82s are somewhere around 2,000 coins and above.  Everybody is doing these packs right now. And let me say, you know, yeah, I think it's good. It's the end of the game. Do a few of them. Do a few of them. It's really good they put this SBC out. I figured they were gonna have to release something to do with Team of the Weeks. Team of the Week cards were so, so high from everybody having coins after Team of the Season from Weekend League Rewards. Everybody had coins. They wanted to do icon SBCs with those coins. And they were having to pay Bukku dollars for some of the informs that you need for a lot of these icons in their SBCs. And that just caused those Team of the Weeks to go up and up and up. And especially since we weren't getting informs in the actual Team of the Weeks that were coming midweek, these last couple of weeks, there was no supply for the higher rated cards. So I'm really glad that EA put these out. And I want to talk about a few things regarding these SBCs because these SBCs absolutely changed the market like crazy today. In terms of SBC prices and SBC, basically just SBC everything, man. I want to show you guys a couple things related to these SBCs on the market. First of all, I do want to take a look at... I want to take a look at this icon SBC, the main man, R9. This is like, why are we looking at an icon SBC? This is the R9-96 Rinaldo icon SBC. It requires a lot of informs. Look what happened today when the informs dropped on the game. 6 PM UK, he's about 3.5, 3.7 million coins earlier in the day, almost 3.8. This is when the high rated golds are pretty low. You know, they're up a tiny bit for the bail SBC. Look what happens, right at 6 PM UK. Boom. The SBC instantly drops 200,000 coins. It's come back up a little bit since then. The SBC instantly drops to 3.3 million because of the informed prices going down. And that happened with a lot of icon SBCs today. A lot of these SBCs that people are going to want to do, I bet their price is... Oh my gosh, look at Eusebio. 2.1 mil, all the way down to 1.8 million coins. 1.775. So you saved yourself 400,000 coins almost on some of these SBCs today, if you completed them in that timeframe, just because these informs are so low. And a lot of people have untradable informs now. Basically because these cards are coming out of the market so frequently and so often, it's a weird dynamic to see. 81 rated informs are 16,17,000 coins. 82s are around 16, some of them are at 20K. The 83s are at 30K because these aren't getting supplied. These aren't getting supplied tradable like these are. Look at the 84s and the 85s and the 86s is even. Orban, 13,000 coins for an 86 rated player. If you want to do, or if you think you're going to do, any icon SBC or any big SBC throughout the rest of the year that could require informs, absolutely go out and get yourself some of these cards. Do a club stock of the icons because if it is in your desire to do any of these big time SBCs, Ronaldinho, Vieira, Hulet, Eusebio, any of these big time icons that require team of the week cards, I want to do Maldini. He requires team of the week cards through and through. I'm going to have to do a club stock on some of the, even that 86 rated inform cards in here. Shoot, I can get an 87 rated Dabber or a Whistle 87 rated inform for 22,000 coins. For 22,000 coins. Crazy, do a club stock with these cards. I'm serious, these cards are going to continue to rise after this. Yes, these cards will still be in SBCs. Yes, these cards will still be there for you to pack. But the supply on them is crazy now because a ton of people did SBCs right away and we're going to continue to do those and they're going to go out and buy the players because why do the SBC that cost you 40,000 coins? If we go back here to active challenges, this tradeable SBC to do from scratch costs you 40,000 coins. This is one of the biggest EA scams and hustles I have seen to date so far. You're paying 40,000 coins to do this tradeable 84 plus team of the week pack. You know, let's take a look at this. How many informs right now are over 40,000 coins? Let's go to gold inform. We're going to sort by price. We're going to sort by price. How many of them are over 40,000 coins? We have 30 pages of gold informs. So you're making your money back on this is the fourth page. Look at this. We're on the fifth page.  Let's go to page seven. Look at all these cards at 50k. Page 10. So you have a one in three chance of making your coins back on these cards. There's 30 pages of gold informs in this game. I understand there are some that are less than 84 rated. But the ability for you to make your coins back on this SBC is so, so little. You're going to pack all of these guys, the 84s, the 85s, the 86s, even the 89s. Like the summer is 34,000 coins.  Yes, it is a tradable card. That's the reason why all these card prices just absolutely died. But nobody's packing these big guys up here. A few of them are. I've seen a few of them enter the market today. But really what you're seeing is a lot of these guys, like this Pogba card. I looked at him just a little bit ago and I mentioned him yesterday in my video. Watch some of these top rated cards that are informs. If you have them in your team and you want to, or if you want to get them in your team, watch for the panic selling before the SBC drops. Look what happened with this 90 Pogba today. 335, he's down here at 310,000 coins. The SBC comes out then. Boom, look what happens. He's right back up to 350, 359,000 coins where he currently is. So he went down 50,000 coins today to 310. He's now back up at 360. Crazy stuff like that. That's always going to happen. What's been the name of the game this year with cards like this is the Panic Sell before the SBC coming out because people think they're going to be able to pack that card via the SBC. Bandaika 228 rises back up to 260. Not too much movement with that card. He's got plenty of other special cards in the game though. What about Kante? This is a popular card in the game for sure. He's already been in packs though. But look what happened today. Panic sold down to 142, right back up to 180. 40,000 coin, boom, boom. Just like that. Easy way to inflate. You would have made over 30,000 coins if you flipped that card today on that one card. So that happened with the higher rated stuff if you were able to flip some of those cards, GG. But the message for most of us is if you plan to do SBCs, any SBC that they release for the rest of the year, get prepared now. Go out and do a club stock of these cards, especially after rewards. We're going to be having coins to do some more of these SBCs that they want to try them out and get a few cards. And I would get these cards sooner rather than later because every single day that passes, people are going to realize these cards are cheap. They're going to go out. They're going to start doing icon SBCs with a lot of these cards. So do a club stock. 84, 85, 86, 87, even some of the 88 rated cards. That might be a bit high. Mostly these 84s, 85s, and 86s because those are going to be used the most in some of these icon SBCs. So that was a crazy, crazy market movement today. Just all those informs basically killing the market, like the price of some of these cards on the market. I'm actually going to go through and pick up some of these informs right now. I realized some of these prices were actually lower in the most hyped part of the day, like Daily Blend right now. What is he at? Is he not at 12K? Where's he at? Is he 14? All right. 14,000 coins for that Daily Blend card. He's on the top of footbin though, so everybody's seeing that he's cheap. What about Pellegrini? What about Pellegrini? 14,000 coins. So you can get these cards on Snipes. You can get these cards from just searching around the transfer market. Basically, just go to footbin like I am right here. Look for some of these cards and see which ones are the cheapest and just stock your club in. Just stock your club because there's going to be more SBCs coming out. I mean, they're doing all of these best of SBCs for the entirety of the year. It's an insane way to stock your club and to invest in these cards, in my opinion. Just to get some of these cards. Is he going to 85 rated? 14,000 coins. What about Glick? Glick is the SBC monster. Down here, like 15K maybe? 16,500. Right now, it's a nighttime NA. Wait until there's a lot of people on the game again on Thursday after rewards. There'll be a lot more people working on these SBCs again. That's my advice to you guys for these. I would get on those. Again, if you have gold cards, if you want to do a few of these SBCs, I honestly might recommend to you the 81+. I really might recommend to you the 81+, SBC because it only costs you 16,000 coins and that price is going to go down a bunch. I bet that price gets to under 10,000 coins easily here in the next couple of days just because you need an 81 overall team and those cards will easily get under 1K as they get packed from weakening rewards and the hype dies down for these SBCs even though you're thinking, dude, 84 rated? I mean, I need an 83 rated squad. The only way that this will get cheap again is if they release a repeatable SBC like an 81+, or an 82+, that's when these will get doable again and these are out for 14 days so that is huge. EA is really trying to save this 40s promo after we basically had no content on Sunday, little to no content on Monday. We get the UCL premium upgrades that we were kind of confused about, they're okay and now back to back days we get some good content. So I'm pretty happy about that. I'm pretty happy with the content they've been dropping so far the last couple of days. I'm glad to see some of the stuff is coming out. The footies voting date, I need to do that SBC as well but I basically just wanted to hop on a video today and talk with you guys about some of these crazy market movements and I'm going to keep looking through some of these informs to find some that I can put in the club. But again, basically just look through these cards during the middle of the day when there's a lot of stuff going on because people are still doing these SBCs and I'm sure a lot of people today realized that these SBCs are not really worth it.  Yes they're fun to do, I'm going to be doing a couple on stream when you guys can watch and have fun with me doing them but still, basically the only reason why I would do them is to get them in the club to do ICON SBCs at a discounted price. So one other thing that I want to mention is since you'll be able to discard or not discard, once you'll be able to stock up on some of these informs some of these informs that you want in your team after that the high rated golds are going to drop at some point again as well whether we get repeatable packs, whether we get all sorts of stuff that we could get from these packs, whatever SBCs that they put out there's going to be another drop for the high rated gold cards, 85, 86, 87 all the way up they're decently low right now, but once those cards drop again you're going to see ICON SBC prices go crazy crazy low so if you stock up on the informs now you'll be saving some coins on the informs there and then again you'll be saving coins as the higher rated cards drop depending on what other content that EA puts out but again this is another smart move by EA they're putting out content like this they're getting people to put their coins into these SBCs and they're getting people to do it when they are very high in price as well and you have to pay a lot of coins for some of these cards 15k for an 85 rated inform these informs are usually 25 to 30k on the market crazy crazy prices one that I really want to find out here is this guy on the market for really cheap Weghorst how much is he see like 17k oh yes 17,750 I'm going to buy a couple of those because 86 is a great rating for some of these SBCs even I got like DeVry what is he going for right now what is this informant 19,250 that's a crazy price for some of these cards as well again focus on some of the cards that get good links that have good nationalities that link together for these SBCs they're going to rise honestly they're going to be rising because they just got way too low today for the good of the market and especially with all these icon SBCs and the amount of coins that are on the game this year watch some for some of these cards to go up now if you want to do an icon SBC as you saw when we looked at footprint the prices of these SBCs have dropped so it wouldn't be a bad time to start chipping away at an icon SBC to start going for one of those that is something that you do want to do so thank you for watching this video if you enjoyed it smash your thumbs up and we're going to be hitting some rewards tonight on the Twitch channel so again hit that link in the description below if you have any questions as well I'll be acting in the comments hit me up there I know FIFA is kind of coming to an end and I know I say this all the time we're going to be doing some more content stuff but right now there's still a lot of stuff to do in the game there's a lot of points by telling you to get rid of your informs which I hopefully hopefully you guys got rid of your informs before today in the market crash and all of that so I'm just here to help you guys out and that's what I enjoy doing the most on FIFA Ultimate Team it's been your boy Nate the photo count catch you guys later peace out


Okay, hi everyone. Just thought I'd jump back on because I've had a number of questions this morning about Afghanistan What is happening? Implications that it might have for markets So just thought best to just jump on and summarize the current state of affairs and give a few thoughts on the matter Starting off with really two parts I'm going to talk about the short history of how we've arrived at this point and therefore to put into context about Implications that it could have for markets going forward Starting off then with the Taliban themselves. They actually ruled Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 and of course you'll remember in 2001 was when the September the 11th Attacks happened in New York and that then resulted consequently in a US-led invasion of Afghanistan Now from that point for most of the last 20 years Predominantly the US but also with NATO have been providing military support within Afghanistan Trying to support the Afghan government But US President Joe Biden announced even as recent as in April of this year The complete withdrawal of American forces out of that particular country for context on his insistence about that military withdrawal recent polls only at the end of July so a few weeks ago had showed that the Slight majority of the population America 55% in fact approved of Biden's handling of the troop withdrawal However, given the type of scenes we've been seeing this weekend I'll be interested to see how well that that kind of confidence holds likelihood it will probably deteriorate in early 2019 and the US and the Taliban actually began peace talks So it's not as if it's all constantly been confrontation There was in fact a solution to the 17-year conflict back in 2019 that did result in The agreement of the US withdrawal from that country handing over power to the new Afghan government Now over the past few months though What has started to happen and this has been really accelerated in the last two to three days Has been then the Taliban gaining control of territories around the country now Afghanistan has about 26 provincial Major cities as you can see on the right hand side here. These are those or slightly darker orange spots The Taliban now have full control of all of those including of course the capital city Kabul Whereas only 10 days ago They only have control of one and these blue areas were the government backed Afghan government were ruling So you can see how that's really contracted over the last few days in particular now What's happened here is fighters have seized the presidential palace and the president Ashraf Ghani has fled to Uzbekistan Is what the reports are suggesting albeit a bit light on confirmation of that exactly and what's happened then is US troops have been deployed into Kabul the capital city apparently overnight another thousand which takes the total to about six thousand and giving how Serious the situation has become and to help remove its staff and the Afghans who assisted them with their mission The US has now said that all of the embassy staff have reached the airport here for international The international airport for evacuation operation as you can see here where the UK and US embassy is situated The UK having sent as well additional 600 troops to do the same for their staff Meanwhile, US officials have said and this is something to be aware of I guess in the months here after About the increasing concerns of potential rise for terrorist threats against the US as the situation in Afghanistan starts to devolve But what does this will mean for markets? Well a couple things the broader market as we see it this morning has not really reacted to this the The area geographically that is seeing a market reaction at the moment is in neighboring countries So just go back to the geography. Here's a map You can see the Persian Gulf Saudi Iraq and Iran if you go further east you then get to Afghanistan and The south south and southeast area of that is the border with Pakistan now Pakistan's International bonds have come under selling pressure today The debt issued by Uzbekistan here north of the country has also Weakened so some of the emerging markets bracing themselves for the spillover from the Afghan issue What the irrational here is is that the likely exodus of refugees from Afghanistan Could strain the finances of those neighboring countries and fund managers have said there's also concerns the potential for Western retaliation against Pakistan For providing a safe haven for the Taliban So in particular Pakistan's been hurt so far today But as I said broader Western developed markets like US products UK European are pretty much Unmoved by this news at this point in time for me on the latter of what could constitute a move really starts to come down then to Joe Biden and the market's perception and what he can achieve going forward. Now. There's a couple of things that have been happening For one the Afghanistan situation resets the focus In a very unwelcome way for the president who's largely had a pretty decent run since the beginning of his his time in the White House and What's been happening more recently is as we're emerging from the pandemic a lot of his Policy focus has been domestic and so these foreign affairs somewhat pollute that Mission that he has Particularly when there's an economy and the citizens of America are still finding their feet post a very challenging and tough COVID period We know unemployment in America is still six and a half million or so short of filling the void that was in the pre-pandemic Economy the other things then that we have at the moment Of course is that he still needs to win congressional approval for trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending and protecting Voting rights, so no surprise to hear Last night president former president Donald Trump coming out and criticizing Biden asking him to resign This of course comes in context with the US midterms are only 15 months away Towards the end of next year in 2022. So although it's not impactful for broader markets right now I would say there are perhaps meaningful Implications that if you think about the messy exit here That's happened with the withdrawal of troops out of Afghanistan and any potential deep Stabilization within that neighboring countries and region coupled with then what we've had is for the Democrats Politically multi-decade high in border crossing arrests We've had the resurgence of COVID and we've also seen some of the latest Economic data somewhat suggestive that the economy has already hit its peak. So slowing economy increasing COVID increasing border crossings on that hot political potato of my migration now you throw in the Afghan situation and This could be very Complicated for Biden to manage and so be expecting a lot of pressure as he goes into the coming months and particularly into a Midterm year next year. So all of this as well puts a lot of pressure on the bipartisan infrastructure package still needs to pass The three and a half trillion reconciliation bill still has a lot to be done there And we've also got the debt ceiling looming which will arguably need to be increased And that's going to need congressional approval as well so that's a lot to ask for the more moderate Democrats and swings the chances back higher potentially that Republicans could take control of the house and Order Senate next year and if that is the case will then these kind of Gangbusters huge fiscal spending that we've seen from the U.S. government Through the pandemic area could be no more as his hands get tied by a split Congress If not losing both chamber of Congress would be particularly harmful for his policies He tries to push through and therefore very meaningful for markets in a slightly longer term So hopefully that covers a few things. I know it's pretty short I'll tweet out some of these notes that I've read. It's basically an aggregation of a number of different articles I've read this morning, but hopefully that's useful and Yeah, I'll see you for the next session. Thanks very much