Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, before I officially declared a committee to hold open that I want to read something that's happened to me since that report came out. A person who is close to this Enberg-Meier report asked for and got a quick special meeting so the report could be presented to the Common Council. Last week, he asked me to try and put off the action that might be taken by the Committee of the Whole for several weeks. I told him that this meeting was set up the same night that the Enberg-Meier report met with the council and Enberg and Meier said they would be able to attend. When I told him how things were going to be done tonight at the meeting, that it would be sent on to the full council, he said if it is sent on to the full council on the 18th, he said we could possibly have a bloodbath. Now I don't sit idly by and take threats. I've not only had a call from him, I had a call from another one that has called me an A-hole on several occasions. I've gotten a phone call that called me an F and SOB that I was going to be the next one to go down. As far as I'm concerned, you can attack me all you want but when it affects my wife's health and she starts getting calls, I will not put up with it. That's all I got to say. The only thing I'd say, I will continue to do the job I was elected to do and that's look out for the best interests of the taxpayer. Yes. Mr. Chairman, is that, I don't know if my mic is on. I guess my question would be, is that person in the room? Yes, he is. Yes, he is. Thank you. Okay. Now I'll call the Committee of the Whole Meeting for Monday, April 11th to order. Roll call. Here. He was excused. Thank you. Seeing this is the last Committee of the Whole Meeting, if you don't mind, the Pledge of Allegiance isn't on the agenda, but if Alderman Warner, Van Akron, and oh, Mr. Loutz isn't here and if, is the Mayor here? Mayor Schramm, if you three would lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. 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. Okay, this evening you know we're gonna have a presentation by John Sabanich of Zimmerman Design. What's gonna happen after Mr. Sabanich has given his presentation will take a five minute break and Vicky Myers will dish out some slips of paper and pencils if you got any questions to ask. You can write it down and address it to Mr. Sabanich or Mr. Moyer or Mr. Enberg. And after the five minutes we'll collect them, Vicky can bring them up to the table up here and then I'll have Mr. Nick Reed from WHBL ask the questions. So we got a neutral person. Okay, at this time then I'll turn the floor over to John Sabanich. Can everybody hear me? To thank everyone for being here today. We're gonna present an update where we stand. Can you hear me? Is this better? Better? Sounds better. We're gonna present where we stand relative to the design of the project that we were commissioned to design for that being a project in Sheridan Park. That's the definition of the project that we were given at the time that the responses or our proposals were responded to and progress will largely deal with the current design philosophy in terms of number of levels of the building potentially as well as the overall size of the building. Toward that end to make you a little bit more familiar with our credentials as a relative police department work. We've called some of this material out of our presentation for the interview. Zimmerman Design Group is doing police department buildings within Southeast Wisconsin.  Reputation in that regard is very good. Some of the recent projects that we've commissioned and completed are the Oak Creek Police Department Facility. And I'll go through this quickly. Franklin Police Department Facility. Project in Onalaska, which is adjacent to La Crosse. Milwaukee Third District Police Department 9-1-1 Communication Center. Police Department Facility for the City of West Alice. Fort Atkinson. Waukesha. Lake Zurich, Illinois. Wauwatosa. Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Niles, Michigan, which is a four agency combined facility, four agencies in one facility. And recently self-bend Indiana Police Department Headquarters. One of the first things that we did as part of our approach to doing the project was to take the original Kimi Report. In this column identified as 319-2002. And with the police department staff work through the overall size of the project that was anticipated. Toward that end in the process of generating that, the Moyer Report was part of the process of consideration as that report became manifest. What we've found out as part of that exercise of developing the program statement further is that fundamentally all architects can agree or disagree on the nature of the overall size of the building that's not unusual. Architects agree on a very few things generally. But to say that the project has been reviewed in terms of net square footage is a realistic approach. We've spent a lot of hours with the police department to determine how big a building this would be. What we find is that similar to the Moyer Report that had about an 80,000 square foot building, we're currently anticipating a building on the neighborhood of 80,000 square feet. That is in difference to the Kimi Report, which was the March of 2002. Similarities in terms of our approach to the Kimi Report that diverged from the Moyer Report are the nature of making the building its ultimate size, or in this case the amount of space that's dedicated to police department functions versus functions that are attributable to unassignable space, corridors and walls and things that don't serve the police department. We find that our efficiency as it relates to the Kimi Report is substantially similar and diversion exists in terms of the efficiency anticipated in the Moyer Report. So we're anticipating providing a building that's more efficient in terms of its overall assignable net square footage to the overall shell of the building that's anticipated. One of the sheets that we use to do the comparison data identifies comparison communities that we use either in terms of size of community, size of building or other police department functions that we see as relevant and germane to the discussion about the size of the building anticipated for the police department. Toward that end, I selected one of, I think it has actually 26 different sheets that we went through that identified the comparison to Janesville Community, slightly larger. Oak Creek and Franklin, fairly new buildings in West Dallas, a building that's a little older but a little more mature building but clearly identifies the population base in a similar way to what Sheboygan would have in terms of population served. Although those are metropolitan Milwaukee communities, we always add that as a caveat. There's never an exact extrapolation between the size of project proposed for any agency and others. This is only provided to facilitate discussion and toward that end, there are several things that we changed when the project evolved. You can see that necessarily straight extrapolation of the proposed building didn't happen. There were some changes in nomenclature, some changes in terms of department operations that this current program has identified and addressed and we plan to implement as part of the design process. It also identifies with this metering criteria that we're not overbuilding a building, that when we look at this comparison data, not only did we tour these comparable facilities so that the police department understood the nature of the space that was anticipated to be provided but that we again metered requests based on what's realistic and what's deliverable for police departments of this size. One of the issues that I wanted to address was information that was provided in one of the previous presentations. These are two diagrams that we provided before we interviewed for the project. The nature of the diagrams was to identify concepts for discussion given the site that we had. So the Sheridan Park site was part of the generation of these diagrams. And I need to say this because there was information provided that Zimmerman was anticipating 49,000 square feet of space. That's incorrect. The two diagrams that are identified both say above garage space. That wasn't noted before. As we said previously, we're anticipating a building on the order of magnitude of about 80,000 square feet. So commentary relating to Zimmerman providing a building that was undersized for the community is simply irrelevant for this discussion. It was taken out of the context of the diagrams since they were presented for discussion at the time of the interview. But as we see in relationships of the diagrams, given the site that we have, we're interested in a couple of concepts. One was keeping the floor plate as small as possible to allow us to have as much of the park that would remain from the point that we started the project to the time we completed it. Toward that end, there was a two story and a one story above garage space concept in effect, three story building or a two story building that were both discussed at the time of the interview and we were discussing that relevant to the needs of the department as it related to the design of the building that ultimately would be our responsibility to facilitate. Some additional input was provided in the Moyer Report that related to two different sites, a site that we weren't required to review, the 23rd Street site, as well as the possibility of extending the program space, again, in the neighborhood of about 80,000 square feet on the Sheridan Park site. For the sake of discussion, hopefully to make this easier, 80,000 square foot building broken into four blocks of about 20,000 square feet equates to a single story slab on grade construction that would be of this nature. There are certain things that are inherent with that. One is we've got about 80,000 square feet of rough and we have about 1,200 linear feet of exterior wall. This relates to the unit cost that we would apply to this project at the time we were doing budgeting. And we don't have a fundamental problem with the $130 a square foot space that was identified in the Moyer Report. That's a reasonable approach to take to a project of this nature and it's a reasonable unit cost to start the discussion with. In addition, there was a second diagram provided that effectively took three quarters of the program and hypothetically placed it below grade. Again, we don't have a fundamental problem with that, although what we've seen for projects of this type and municipalities is that as soon as the space above that zone is occupiable for parking or other needs, the requirements for waterproofing and things of that nature generally make that a cost prohibitive solution for the long term. So we never really viewed this scenario as a viable scenario in our minds because we felt that it would end up giving you a long term potential problem. Not to say that we wouldn't consider some of these. Again, we're not at the point where we've taken fundamental design premises to either the building inspection department engineering or community development to get their feedback, but we would take, we would have serious concerns about the nature of that space as a long term viable solution. One of the things to remember relative to that is because so much of the building is located below grade, we have substantially less exterior wall space. There are certain things that are beneficial about that. Exterior wall space is generally more expensive to build. Less space that's exposed to the elements generally results in a more efficient building in terms of energy use. It's not necessarily the cheapest solution, mind you, but it generally results in more space at a lower level. The space at the lower level of the building generally is more economical to build in space that's fully clad, has a lot of windows, and other features that require a lot of detail and fenestration, things of that nature. The last scenario or the scenario that we considered when we interviewed for the project was it was more likely that to achieve economies of scale, we'd be more apt to try to match the floor plates. In effect, taking half the program and placing it up above, half the programming that's identified and placing it below. This also fairly rigorously matches the current program statement, which has garage space, vehicle maintenance space, and things that likely would be located in a lower level of the building, not impact the operations of the department in a negative way, and we would end up with a building that more likely would have a matched floor plate. I'm gonna say it necessarily is gonna be perfect, but that's our approach to dealing with how do you do a multi-story building and how do you deal with it economically. We find that there is some commodity in terms of the exterior wall space. It's clearly not as exterior wall space intensive as this scenario, but it's also not as efficient in terms of reducing the amount of brick and stone that we would see in this option too. So as we consider the project, we considered it in terms of how the pieces of the project that directly affect the police department would effectively stack on one another. We found that because of the nature of the program, it seemed like we would be focusing most of our attention upon a split two-story scheme that would allow us to have a match of program spaces above and below. Another piece of the discussion was related to budgets, and as it relates to either the Kimmy Report 2002, the Sheridan Park site or the 23rd Street site, our effort would be as part of that discussion to try to get as similar a project and description as we possibly could. Leaving the site out of the mix in one way, shape, or form would probably make the comparisons very difficult. But what we tried to do in this diagram is identify the common features that would rain through each of these individual elements and to facilitate that discussion, the diagram that we've presented here in this tabulation does a couple of things. It identifies that the construction cost of the Kimmy Report, the Moy report at Sheridan, and the 23rd Street site vary fairly extremely. Go from an end of $7.8 million, a midpoint of 10 and a half, and an ultimate, I would say a maximum point in this diagram of up $13 million. That's a strong difference between those projects. Neither one is necessarily wrong or right at this stage of the game, but there are some things that were identified that we feel need to be addressed to make an adequate decision and to get as close to an apple and an apple as possible. One was in the 23rd Street site, it looks like we haven't adequately identified what the site acquisition cost would be. In a capital budget, we would try to do that as it was done in the Kimmy Report. Likewise, we would discuss demolition and disposal of materials and other criteria that aren't on this chart, but that they're not on the chart is not unusual for this point in the process. However, we would feverishly try to fill in these blanks as best we could to work to try to get an apple and an apple again. If there were, as an example, site acquisition costs in the 23rd Street scheme, it would certainly make the range between these two projects different than it was currently presented as. In addition to that, we've got a substantial amount of the capital costs of the building relegated to the below grade space. There is the four and a half million dollars roughly, that's about 20,000 square feet that would be above grade and three quarters of the program housed in about 7.7 or about 60,000 square feet. Of note is that the current unit cost of that basement space is about $125 a square foot. If we were criticizing this, we'd say that probably a little heavy given the nature of the space, no windows, no brick. Yes, we have to waterproof, but we would probably budget that at a lesser unit cost. Again, not disputing the 130 per square foot on the previous discussion. We would find that to be a reasonable starting point for discussing a building of this type. And likewise, we would probably think that the $200 a square foot for the space that's identified as the second story space in the Sheridan Park scheme is probably heavy given the disparity between the slab on grade construction and that second story space. We would probably be a little less conservative on our approach. But again, it could be $200 a square foot space at this point. We would just disagree with that philosophy. In addition to that, there are several line items that were identified in the Moyer Report, cladding of the basement level, which I think at $125 a square foot could be accommodated without putting it down as a line item. The $1 million, which I think was actually 900,000 plus 100,000 of plaza space that would be identified for parking and other features up on top of the building. We would probably take the approach that if we were to have parking associated with the site, we'd much prefer to have it at grade and not have support spaces underneath it. And therefore not have to incur that cost as part of the project development. We don't disagree with the premise that the premium that you bear in a multi-story building compared to slab on grade is largely related to elevator. We also agree that there are inefficiencies in that. We have to create stairs and other things that provide vertical circulation that would be challenges to do as efficiently as that 23rd Street slab on grade site. That's why in general terms, slab on grade construction is more economical because if everything's the same, you have to include stairs and elevators. The multi-story building generally has a burden that the slab on grade building does not have. In addition to that, there are some sort of below the line costs that have been identified. Again, a thorough analysis in Kimmy, probably a little less so. One could argue that these costs might indeed be in the construction costs. They don't know it wasn't to prepare that number so I can't comment on it. But we do see that there is substantial deviation in terms of parking. Again, I'm gonna guess largely driven by the court need that was not considered as part of the Kimmy report. But there is again substantial discrepancy between those numbers. It would be an objective to try to identify where that discrepancy lies and try to get back to the same number of parking spaces if at all possible. Again, to compare an apple and an apple and make sure that the two prices are indeed rough equivalents. In addition to that, we see extreme variation between site lighting costs. Our review of the Moe report was that the fixture count identified in the report seems excessive. We'd probably look to try to get some economies out of that number as well. In addition to that, the $150,000 that was identified as landscape cost in the Kimmy report is inflated in the Sheridan scheme to incorporate green roof, plus a rather substantial $500,000 budget in landscaping in the 23rd Street site. 23rd Street site being a large site won't expect that landscape costs would accelerate because of the nature of the site that being a much larger site you expect to have higher landscape costs. We would tend to say that the green roof scenario should probably be stricken from one or included in the other to again get that apple and apple comparison. In addition to that, there are other project costs related to acquisition of services and ultimate building relating to soils testing, survey, professional fees, drawing reproduction, maintenance equipment and we actually have a checklist that we go through that's more comprehensive than this to again when we're doing our budget make sure that we've covered all the costs related to the project. Just one last thing of note in terms of the budget comparison. We did a quick estimate on the basement scheme. This is that $7.2 million below grade number which is about 60,000 square feet half of which is parking garage. The half of the parking garage, half that budget is $3.6 million and at 50 spaces that's about $70,000 per space for the parking garage. We believe that we could achieve a parking garage for less than $70,000 a space. We believe that it's likely that that number given the cost per space is probably very conservative at this point. So in terms of the comparison between where we stand in Kimmy relative to program we're at about the same size as the Moira report had identified about an 8,000 square foot building. We would expect to be more efficient in that ultimate building layout much in keeping with what the Kimmy premise had said in looking for something on the order of 75% efficiency. Still a big building on the site, we acknowledge that. In terms of the report I think the effort would be that if we wanted to do a strict comparison given the wide variation in these numbers the effort would be to try to get as close to an ample and an ample as we could get. We don't think we compromise anything on the Sheridan Park scheme in that review that aren't what I would consider to be just wise practices relative to some of the things that we don't see as necessarily important and liabilities potentially for the city of Sheboygan. The next steps for us are two, we've started working, we actually had our last meeting with the police department that was a design meeting where we talked about adjacencies on the site. We're starting to delve into those issues and identify some of the concerns that the police department has operationally. We'll continue to do that. We will continue to consider the costs as we make decisions relative to the site. Again, our mission when we were hired was to design a building for that park site. And so that's what we're working towards at this point. I think we need a motion to recess. I move to recess. Vicki, Vicki Meyer, have you gathered all the questions? Oh, you got him? Over here. You got some. There's gonna be more coming. Seeing at 6.30, we'll start anew and we'll have the clerk call the roll. Oh, okay. Bowman, thank you. Berg. Here. Serta. Here. Graf. Here. Kittleson. Here. Lauchs. Here. Manny. Here. Montemayor. Here. Perez. Here. Cigali. Here. Van Akron. Here. Vanderweel. Here. And Warner. Here. Twelfth present. Lee. Lee, you got all your questions in? Okay. Okay, what we're gonna do, we'll answer all the questions from the people first. And then after that is all done, then we'll open it to the people on the floor and the department heads. What is gonna happen if Mr. Moyer gets a question? He will have three minutes to answer. And if Mr. Sabanage has a rebuttal, he'll have two minutes. And the clerk will do the timing. So, the person who's gonna read off the questions is Mr. Nick Reed from WHBL, known as Golden Tanzels. I have, I've mixed these up so there won't be in any particular order. First question, have you built on any public parks before? If so, how much park did you retain? And it's not, some of these are not specifically addressed to... Okay, we'll give Mr. Sabanage, go at it and then we'll have Mr. Moyer, because this was not addressed to either one.  Both of you. Let him use your mic, that one's fast. They could sit those two right there. Okay, just hold on one. Okay, Mr. Enberg and Mr. Moyer, if you wanna, you guys can sit right down here and I'll turn your mics on. So what we'll have is the question was asked and it was not addressed to anybody, so we'll have Mr. Sabanage answer and then I'll turn your mics on and you guys get to go. Is this better? We've built other building types in parks. We have not built any police department facilities in parks. We've built police department facilities on loray of sites, we have not built them. Thank you. Next question, please. Question for Zimmerman Design Group. Is the parkside big enough for future expansion and expanded, you decipher that? Expansed land, maybe. John, I'm just gonna speak up a little. I'm not sure what the word is. I think the, Jess, is the parkside, I think essentially is a big enough for future expansion and also for combined city or police county services. The park is big enough to house the county services we've studied, which is communications. It is likely to be a significant, as everyone knows, it's a smaller site, therefore inherent to a small site are more difficulties with expansion. The options with expansion would be to go overhead, not desirable, it's very difficult to do. A lot of people say that we're gonna plan for an additional story to be put on top of a building and very difficult to do. Building on the nature that this is, is very difficult to construct over the top of. There are opportunities for expansion on the site, we're cognizant of those, we have not been asked to study the nature of how big shared services would be on the site, aside from communications. But I would add that unless we know specifically the nature of the Sheriff's Department and their impact on the site, that's a major planning exercise that has to be undertaken now. Now the impacts relative to that are occasionally fairly benign. If you look at the program, that's gonna house police department functions and began to identify the nature of the spaces that likely would be shared by both agencies. You'd look at things like a briefing room, you'd look at a training room, but a locker room wouldn't be any smaller if another agency came into the site. 100 lockers required by one agency and 100 lockers required by another doesn't mean that the locker room just by default is smaller. Sometimes it's bigger. There are certainly economies of scale relative to inclusion of both agencies, but the general economy of scale and the biggest benefit that you get is when both agencies come on board at the same time, we did in Michigan, we had four agencies come into the building simultaneously. It would be difficult to insert that other agency and get those same economies of scale at a later time. It's not to say that the Sheriff's Department couldn't use a briefing room that was already in place and serving the city issue boy again. It's not to say that they couldn't use other features, a fitness room or other pieces of that puzzle, but it's unlikely that you'd have them in the right place relative to the new agency and therefore it's always beneficial if they come on board right away. Without that commitment, it's very difficult to say the nature and the type of expansion that would be expected. If it's the whole Sheriff's Department, that's one thing. If it's a substation or something of that nature, it's a much different impact. Mr. Ryan. Well, I agree with Mr. Sabanage that a police building in Sheridan Park would be very undesirable for Sheriff's Services and difficult to accomplish. And I would also say that referred to as a park after the police building on it is a misnomer because 80,000 square feet will eliminate any park characteristics. I view that as opinion. Okay. To Zimmerman's guidance group, do you agree with Timmy's advice to the city that a multi-story building would be? If I had every option in the world, I would probably suggest that this agency would most effectively operate on one story. Not at the size that mandates two stories. However, given the nature of the site and the features that would be located at a lower level, that's not to say that those functions aren't adequately housed in a basement level. To have evidence, parking and vehicle maintenance that are the main programmatic functions of a lower level identified there and housed there. I don't believe it's a severe hardship on how the police department would operate, but you'd have to ask the chief as to whether he felt that that was an undue burden on their operations. But having said that, the pieces that are located at the lower level are located there in some ways in an optimal scenario given the site that we have. We're very fortunate to have a program that splits about 50-50. Out of what we could put at the lower level, those are clearly the more desirable functions relative to the other pieces that would fit at the above grade space. Mr. Moyer? Yes, I agree with Mr. Salamash that a one-story scheme would be the most desirable. And that, may I take a couple of minutes? Go ahead. The reason that we compared two sites is because one site apparently is available for a one-story building. And we showed that there would be substantial economies in building on one story as well as substantial efficiencies. And the possibility of zoning certain portions of the police facility in a more desirable way. On one story, you can segregate those elements that are public from those elements that are not public where you really don't want the public to be involved. In a multi-story building, you're forced to use an elevator, and there are a number of other compromises. For example, the prisoner intake when a prisoner is brought in, they will have to use the elevator if any of the functions that they have to get to are on the upper level. The public would also possibly be using those elevators. But if the two sites that were studied in our report are viewed side by side, you will never have apples and apples because you have oranges and apples. One site is small and hilly, the other is flat and large. And the two buildings that you'll be able to put on those buildings are not the same. There's no way that you can put a one-story building on the Sheridan Park site, whereas you can put a one-story building on the 23rd Street site or any other site of comparable size. This is open, not specifically addressed to anyone. How much will it cost the taxpayers in the future if the city needs to expand and buy the blocks of houses adjacent to Sheridan Park compared to the cost of future expansions at the 23rd Street site? I can answer that hypothetically. If you control a much larger site that doesn't require you to acquire property, you don't incur those acquisition costs. That assumes that the site acquisition costs now waive favorably with the acquisition costs in the future. The 23rd Street site has an acquisition cost. So does that equate to a future acquisition cost? I couldn't tell you that, I don't. It's very hard to answer that question. I agree with Mr. Sabin, but I don't have much on that. It's hypothetical, it's conjectural. But if you have to deal with multiple owners on multiple blocks to take housing away to make way for parking, I think you'd have to ask whether that's the proper investment of public monies, just generally speaking. And you never know when those properties will be acquired over time, because it's very likely that escalation of costs will be a major factor. Whereas if you buy the property all at one time, buy it, trade it, however you get the larger piece of property, you're done with that aspect of the long range strategic planning for the facility. Addressed to Zimmerman Design Group, why is the idea of shared service not part of your thinking was the admission of the subject based on the fact that the Shwoigen Police Department is your client? No, it simply wasn't part of our scope aside from the communications. We're aware of the nature of shared services. We're aware of a likelihood of shared services and we're able to address those as best we can on the site. But aside from communications, it's not currently part of the project scope. I would suggest that we architects believe that we're all fairly clever folks in ways of adapting program to site. If presented with a small site and a large area, you have to stack the building. If you're presented with an option to suggest to your client that the site that you have may be too small to allow for expansion, parking, and perhaps shared services in the future, if not now, then you're gonna go along with what your client suggests, I suppose, because that's one of the reasons that they hire you is because they sense that you understand how they're thinking about this. How much park space will be left after the police station is built? The diagram that we showed you was the stacking diagram that we first started to plan with the police department. Again, it's without input from citizens. It's without input from the rest of the city. It's part of the design process. Our efforts, however, have been toward focusing on solutions that don't impact or have minimal impact on the police department operations, but use the minimal amount of the park proper. So to say that we know exactly how much park is gonna be left, I don't know, I can't tell you. We're not at the point where we've designed the building, but our efforts have been to take the premise that in the diagram that we showed you, most of the park that we feel is responsible to be retained can be retained. We will know at a point when we've had input from the rest of the city departments, from engineering, and from our design engineers as to how much of the park is gonna be left. I can't tell you 49%, 51, 62, or 38. We don't know that right now, because we haven't designed a building on that site. Well, once again, I would agree with Mr. Sarvanas with the goal to save as much of the park as possible, and that's an excellent premise from which to begin. But I think it's a little bit like standing on some railroad tracks when the train is coming. The train, in this case, are the numbers. This 80,000 square feet is coming. And once you go beyond the diagram, you go to the actual size, even stacked, and with parking, as we have shown in the diagrams we presented, which are to scale, there's no part left. I would ask Mr. Sarvanas if his diagrams here are to scale, or if they are only, quote, diagrammatic and not to scale. Because it appears that the third scheme that stacks buildings on a slope site, on a smaller site, doesn't, in fact, pick up a considerable amount of space. And you could tell that a one-story building would overcome the site entirely. This isn't a site diagram. It isn't, wasn't represented that way, it isn't. It's a block diagram. It's not meant to... It's a blocking and stacking diagram. Right, it does not represent any park. It doesn't represent residual park. It's meant to represent the program spaces in relationship to one another. It's the part we start with when we're talking about the nature of the park and the nature of the space. Okay, next question. Would a change in site from Sheridan Park to 23rd Street create any significant architectural problems, time-wise, or big back-to-the-drawing-board problems? At any point in the project, we can start from scratch. Until there's a commitment on a bid day or a construction site that has a backhoe on it, you can change your minds at any time. That's the nature of architecture. It's a fluid profession. We're here to adapt to the needs of this city that the site were to change. We would adapt to that change. Any of you? I think that there would probably be some, there would not have to be any reprogramming of the building. The building program is the guide to the architect on whichever site the building is placed. Would it be faster to build on Sheridan Park, or I mean, pardon me, on 23rd Street rather than Sheridan Park, I think was the question. It would, once the project got going, I think it would be considerably faster to build on the 23rd Street site, even if you started a little bit later. And it's very likely that you'd have the facility in about the same amount of time. There's been a little bit more pre-thinking about Sheridan Park simply because that's the site that has been chosen by the department for its use. But I don't think that there was, there's anything inherent in the 23rd Street site that would be a deterrent to a very fast track kind of building project. This for Mr. Moyer, the report claims that shared services could be improved by co-locating both police station and sheriff department together on 23rd Street. If the county is not going to share the location by building a new sheriff building on 23rd Street, what shared services were identified to you that would make the 23rd Street site better for shared services? I think the question contained the assumption that there would not be a county presence adjacent to the building. It says if the claims of shared services could be improved by co-locating both the police station and sheriff's department together, if the county is not going to share the location, I think there's a presumption that it would not be. And then asking you, if that's the case, what was identified to you to make it a better site for shared services? Yes, if the county opted not to at some point co-locate the sheriff's department, would there still be advantages left for the 23rd Street site? I think that was the question. And the answer is yes. They would not lie in the shared services realm as much as they would if the county in fact located there, but the others would still be there. The ones that Mr. Engberg just mentioned in terms of a less expensive building on that site, much easier site to design for, it's four acres as opposed to 2.6 acres. So if that's not obvious to people that that's better, it should be. It gives a potential for future expansion for the police. Even modest expansion cannot be reasonably attained to Sheridan Park. We would again contain that even the initial program cannot be easily or not attained without compromising adjacency relationships at Sheridan Park. Those compromises are not presented at 23rd Street. The bigger site gives you more design latitude. Future expansion is always more likely and more available at a large site that goes without saying. It's a fundamental premise. If you have more room, you have more room to expand. I mean, can I refute that? Okay, Nick. To the Zimmerman design group, what compromises will the two-story building design have to make compared to a one-story building? Well, if you go under the premise that going downstairs to the garage, having the garage proximate to vehicle maintenance and having the evidence storage off of the garage space is an operational negative, then you'd say that's a negative. I don't attribute that as a fact of the design. I don't. We have multi-story buildings. It's a loaded question to say would a department operate more efficiently in one story? Yes, but that's not the nature of the site. The site dictates certain things. And to have those functions located below grade, I think is a question that ultimately has to be asked to achieve. If he says fundamentally that those departments and those functions being located below grade is a bad thing, we won't do it. He hasn't said that. I don't believe that to be the case. He believes that those functions can operate at a lower level of the building and operations of the department aren't gonna be comparable. No, I would agree with what Mr. Savin has said. The one-story site will be more efficient and Sheridan Park does not allow that. Thank you. I have to add the project that we've defined is more efficient, a building. There's more efficiency. There's more usable square footage in our current program. So when we talk about efficiency, the project we're proposing is the most efficient project. There's a more usable area in our design current. Go ahead. When both programs are 80,000 square feet, as we've suggested here, and ours is 80,000, it simply means that what we're calling assignable is changed from the grossing factor to what is assigned. Our grossing factor, which is then called inefficient, is including allowance for a variety of functions which would need to be called assignable in order to get a higher efficiency. And it's just a matter of how you wanna categorize things. The same building, 80,000 square feet in both cases. Nick. Could any other sites still be considered such as the cargo plant or any other unused buildings in Sheboygan and what will be done with Sheridan Park if not made, or if the police station is not placed there, will it be abandoned to deteriorate even further? That's certainly mine. It's open to anyone. Again, essentially, any other sites. Could you repeat the question, please? Are there any other sites that can still be considered outside of the two? Focus, obviously, being on the 23rd Street in Sheridan Park, asking, gives examples cargo plant or any other unused buildings in the city of Sheboygan. Not being here for the history of how the reports have been generated, I know that a number of sites were considered. Again, I wasn't party to those discussions, so I would assume that the diligence of all the professionals involved, city staff, the police department was there identifying as many sites as possible that they deemed were viable. One could look at virtually any site and say it's appropriate in one way, shape, or form. But at some point, you got to pick one and you got to move on. And so we were at the point where we were retained to design a building for the site in question. If the site changed, we would approach that site differently. But at some point, you got to choose a site. It's no different than going to your home builder and saying, well, I'd like to live in five different places. At some point, you just got to pick one. It's a difficult choice. There's a number of factors that weigh into that, but we're at the point where we have a site and we're designed to that site. If you picked another site, we would consider that as diligently as everyone else has on previous efforts. I agree with what Mr. Sabin and Asha said, but I would add this. Although I was not present either when the sites were being considered, there were a number of sites. They all had slightly different characteristics and one of the primary ways that I understand, or at least this is how it was characterized to me, was that sites were either accepted for further consideration or thrown out was their size. And the primary way in which the site size was considered either positively or negatively was whether a single floor plan that was developed by the Kimi group could fit over that site. And if it did not, then the site was thrown out. And it was determined in the recommendation by the Kimi group that they have at least a four acre site for all reasons that have been talked about. Present site is 2.6 acres, so it's clearly smaller. And I believe its primary advantage to the city was that it was characterized as being free land. That seemed to override all the other aspects of practicality, functionality, and the other things that our report addressed in comparing a large site with a smaller site. Have either of the reports addressed the contamination issues of the 23rd Street site and the cost of the land there to the city? Many have been told this land is free when it is not. And I also say the super fund issues must be addressed. Is that to a... Either or? Yeah, yeah. We actually have looked at all the soils reports, both from the engineers who did soil borings to determine the presence or non-presence of contaminants and the engineers who were asked to look at the capacity of the soil to be the structural basis for a building. We also asked that question of the, I believe it was the city engineer about the Sheridan Park site. The Sheridan Park site has a solid Midwestern basic clay and there is no evidence of it having ever been a super fund site or anything like that. So it's basically, it was a park. It is a park and it's pretty clean land in that regard. It's buildable, there are no contaminants on the 23rd street site. On the other hand, there have been a number of accidents, if you will, or incidents in which have all been cleaned up and saved the area immediately around the lagoon on that park site. And the engineers who have, they have certified all of those cleanup efforts and they've also determined that the site is ultimately buildable, that there are a few places where you might have to engineer fill and you might have to do a little remedial work, but most of that would take place in the grading of the site itself. Both sites have contour. The 23rd street site has about a three and a half to four foot drop and the Sheridan Park site has about a 14 foot drop. The degree of difficulty in dealing with the 14 foot drop is considerable when you think about basement walls, cating walls, et cetera, and the supported slab on top of what you have as a basement floor. Whereas if you could build a slab on grade which they assured me was possible and probable if that site is ever built upon, it would be much less complex. I might add just one other thing that was in our estimate and Mr. Ringberg actually prepared that. It was the Kimme budget for the Sheridan Park site did not include the soils cost related to the basement construction, namely the removal of this substantial amount of the soil on that site to achieve the very large basement that's required. That's not a contamination issue, but it's a site cost issue related to the soils. The reports that we've seen have a number of based on the speed that they were generated and the premises and the fluidity of those premises have a number of different holes in them. So to say that one report didn't have soil removal costs identified, I'm sure that if Mr. Clark wanted to review your report he'd identify a number of things that he felt were lacking in that report as well. So I don't know that that's a productive. If the design of the building for Sheridan Park is less expensive, more efficient, et cetera, why not put this plan on the 23rd street site and leave the park a park? This is open. I didn't write that one. First and foremost, we don't have that site to work with. We haven't been asked to review that. Should the council wish us to consider an alternative site, potentially go down that road. The building in question on the Sheridan Park site in terms of the efficiency is the effort to get as much usable square footage or assignable square footage in as possible. I would hazard a guess that if Chuck, myself, Joe and Mr. Moyer stood up here and talked about not to gross one more minute, we'd probably all get run out on a rail or something. The main effort in terms of defining Sheridan Park from our perspective is to take the least day to day impact intrusive spaces that make the most sense to be at the lower level and locate them. If we had a smaller site on 23rd street, I wouldn't say that the necessity of putting parking at grade is necessarily the best response either. I know it's cheaper, but we wouldn't have gone down that road until we got to the point where we had considered the 23rd street site. So yes, parking on 23rd street could go below. Yes, evidence could go below. Those are all opportunities that exist, but they're design opportunities that come with direction to go down a specific road. As we've already acknowledged, a single story slab on grade building for an agency of this size is not a bad idea. It doesn't fit on the current site. Was it on my turn? Forgive me. Originally the shooting range was to be located to underground at the Sheridan site. Now apparently that's been moved to another site. Are we including the cost of maintenance of that other building, IE, janitorial clerks, et cetera? We've identified the size. We're working on the capital costs as we speak relative to not only that piece, but also the piece that we're working on in Sheridan Park. In terms of location for the department, we view that as an operational decision. If it's a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional shooting range, there are probably some efficiencies for all departments to have it located in an alternative site relative to Sheridan Park. I'm not sure it's necessarily the best location for the Sheboygan Police Department. I think given their druthers, they probably prefer to have it in the building. But again, I think that's a question for the Chief. By keeping it in the building, they generally maintain more of the control of that facility. I think as the builder of that facility, most agencies want to have it under their purview. And when it's used by multiple jurisdictions, they then get to pick the times that they shoot first and other people shoot later and during off-ball events and things of that nature. So we haven't talked about control of that facility. We haven't talked about the management of that facility. Given the nature of the facility, it's not unusual to have it as a freestanding element. We've got them elsewhere. Well, I would agree with what was said and I would add that when it is a freestanding element, it will generally cost more than if it were in a basement that you were already constructing or have ability to construct it. You have the site costs that are associated with the other location parking that needs to be created but the other location don't get the co-use of parking and so on. So that generally that and also the type of construction is an above-grade structure. You're trying to contain rounds. That becomes a construction undertaking that has a cost associated with it. Whereas the basement is a very economical way to get the range accomplished. Facility underground is also a lot better in terms of acoustical protection. It's a noisy place. Special designs in every regard but it'll be a lot less expensive to build it underground with another facility. And I would agree that Sheridan Park does not support the parking that you would need to have for other agency use, if not possible. A point out of this time, some of these questions obviously there's gonna be some that are repeated and if I do read one, okay, well and if I fail to recall that one that don't hesitate to let me know and I'll move on, my feelings will not be heard. I think this actually may have been touched on earlier but I don't know if the question was asked about it. Would the two-story station have put at Sheridan Park require prisoners to be taken up and down elevators for processing? We first considered that but we've abandoned that. It wouldn't be a Sally Port and booking that would be contained at the first floor. Still here? Hello? Good time. We're not looking at a basement level lockup at the Sheridan Park site. And we do not have holding cells or municipal lockup requirements. It's a booking facility in Sally Port. In response, I don't understand what was said. Is the- I'm gonna read that question. Is the Sally Port not at the same level as the booking? Or is asking if they're at the same level, they're not at the basement level? I don't understand the answer. They're at the same level, they're not at the basement level. They're at grade. At the part of grade. The Sally Port entrance is at the level of 14th Street. Level of the balance of the- It's in the front of the building with the public? It's not at the front of the building. It's at the same level as the majority of the police department functions. Which is either at the basement or the main level? It's at the main level of 14th. It's at the main level of the building. It's not in the basement of the building. But to say it's at the front of the building is misleading. And that's, we don't know where it's gonna be. We know it's not gonna be in the basement. I think when we know where it's gonna be, it's not gonna be at the back and it's not gonna be at the sides because it's very slow. That's conjecture. You don't know. The effect of the site slopes is not conjecture, however. Well, where we put it is conjecture on your park. Correct. Okay, Nick. Assuming that we're looking at a two-story building on the Sheridan Park location, including parking, how much of the park would be taken out? I think we answered that. We're not with the parking included? Okay. We're not at the point where we've had any fundamental discussions with city staff to determine whether there are options to putting parking at a big slab structure on grade that exists. I believe those options exist. Is the 80,000 square foot design including a room which would be used for municipal court? If yes, how many square feet would that be? There's a room that's in vision that can support court functions. It's a multi-purpose room. What ultimately would be available for public functions as well potentially. We haven't gotten to that point to define who's going to use it. I believe it's 2,000 square feet. I can only respond what we learned in the course of our study and that was that the number of cases that would be called for such a court according to the court clerk would not fit in a 2,000 square foot room. Can I answer that? We've subsequently had discussions with city and it's believed that that can be handled in a programming effort but they're not gonna have the same number of court docket dates in a new facility they would have with the current facility. The current court facility is the police department conference from the lower level of this building. That's what's used for municipal court. Is the shared inside going to have all of the original features originally asked for and if so what about handling of increased traffic expenses? Features, are we talking about program? I'm gonna assume we're talking first about program features. Well, it did give example. It said station, gun rage, court rooms, et cetera. The only program function that's been pulled off of the current project site is the range. It'll be relegated to an alternative site. All the other police department functions would be expected to be provided on that site. Parking is still to be discussed and I would acknowledge parking as the single biggest space user that could probably exist on the site. Massive number of spaces potentially and has to be dealt with sensitively. I would suggest there's no sensitive way to deal with a massive number of spaces in a parking. Again, that's conjecture. The 23rd Street site was not big enough on 3.7 acres at first. Why now is a portion of a 2.6 acre site adequate? What made shrinking the site feasible? I don't know that anybody's here that can answer that question. That's before I started on the project and it was before Engberg Moyer started on the project. I think it was before there was gas too. All right, well that was one of the easier ones then. Presumer and design group, do you believe your multi-story approach can be built for close to 10 to 11 million dollars and would you modify necessary functions to stay within that budget? That's dependent upon how the council views the budget, latitude in the budget and issues related to the design that haven't been fully resolved yet. If the council said you're gonna have a hard cap threshold, then we would review the program spaces that were identified as part of the programming exercise and work back to the budget number. If the council viewed it in an alternative way, we might take a different approach or not at the point where we've established what the budget is based on the program because we just finished the program. So we'll be working toward establishing those budget numbers now. Neither of us, the design group or our team has actually designed the building but we have a lot of experience and as we mentioned earlier, you'll get more for your money on a site that is a single level where it's easily built and you don't have to cut down a lot of trees, haul off a lot of dirt and things of that sort. Then you will on a site that is the opposite of that. 23rd Street site is open. It would be nice if there were something there because there's nothing there now. Building would probably be a good choice for something to place there. At the moment on the Sheridan Park site, you have a nice plateau with sloping streets on either side and a lot of earth to remove and a lot of beautiful trees. They're very different sites and architect will look at each site very differently. And I think it's important from our point of view that taxpayers' dollars are spent as wisely as possible. How much money has been spent to date on the Sheridan Park site? I don't know what our current billing is at but it's modest in relation to the overall project fee. I do not know what our current billing is at but it's modest relative to the overall project fee. You haven't made a substantial monetary commitment relative to the overall fee structure. And that doesn't pertain to you guys. It only pertains to us in the sense that, or me? No, he said it doesn't pertain to you as far as, Okay. As the cost to the city. May I make a comment? Unless you want to say something. I do. The group of citizens that have hired us so that taxpayer money wouldn't be made used for this study have spent a $30,000 to have us study both sites and to come up with recommendations and conclusions about the efficiency and the cost for each, which was the basis for our report. Okay, Nick. Maryland Avenue is located one block south of Sheridan Park. It's a one-way street heading east. Signs for parking state that a permit is required if you want to park there for more than two hours. Point out that the current permit parking requires, required for teachers at Sheridan School, the employees at the May line and the residents that live there. What type of permit parking will be required for the streets surrounding the new police station at the park? I know we haven't gotten to that point yet. Likely that's a discussion between ourselves and city development to talk about the nature of the parking, the nature of the perceived parking issues, the nature of the reality of the parking issues, the flexibility to deal with parking adjacent to the site in one way, shape, or form. We don't know that yet, but I know specifically I can't address the policy of the city of Shaboy in terms of the parking. No, I think it's true that it's ahead of you, except that both Zimmerman's diagram and our analysis of the Sheridan Park site show that you cannot have a Maryland street anymore with the required parking for police staff. In other words, it is used for parking for the staff. It doesn't fit on Sheridan Park. You need to vacate that street and use it for parking for the staff. That's 13th Street. No, it's 13th, excuse me, 13th Street. I'm sorry, not 13th. The two side streets, it's up for grabs as to whether there's any court parking. Well, I disagree fundamentally. If there were parallel or perpendicular parking that doesn't say that the street right away couldn't be maintained. I disagree. Well, I would agree to the extent that the diagram is not to scale and when it is to scale, the street is gone. And the Kimmy study showed 74 parking spaces. There are not 74 there and when they're drawn to the scale of the site, the street is gone. We drew it to the scale of the site. I disagree. You just haven't discovered it yet. No, we've discovered a lot actually. We've discovered that even in that diagram that to say that you couldn't have a street that goes through in a perpendicular arrangement is just flat out incorrect. That's just not right. That could very well be a street. It's a functional issue having public going through a police parking area that is something that's not advised. You'd like to segregate police parking. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a desired segregation but if the police department said can you make the site work and allow public traffic through that zone. To say that that can't be done is not correct. Yes, okay. You can route the public through a police parking lot but I would certainly advise against it. Well, that's something to be determined. That's a public location of a public vehicle owned by a citizen of the city. To say that that can't be done is just arbitrary. We haven't gotten there yet. Is it desirable? Yeah, maybe not. Okay. What is the effect of considering solar panels on the roof or mounting soil on the sides of a one story building? Would this save energy costs later? Those are possible scenarios. The earth encumbered or earth born or earth engaging structure is certainly not atypical. Generally the solar panel discussion has been in most cases that the initial infrastructure cost likely outweighs the way back. And so we would probably look at potentials that allow more opportunity for more immediate payback. But that's a study of solar energy and how much dollar you save for the down the line. That's something we can take a look at. It's just generally, we found that on a building of this magnitude, the capital cost is fairly high and the payback just isn't in most people's viewpoint reasonable for that initial infrastructure. I would agree generally with what Mr. Seven, as she said, but I would add that you'd first have to make sure that you had enough days that were sunny to justify having a solar collector system. Photovoltaic cells might be a little bit more efficient. There are many other ways you could put a wind farm on the roof, but I probably wouldn't want to do that either. The fact is that alternate energy sources at this point of their development usually are the second energy source for a building, the heat source, the cooling source, whatever. And so you're basically paying double. Usually you get your payback in places like Arizona and New Mexico for solar related things. And for wind, you could do wind here, but it's noisy and it wouldn't be part of either the Sheridan Park site probably or the 23rd Street site. So it's probably not a practical idea at this point. Nick, this one's a little more wordy. Kimmy anticipates a building need of 68,000 square feet. You estimate 80,000 with a growth of 10 officers in 20 years, 2.55 per 1,000 residents below the statewide average of 3.36 per 1,000. Assuming a linear progression of 15 officers per 20 years, please comment on the following in terms of accommodation that will be needed in design. What challenges do the Sheridan site present for a police station that could have the potential for an 80, 100 year life cycle given that per the report? And it says this plan provides for a minimal amount of space for future change in each operational area. Two trains headed this way. Yeah. I can repeat it if you need it. Or I can even actually let you hold it and look at it. I think this is an element of about three questions that have already been asked. There is implication about the overall size of the program and satisfying future needs of the city of Sheboygan. That's a new question, I believe. There was, I believe a bit of an under, sound like a wine guy undertone of lavender or something like that. It was a question about the nature of those expansion capabilities on Sheridan Park. And I think we all agree that the Sheridan Park is the most limiting for future expansion. There are fewer options given that in comparison to the 23rd Street site. But let's address the expansion of the Sheboygan Police Department. We've been as diligent in identifying as many future expansion spaces as we can that seem programmatically reasonable that address their future needs to the best that we can. Thank you. Sorry about that. And we've accounted for some future expansion within the department within select agencies. Investigations, as an example, has an open office copy room that can be changed out into an office philosophically in the program. So we've been pragmatic in our approach to dealing with future expansion by identifying those spaces where it was likely that there would be expansion and that we could assess and incorporate that space reasonably now. Again, whether it's appropriate or whether it's easier on the Sheridan Park site, and given the nature of the site, you'd always want to have more room around to deal with an expansion. But what percentage of expansion is already incorporated into the plan? There is some. So the likelihood of having to deal with this issue for another 20 years on that site if we built the project that we've identified is probably very minimal unless something substantially changed within the scope of services of the police department that would fundamentally impact the nature of the department in a staffing way. Yeah, I would agree with what was said, but I would add that it is always possible that something substantial will happen that will impact police services. Anything, even including a new factory coming to town employing 8,000 workers or 10,000, whatever. All kinds of events can happen, which cannot be anticipated in advance. They just happen and when they happen, there's an increased need for the police services and hence there could be a need to expand the building. Who's your plan? When would we have a police station completed at Sheridan Park? The current timeline has us completing schematic design in June of this year, forwarding that information with a budget to council for action in October. We would pick up in October and be out on the street in the spring of coming year and be building likely for one year, 14 months that's still to be determined, but it would likely be a 2007 completion timeline. No comment. Okay. What is the ultimate cost of the 23rd Street site? And we can't assess that, we haven't been asked to. The cost of the 23rd Street site, I suspect the question really is meant to mean is it the cost to build on that site or is it the land cost itself? The land cost itself, it's hard for us to know. There were negotiations, the city and the county were basically agreed that that was where it was gonna go and then it was determined that the Sheridan Park site did not have any legal encumbrances upon it and so it could be considered land that the city did not have to pay for directly. However, we have pointed out that there are costs associated with the development of that site that you wouldn't have on the other site. On the other hand, there are deals that have to be made between the city and the county on the other site and I'm not completely conversant with all of those but I know that in our conversations with not only the county administration but the sheriff himself that those obstacles seemed minor in their minds at this point. Zimmerman Design Group, does your one story building diagram for Sheridan Park show an 80,000 square foot building? Proposed one. And final question that we have which I don't know it necessarily, specifically pertinent to the building of the police station itself but I have noticed that a lot of these questions seemed to be a little more harder on the Zimmerman Design Group. So I will ask it, it says for the Zimmerman Rep, did the Sheboygan Press ever ask your firm for their input when they published information on the Engurg Moir Report? If so, do you think they provided a fair discussion for the public info? We weren't consulted relative to Engberg Moir in a public way, we didn't get to speak at that event. This is our first opportunity to address the council and the citizens of Sheboygan in a public forum other than questions or commentary at a microphone. So we weren't consulted. It's unlikely that we would have been, it's not usual, consultant that's retained to do a study doesn't necessarily consult with everybody who's working on a project. So no, we weren't consulted. We were certainly were not consulted by the press. We had one phone conversation where we asked to comment on the report but we hadn't seen it so we did not comment on the report and think that would be fair. Are there issues that as part of the presentation I would take exception with? I think we've covered that. I disagree with some of the premises but architects have a wide array of different ideas about things. Very little fact in architecture. A lot of conjecture, a lot of opinion, a lot of different approaches based on our experiences and our design creativity. We live in a right brain world as architects but we also have to use our left brain. Left brain being the one that is the analytical part of it. We were not commissioned to use our right brain on this particular study although I'm sure it came into play here and there. But basically we were asked to look at what we understood to be the givens on each of the two sites. Zermann's charge is slightly different. They're asked to build a police station program on a single site. So again we're sort of in the apples and oranges world but the reason that we were commissioned to investigate and to study the two sites is to show that there are in fact more cost effective ways to deal with the same program. If you use a site other than the Sheridan Park site which we believe is a very expensive place to build let alone the fact that you are taking away a park from the city of Sheboygan. Not everybody who comes who lives in the city of Sheboygan is ever gonna have to deal with the police hopefully. You have a wonderful law abiding community for the most part. I think more people would probably be able to use the park than they would to go to the police station but it's a matter of what is the most expedient way to get a site. I mean we talked to Chief Kurt and I can understand his frustration is immense at having to have waited so long for a facility that is needed as much as this police station is needed by this community. He's absolutely right about the need and so there's no question about that and so we believe that we're hopefully going to be able to help this community find the least expensive and most cost effective way to achieve Chief Kurt's goal. Oh I was just gonna point there were a couple of other questions we did not read and the reason being is because they required answers more from older persons as opposed to either of those that are answering questions at this time so. Thank you for sitting in here. And thank you Nick for reading them. Now we'll open it up to people on the floor to the older persons here. All of Miss Golly. This really is not a question for Mr. Sabanash or anything but as I'm sitting here and I'm listening to the gallery back here. I know that Mr. Moyer and Mr. Enberg when they were here the council and the gallery were giving them full attention. I feel that some of them were being very disrespectful to Mr. Sabanash and I think it should be known that when we have somebody up here and they're in the gallery this laughing and talking between them does not need to be and I'm very upset about the fact that we had this going on. Now we as Alderman need to respect that and as the new Alderman come in they will notice that as they're sitting in these chairs they're gonna hear all of this conversation behind them and that is very irritating and very distractful and I think it needs to stop and needs to stop now. Thank you. Older person sir. Sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Moyer report as it was stated in the press that it would save three million dollars and I understand you said you can't compare apples to apples and I know that each of the buildings are different and unique but there seems to be some excessive charges to the Sheridan Park site which you included such as a green roof and which cost about $400,000. Why wasn't that transferred on the 23rd site and then also I think it's important and you did address it but you did not incorporate the cost of the land and then there was also additional parking which you put on your study and I'd like to know if the county had spoke to you concerning offering up that free or is that additional cost that we'll need to look at down the road. Thank you. Well that's several questions. I'll take the first two and then you can deal with the last one because I was trying to process the first two as you were asking the third. With regard to the green roof the reason that we suggested that that would be appropriate was because the only way as we saw it if you grouped all of the functions that ideally would be on one level on that level it would take up a very large space in the park. In fact they would take up almost two thirds of the park or more and if you're gonna reestablish the park in any way you would put the green roof back on the park so that it could be used as a terrace, a lawn or something of that sort. In other words the building is under the grass. There's no need to do that on the 23rd street site because there's plenty of open space and you don't have to do that even if it's a one story building. The reason that we were suggesting that there would be a premium to have buildings that as we characterized where there was a small upper part and a large lower part would be that in order to save park and have some park there you would have to reestablish it some way at some greater cost. What the Zimmerman Design Group is proposing is that instead of having a large lower level and a smaller upper level that they push some of the functions that ideally would be on that lower level or on a single level up onto the first level or the main level so that you have one floor superimposed over the other in exactly the same footprint and they felt that they could cut some costs in that way and they probably could but our basis was to say and part of the reason for the heavy cost the $3 million that we projected as an estimate without a building design but with just using sort of diagrams and rules of thumb was that if you're going to build a building in the park you have to reestab and you want to reestablish the park it's gonna cost some money to do that and you don't really have to do that on the other side it wouldn't be an appropriate exercise just to try to make apples with apples comparison because the two sites don't allow you to make apples and apples comparisons. And correct me if I'm wrong but if I understand you correctly you're basically saying that you're putting a green rough on top of a rough to appease the grass that we're taking away and you're putting it on top of the rough. So you're doing it to take the place of the real grass and it will be real grass, it can be real grass and in fact it's done more and more these days and a lot of places like where land is a very special commodity like a park, like a college campus buildings are built underground and roofs of grass in effect are being put over them but they are more expensive because you have to build the structural roof and the waterproof roof and special lightweight soils and all kinds of things like that but it's done all the time to great advantage. And I might add if you don't do it the alternative of not putting the green roof on that basement roof as it were is that you will have a very ugly normal roof. Roof you would see if you go up on top of a building that's what you would see in the park is either a tar and gravel or a membrane roof or some kind of a roof and you want to keep people off of it so you'll have to put a fence around it. Now people are gonna be able to walk on it will either need to make it the green roof or put a plaza that people can walk on and that's gonna be more expensive than the green roof. The cost of land was the other thing that you asked for. Our understanding of reading documents that have gone back and forth in the several years of trying to work toward a new police station for this community showed that there had been a concerted effort to make a deal for the city and the county to come to an accord, let's put it that way. And part of that was trading of spaces, part of it was cash, part of it was just the sense of cooperation that was there. And as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, there was in effect a handshake already established that this was gonna go ahead until it was determined that there was no legal incumbrance to actually building on the park by some old bequeathment of that land to the city. It was in somebody's will they gave it to the city but there were no constraints, there were no words that said you couldn't build on that for some other purpose than a park. And that was when the city decided as I understand it and I wasn't there when I was decided either but that could be a park site could be used as a police station. So you have not incorporated in that $3 million savings the cost of purchasing that land? No, we have not. Okay, thank you. And I don't know if Mr. Sam and Ash, if you want to expound on the roof as far as your design is concerned and how your interpretation of a green roof and the cost savings that you've incorporated in putting on a different roof? The premise is we're not against green roofs either. They're really great features, they're energy savers, they're sustainable, wonderful, wonderful roofs. If we can afford to do a green roof on a building on either site or a third site or a fourth site yet to be determined we would be advocates of that. However, when we viewed the reports in comparison form we viewed the reports as I guess from our perspective we're always trying to get as lowest a common denominator as we can. And so the design effort to put three quarters of the program below grade hypothetically in that scenario results in other encumbered costs. We would look at that and say, can't we look at a scenario that has philosophically a closer cost? One that doesn't have cost for green roof, one that doesn't have a cost for a plaza over building as the methodology to try to get as close a representation of the two sites as we could. Now that's just our philosophy. Other people can have other philosophies that doesn't make either one right or either one wrong. It's been my I guess mantra as an architect to do things that ultimately result in a building being able to be built, not paper architecture. So the reports that we do try to very feverishly distill everything down to a lowest common denominator whenever we can. I fully agree that you can't compare the two sites wholly. It's impossible. Two different scenarios, two different orientations, two different access to utility constraints, two different parking requirements. They all impact the design of the building. But I would be more akin or more, I would be looking for the things that are in common rather than breaking out the things that aren't in my analysis. And so when I view that, I look at the things like the green roof and the plaza as being premiums paid on one site. That may be a design feature that doesn't have to be there necessarily. So if we can avoid it, why wouldn't we avoid it? So long as it doesn't impact that chief's ability to run the building, I'm gonna be an advocate of not building space underneath plazas and green areas that traditionally if you go from municipality to municipality in this state are being rethought now 20 years later. I don't wanna come back to you in 20 years and say geez what a mistake we made by making a plaza on top of an occupiable space. That wouldn't be a good idea either. And so as the person who's gotta design the building, the person who holds the liability associated with the building, the person who stamp resides on the drawings, I would take a different approach. Any other, Alderperson got any question? Alderperson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing, just stepping back a little bit. And Mr. Engberg mentioned the agreement that we came close to with the county. That was a tentative agreement based on Kimmy looking at an aerial of that site to determine whether we should sit back down with the county or accept it as it is. And Kimmy, we spent $38,000 on that study. They looked at it and they said sit back down with them, talk to them, we sent a letter to the county. The county said no, we will not sit back down with you. The city was in a dilemma at that point. It's clear, there's letters here that prove it. It's exactly as I said. The county said no, we will not discuss the two tenths to three tenths of an acre that you need on that site. What will we do? They said they were gonna forward the document to the county board for approval regardless of what the city, what impact it had on the city. So that's how that happened. In that time, in Indram, had they sat down with us and talked to us, we perhaps could have worked something out at that time. But they said no. In that time is when we found out that we could actually use the Sharon Park site legally. We weren't gonna use it if it wasn't legal. So I wanna make that clear. But actually, I did hear somebody mention and I believe it was Mr. Engberg or Mr. Moyer, I'm not sure that the county was considering moving their sheriff's department out to the 23rd Street site. I've heard different and I guess I would like to know if you know has someone at the county made the statement that they're gonna be moving their sheriff's department to the 23rd Street site to co-locate with the city at any time in the new future, let's say 20 years, 50 years. Has anyone made that statement to you? And I guess if they have, have they, has someone at the county told you that they're not gonna charge the city close to a million dollars in value and or money for the site. And in addition to that, I know the county board chairman is here, perhaps he can answer it. But I think I'd like to hear from you first. Well, yeah. So what we had to say on that subject, we said in the report and I think your question goes beyond what we said. We did not say in the report that the county has plans to co-locate the sheriff department there. We did have discussion with the sheriff and with the chair of the board, Mr. Gary, that would there be desirability in that? And the answer was yes, there would be desirability in that. But that doesn't mean that there was a unilateral decision without discussion with the city to pursue that. What we did was identify the advantages that such a scenario would bring to both parties. That's what our report is about. What could be accomplished? What are the opportunities that are there at 23rd Street that are not at Sheridan? And that's what we presented for you. You may then follow up and decide, well, you like that opportunity or you don't like that opportunity. That's clearly your decision. And at the same time, we also did not pursue what would the cost be for the city if this were to be followed up. That again is something for you to pursue with the county. That's your negotiations to have. We did not try to go down that path without you. And I do feel comfortable in asking that question because it was insinuated several times that that may have happened in one way or another, and it may lead the public to believe that those discussions have happened so much. I heard a rumor today that I was not attending this meeting, so you can hear many things. I knew you were gonna be your friend. I even got one of those cases, glass cases here. One of the things that we did here from the sheriff was that there seemed to be many demands for the space that they currently occupy in their building and that he would actually feel that it was a better location for him to be farther west where most of the action is toward the highways and the things that the sheriff patrols. So he would not be adverse to leaving where he is now if there was some good reason to do it. It was a very open, free-flowing discussion, and I believe that we touched on the same kinds of things when we spoke to Chairman Gehring to report on our conversation with the sheriff. I guess Chairman Gehring, any input? Maybe. So, maybe I'm following up too much. One more thing on that, though. I guess one concern I end up having is we're putting a lot of this on what could possibly be.  And to sit here and say that possibly in 30 or 40 or 50 years this might happen is something that I think the council has to consider when they think of these issues. There's some very valuable land sitting off of Colorado Memorial Drive, and my guess is that the value of that line is going to continue to go up. So, whether they would look at there or not, I guess it's a different issue. I heard the government say, and I think the city has been all along. We share a lot of services now. There's only really one left that's involved in this discussion, and that's co-location of the police and the sheriff, and the sheriff is not going to move in the near future. The city has to look after its own interests with some eyesight towards the future. However, it can't find itself based on the possibility that someday the sheriff may move. It's my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question in light of some serious concerns by the public and some members of this council with respect to shared services, efficient use of space, parking, building for future needs, optimum use of taxpayer dollars, et cetera. If you could please summarize in a nutshell, what do you see your duty to be to this community and to this council in designing that facility? Unless the site has changed to design the best, most responsible police department facility possible for that parkland. Okay, and this is a two-prong question. Second prong would be, then given that... They can't hear you. Let's speak up a little bit. My mic on? Yeah. Given that, I've heard you say several things here. One is with respect to Sharon Park, or several of these are, shared services, less desirable and more difficult to accomplish. One story is more desirable and here we're building more. Elevator and other things will compromise. Elevator and other compromises made will affect efficient use of space and time. Shared services was outside the scope of the chemistry study. Design process without input from citizen or the council. More space, more room to expand at the 23rd. A single slab building is not a bad idea. It just doesn't fit in Sharon Park. Range delegated to another site and parking still not dealt with correctly. In light of all that that you just told us tonight, how can you, given your view of what your duty is to us and the community, still say that Sharon Park is the best place to put police station? Because we weren't asked to view other sites. We were given a task to design this building for this site. That's a very specific work scope, which I'm sure any architect can attest to. We weren't asked to study other sites. Clearly, objectives could be identified in numerous other sites, but it's not part of our work scope. We were given a defined site, defined program. It was our objective to implement the program to the best ability that we could. Toward that end, we evaluated the program. We came up with our own program number. Yes, building of this scale operates more effectively in one story than two. It's also more generally going to be less costly, but there are certainly other examples of multi-story police department buildings of this magnitude that operate well on two levels. So to say that it can't be done is simply inaccurate. Other people do it, it works. It works with the breakdowns that we've identified. We haven't proposed to put something at a lower level that's gonna impact the security of the officers or the public who uses the building. We will address the parking issue as soon as we can meet with city staff to identify, A, what this department thinks is an appropriate layout of the building, and B, what the magnitude of the parking would be. So we don't know some of those answers yet because we haven't asked the question, but it's going to come as part of the process. We're just not far enough down that road to say that we have a convincing description of what we propose to do with parking that's been embraced by city staff. This is our first opportunity to present to council. So we haven't hidden anything. We've finally got a program done that identifies what we think the needs of the department are going to be. We're prepared to implement whatever design parameters that you have in any way that you see fit following the same protocols that we do, a responsible building that fulfills the need and does so in a fiscally prudent way. So we're prepared to do that. I'm a person's chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to reiterate again, Mr. Sabanash, given our needs, you are able to meet those needs at Sheridan Park. It is feasible. Yes. Okay. And irresponsibly, we'd probably take a whole lot of the park. Again, it's been our objective philosophically to talk about ways to design the building that don't negatively impact delivery of services while maintaining as much of the park as possible. And just to address the question, I like the fact that you said you are looking at expansion in terms of reality. And I'm sure the chief here sitting here, when somebody had addressed the question about getting 10 new police officers on staff, I hate to tell you this public, but we're trying hard just to get our two. We're still under the table of organization. So I appreciate that you're looking at realistic numbers. Also, with the county present, and maybe the chief might want to address this, I would still like to know there's been a lot said about shared services. I need somebody to tell me what services are at Jeopardy. Because even this new Moyer report labels some, not all of all the shared services that we're currently exploring. And I bet if we did a full audit of each department in our city, the public would be surprised at how much we bend over backwards to work with each other. And another thing we haven't talked about, and I don't know if the Moyer report addressed this, or the Zimmerman too, because I know this is something that was explored, is the cost of the fiber optics going to the 23rd site. Was that incorporated into your costs? How the communication, how that was going to be handled? Is that a question? Yeah, the fiber optics, right. Was that incorporated into your study of the cost? As we understand it, there is presently no fiber optic cable that goes down Memorial Drive. But sooner or later, it will be there. It's the future. It's what's going to happen. But I think that the city and the county are to be commended on the amount of shared service that they've done to date. I mean, this is, it's not as if nothing is happening. We got lists, in fact there's a whole study of shared services that was developed by, I believe, somebody at the county level, and we got a copy of it, and we were surprised that so many things are already being done. So the shared services is something for the future. And as Chairman Gehring said, there is not going to happen immediately in a co-location kind of way. But if you look at the future, as you should when you're building a facility that is this important in the life of a community, you should look at expansion. You should look at the possibilities of co-location and where savings could be achieved down the line. In fact, it's one of the governor's initiatives for the state of Wisconsin to see if there are ways in which communities can find ways to simplify their life rather than complicate them. And although there are degrees of complication when people try to share, you have to share. That's complicated. You also find some benefits in trying to do that. And I think the city and the county have already established that there are some significant benefits to doing that. And just to reiterate again, so the cost of the fiber optics at that site was not included in your study? Yeah, no, it was not. I'm not sure that that's a relevant point, but it was not. And I don't know if the Chief wanted to address, again, I'm still looking and I can never get this answer. What shared services are at Jeopardy? This here is for future shared service opportunities between Shavoy and County Sheriff's Department and the Shavoy Police Department. You can go to the administration building and go see Mr. Bernie Romer, purchasing agent. In the Inberg-Moyer report, it showed that the city and the county shared 17 different services, but in fact, there's 24. And then on the end here, it says it is clear that all law enforcement agencies across the county work very well together. There are many examples of shared services in place and all provide significant savings to the taxpayers. In fact, there are no clear cut shared service opportunities left to explore the county's public care. Okay, Alderman Graf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to bring something up. Alderman Cerner mentioned something about a million dollars that the 23rd Street site could possibly cost us or that's what they were talking about, or somebody did. And the last I knew when we were negotiating and working on this, we had it down to approximately $300,000, which was going to be put into an escrow account. And based on that, there was a document, I believe, before the county board, where they voted 26 to six, I think that they were going to go ahead and work with the city of Sheboyin to do their police facility on 23rd Street. My question is really to the county board chairman, at this time, is the county still willing to work out some type of deal on the 23rd Street site that may or may not cost us any funds? That still is very much alive. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would move for a five-minute recess so that the TV people can change their tape. Second. Motion made in second. The recess for five minutes. So it's a change of hands. I'll move it to the right. All right. I'll take it. You can turn that wall off now. You're gonna have to put it, we're gonna have to put it up for the person. Okay, I'll need a motion to reconvene. So motion was made in second to reconvene. All in favor? Aye. Okay, we are back. Roll call. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Bowman. Here. Berg. Here. Serta. Here. Graf. Here. Kittleson. Here. Lauchs. Here. Manny. Here. Montemayor. Here. Perez. Here. Segali. Here. Van Akron. Here. Vanderweal. Here. And Warner. Here. 12th present. Okay. All in person. Montemayor, you won it. Yes, am I on? Go ahead. Okay, thanks. Thank you gentlemen for coming. I appreciate the information. I appreciate a lot of you taking your time, your expertise, and being very straightforward and forthright. Thank you again. One question. And you can all answer this, I'll bet. Is it true or is it not true that fiber optics will be phased out and replaced by microwave and microwave may be paid or we could get the funds from Homeland Security? Assessing where communications is going to be in five years, much less than ten. Certainly we've done project work with microwaves. So that would be a viable alternative to fiber optics for most circumstances. Funding streams, we just find that more and more, the funding streams are being aggressively pursued by multiple agencies and there's challenges in acquisition. So it's a very competitive market, your perspective of how it's going to secure the money. You'd think the police could get it, if anybody having to do with Homeland Security, but I understand what you're saying. For the same pot of money. Yes. So we find that it's a very competitive market for those funds. Thank you. Any other thoughts? The technologies like that are out there, they're being used, they're all proven. It's just a matter of figuring out which is the best way for mass communications particularly for emergency communications because you wanna make sure that since a lot of communications are emergency related and what safety related that you wanna make sure that those systems are in place. I don't feel completely comfortable either talking about this. I mean, neither of us is a communications technology with what we incorporate those kinds of people on our teams and I'm sure Zimmerman's a group just as Amber Gangers and we can bring people like that in and I'm sure that you'll have somebody like that on your team. It's hard to guess which one is gonna be the beta that will just die. Anybody old enough to remember when beta was the big deal? No, you're not. Okay, Chief Kirk. All right, John, I'll just speak up a little bit. Actually, I have a couple of different... You're not gonna hear it on your TV. Okay. First off, Bonnie had asked me about shared services. I'd like to just speak briefly on it if I could. It was also involved in this study and they spoke of the very positive environment which in we work and I'd like to say thank you for acknowledging that. As I addressed it once before, we're very, very proud of the shared services we do with the Schwoing-Kona Sheriff's Department and other police departments in our county. That was one of my questions also. It seems like this study frequently speaks of the shared services will be more and more effective if in fact we co-locate. My first question was if in fact it's been asked already but were you aware if the Schwoing-Kona Sheriff's Department was going to move over or co-locate with us? Which in fact I've been just told the opposite. Even though it indicates there's a positive environment for shared services you frequently say we will become more effective and more efficient with shared services if we co-locate. What services are we speaking of or is this a theoretical discussion that if we co-locate, of course, should be better? Should I answer that now? We spoke of both current services and future services that would, are we on? Sure. What we addressed in the study was both the current services which we commended and even learned there are more than we even knew about. We first interviewed you and we wrote down everything we could as fast as we could. If we had more time we would have learned about the other seven. But that's all commendable and but I would only say that if they're functioning at a certain level now without being together you can only imagine how much better they would function if they were together. If you take the opposite position and say they function well because they are apart then maybe you should be further apart and then you can really be good. I don't think anybody would take that argument. I think there are certain obvious logic that where things such as training are done jointly which there is and where equipment is being used jointly there is the equipment is either at one place or the other place. Training space is at one place or the other place. The people are at different places. There's movement involved to get to the same place. So for me it's very easy logic to say even what you're doing now will be enhanced by being at the same place. And then the other notion I think someone mentioned in the intermission that there was a statement made by the US Patent Office Director in 1889 that there was he recommended closing the patent's office because he said everything of any importance has already been invented. And that certainly seems to apply here. You've got 24 services to go and there can't be any more. I would not agree with that as a good posture. I would say that there are things yet to be invented and that you should be able to have the opportunities to act upon them jointly. And that will only happen in some instances and perhaps some very important instances if you are co-located. If I could just respond. I believe we've operated tremendously already and we're not co-located. I just don't see the Sheriff's Department or at least the county officials I've spoken to that they're going to co-locate. So I think just so the citizens are well aware we've done tremendous work in shared services and every time people say that we could do better I still have yet to receive one shared services example that is thrown out there. So with this please understand common counsel that we meet on a monthly basis with the sheriff. We meet with the sheriff and all police departments in the county to deal with these issues of shared services and we certainly will continue to provide the best shared services we can that makes sense. A second issue is speaking of the possible contaminants on 23rd Street I think there seems to be some concern on your part where you spoke of boring number one on the northeast corner of the lot. What's the extent of your concerns or what is the concern that needs to be studied further and boring number one? Boring number one typically for those of you who may not read boring logs just before you go to bed it's essentially what they do is they make a grid of test sites on a piece of property. You get a drilling rig out there that has a special kind of cylinder that takes soil samples and some of them are deep probes that look at what the different levels of soil and moisture content are at different levels as you go down. There's a log cap of each of those borings and there are laboratory tests made on the compressibility of the soil, the water content, the actual nature of the soils and on boring site number one as I recall the thing in front of me but essentially there were some soft material at one point on the site particularly at number one and that's kind of at the, get my bearings right here, the northeast corner of the northeast most location for boring and they said that down to about 11 feet the soil was pretty soft compressible soil and that there was evidence that there was considerable amount of water in that one site but that was not the same as it was everywhere else. There were probably 15 boring sites, 12 of the 15 boring sites, that was one and it was the only one that showed any particular problematic construction issue and the construction issue was double there on that one site. I could go on, but I mean basically you dig out a little bit, you compress the soil, you deal with engineered fill which is new fill on top of the old so that you can compress it and basically if you're working on a slab on grade building all you have to do is get it to the level that the rest of the soil is added close to it so that you can normalize that portion of the site that's a little off and frankly this happens on almost every site that we work on. There are anomalies that you see around the perimeter all the time and this is not an unusual condition. You also made mention that the city need not worry about what the contamination and I'm just paraphrasing and trying to remember what the study said. Need not concern themselves with the contamination or the fill because the county placed it there or because it was a county site. What I was referring to there is usually if there is to be cleaned up the culprit if you will the party that is responsible for any spills or whatever is responsible to clean it up and in this case the county has they've cleaned it up and there are reports on file for every incident that has happened over the years there was a gasoline spill, there was a leak in the tank there are a few other things and they've all been taken care of and the reports are there and certified by the DNR so as far as I could read from that information there's no problem there. Just the other comment I would like to make is I do appreciate you having a meeting today to discuss this. I do appreciate that the effort is being put forward to come to a resolution on this. The issue still is that we need a police department. The issue is now where do we build it? We owe it to the city. We owe it to our employees to continue forth with this and John you're an angel in the sense of just trying to answer questions from someone else's study and try to defend some work and thank you very much. Thank you. Deputy Chief Weiss? I have just a few things here to cover. A lot of which was covered already tonight and I also appreciate this opportunity. First of all, some questions for Mr. Moyer. Seems to be some confusion on the cost for acquiring the 23rd Street site. There was no confusion at the time we negotiated and it was a pretty specific site. It didn't include the county shed. In fact, there was a considerable amount of arguing over the dual use of this four-tenths of an acre. County insisted that they wanted to keep driving their trucks back and forth there and at that time, Kimmy was consulted and they specifically have an email on file. They specifically said that Bob you need to get the full four acres and if you don't, you're gonna have to consider going up a story. Okay, now my question to Mr. Moyer is if there's so much room out there why did you find it necessary to park the municipal parking spaces on the county's property? There was a specific four acre site that we were looking at. It's not necessary. We showed a diagram in which they were located there for the court only. The 17 spaces that are in the Kimmy program for the police are on the site. Yes, that is, but the municipal court, you chewed up most of the shared in park by putting about 47 spots or so that you said we needed for a municipal court. But when you try to put those 47 spots at the 23rd Street site, they don't fit. Not with a one-story design. So is that why you put them next door? If you move the, we put more parking than the program required for the police at the back of the site at 23rd. That can be moved back. It can be reduced to the program amount and you could park in the front. We add that. The second thing we heard tonight is you're not going to have the volume of activity at the court that we learned you would have from the district court. So by the same token, you won't have the need for those municipal parking sites that we showed at the 23rd Street. Okay, is that, if I understand you correctly, it's an inaccuracy in your report that we need that much parking at the shared in park or we just don't need it there? Apples to apples. If we needed it at shared in park, we showed it also at 23rd. You did, but you didn't show it on the property that we negotiated. You showed it on the shared. We showed an option where there was a cooperation with the county. Right, but we. There'd also be an option where you put it all on the 23rd Street site. That option I didn't see it. We didn't show it. No. We could show lots of options. We took you down a couple of possibilities. There are more and there is one that would allow that parking to be on the site without use of any county land. Okay. When I asked you this question on the 30th, you said you may require a partial basement. Does a partial basement then need a partial elevator or that was your response on the 30th of how you would accommodate that parking? Well, I recommend a partial basement. What is the 23rd Street site, single story or only when sometimes, and is it two stories when, I'm a little confused on that because the answer you gave me on the 30th was that you might have to have a partial basement. Do you recall you said that? Now, I didn't make myself clear. I said I would recommend a partial basement. I would put the firing range at the lower level, which you now say is not going to be in the building. So that would go away as an issue. But if you're going to have the firing range in the building program, which the Kimi program did, we recommended that you, while you could have it at all one story, I would recommend putting it in the basement because of the acoustic separation and the fact that the basement construction would contain the rounds better than the upper level. Okay. Just for your information. It's not going to be there. So it's probably a moot question at this point. Yes. Thank you. Just for your information, the county has their range in the basement right now and it's terrible for acoustics. It's just terrible. It can't even schedule meetings upstairs. So a basement doesn't automatically. That would be for other reasons because a firing range in an office building is a much worse idea. Okay. Now as far as the officer, the Schmoying Police Department does not have a range on site right now. And we don't see this as problematic. The county shares our outdoor range. We share their indoor range and we'll continue to share as much as we can. If they can join in on a new range that we would build off site and use their range for space, that's another area where we can share. That's another matter. We negotiated with the county for that nearly four acre site. They were asked, would they be willing to share the cleanup costs? And they said, absolutely not. You buy it, you got it. And we were leery of that. At the time the park was not available. So I'm not certain that there is absent as indicated, but certainly someone has to be to check out. Most of the other things that I had have already been covered. I do believe that $3 million savings at 23rd Street can be trimmed down to actually nothing. It's my opinion. I've got my figures on how this would work. Also the 23rd Street site would require the county shed to move. I had estimates everywhere from seven and a half million to $12 million to knock down the county shed and move it to a new modern facility someplace central county. Let's just say 10 million. The Sheriff's Department anywhere from 15 to 20 million depending on their needs and how far in the future you wanna project their growth. So you have $30 million of expenditures. I find it hard to believe that the county and the citizens of this county would spend that kind of money merely to locate next to the police department. When there is nobody pointing out just exactly how much money you save. We're not co-located now. And we share as many services as possible. We continue to do that. As soon as it's pointed out, we're gonna explore it. So I think the chances of the county moving the Sheriff's Department to 23rd Street are non-existent. At least in the foreseeable future. I have one more question and a little more serious here. You all are in a lot of respect for you. You put in a lot of hours and you work very hard. And you're all trying to do the best for this community. And I don't take lightly anybody threatening this comment that was made by somebody in this audience. It's gonna be a bloodbath on the 18th. Like Mr. Alderman Bergt identified that person. I'll have a talk with him. The person that made that comment that there's gonna be a bloodbath on Monday. Okay, who is that person? I'll have a talk with him. If you wanna identify him, I'll have a talk with him. If you wanna identify him in private, that's up to you. I can talk to you in private, but. It was me. Yeah. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay, seeing there's no lights or anything. I'll entertain a motion on RO number 534-04-05. A motion was made. I've moved to refer RO number 534-04-05 to the Common Council with no recommendation. And it was seconded. All in person, Sagali. Okay, anybody got any questions on the motion? Wanna take a roll call then, please? Bowman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Serta? Aye. Graf? Aye. Kittleson? Aye. Lauchs? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Sagali? Aye. Vanakren? Aye. Vanderweal? Aye. And Warner? Aye. 12 Ayes. A adjourn. I just wanna say thanks for everybody coming. Everybody kept their cool pretty good tonight. And just thanks for everything because everybody thought it was gonna be 10, 10, 30, 11 o'clock tonight, but it went pretty smooth to cover everybody cooperating. Motion made sign tonight. All in favor? Aye. Contrary? No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.