I'd like to call the meeting of the 16th regular meeting of the 2018-2019 Common Council to order. Please take your seats. Would the clerk please read the quote for the day? Thank you Mr. Mayor. Let our lives be full of both thanks and giving. Thank you. Would the clerk please call the roll? There are 10 Thank you. Please stand and join me in the Pledge of 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. Next item on the agenda is the is the approval of minutes from our last council meeting. All the person will thank you mayor. I make a motion to approve. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on those minutes? Seeing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Next move on to a presentation on our City Hall renovation and it's an update by David Bebel and Don Sokolowski. David and Mike Wilmes is also here. Thank you. I'd like to point out two of the key staff. Don as the mayor mentioned as well as Mike Wilmes our superintendent of facilities and traffic are with us this evening as well for any other type of technical questions that may arise from the presentation. I it's a I hope to keep this brief. I want to just give you an update. It's been very exciting. A lot of progress has taken place since we broke ground in in June. So we started in June of this summer and currently we're about 40 percent complete. The demolition is all been completed. The walls and mechanicals are currently being installed such as the electrical heating and ventilating air conditioning duct work as well as plumbing and 90 percent of the windows are installed. The only remaining windows yet are the big arch windows in the common council chambers and they just want to make take their time. So this is what you see up here is the actual original ceiling. Beautiful crown molding and the skylight is still in place. That was covered up by that dropped false ceiling that was put in place. Oh I'd say in the late 80s as an energy savings. They couldn't the actually the existing lights these lights that are up in this areas are still original from when they changed from gas lighting to electrical lighting back in probably the 30s that was roughly and those fixtures or something else. This is what's going to look like when we're done. The council will now face the public with the audience being in the chairs out here. Council with the back to the windows monitors behind and so it the room has been basically changed in its orientation. So this is a picture of second floor demolition completely gutted. So the it's a post and beam type of construction. So these are the original posts the flooring system. Everything's been removed. This actually is the old vault door for the safe that was for finance department. This is with it now cleaned up roughly just basically all the debris cleaned out of the way and opened up. After this we had to pour new floors. The flooring system in in City Hall is unique. The best way to describe it is if you ever familiar with the game break the ice don't break the ice.  That's basically the flooring system. It's a it's a flat arch and it has interlocking clay tiles that are that have a key in it and it laterally presses out keeping that flooring system in place. So it was very critical that when we put the flooring system in that we didn't damage or have too many penetrations through the through the existing floor for fear of potentially breaking the ice in other words are having a major portion of the flooring come through. This is second floor probably about though maybe last week. So as you can see the steel the stud walls are going in the duct work above. Here we had to put in a whole new hanger system for the ceiling because we couldn't hang through that that type of floor system with those blocks. So we had to put in a whole new type of hanger system that we could hang duct work off of the sprinkler system that we're adding for fire protection that all comes off as well as the ceiling and lighting and electrical will be hung off of that as well. Starting next week we're going to actually going to start drywalling. So this is the exterior of the north facade of the city hall that we call the north where the alley is where the former police garage was. This is some progress photos now we've removed that center section of the north wall exposing the stairwell the main central stair. So right now we have all this false work in here support temporary support system holding it in place. So when what this area is going to be used for is the addition to the north side where we're going to have where we had the fire escapes that were on exterior building that were steel and pretty rusted unsafe. We're actually building stair towers for fire escape as well as a new elevator shaft on this side as well as a new atrium and ramps for handicap accessibility. So what is happening here is we have the foundation being poured for the new addition and next now we see the foundation walls being set ready to be poured and now we have the steel starting to be erected and that's on that on the north addition. And once it's done this is where we'll be closed. This is where the addition is being put in. We're going to have a glass atrium here. This is where this both there's dual stairwells for fire escape that will be enclosed as well as this is where the elevator will be on the left hand side. The ramps that there's a stairwell they'll be parking right in front and the ramp is kind of behind this planter and it will come up and there's one on each side so you'll be able to wrap from this way as well as from east side and the west side for handicap accessibility on the new new addition. So where are we at today? The project as we said we started about 10.5 with the AV adjustment for the council chambers of 171 being funded through the cable TV and IT budget. So the majority of it is quashist our general contractor at 8.9 roughly nine million dollars for the general construction. Tonight we have two documents EBI is the furnishings and the furniture tonight that that cost is 437 before you as well as connecting point is all the interior technology networking and conference conference ability for teleconferences and broadcasting. MAVO is the the abatement that we had there were a contractor MAVO did all the asbestos as well as lead abatement in the building that was 128,000. Cardinal environmental for their oversight and testing and air monitoring was 22,000. We are currently paying rent for at the county building as we're temporary located. That's around 52,000 dollars. Small thing from Wisconsin media for advertising for bids. Miller engineering to do some structural and some foundation extra work and change orders to date. We've added to the project almost 350,000. So what is that we had a contingency of roughly 484 for the budget. Right now we are at 71% of the change order contingency being spent. That looks like as high number and it is, but we're at the stage of construction. Now we're all the demo, all of the stuff that should be uncovered has been uncovered and now we're building. So we've set set of new basically a new new complete interior that we've built up. And now we're starting walls, mechanicals and everything so far is going to plan the biggest. The biggest change order was when we took off the roof. It didn't have a concrete top. There was concrete in between the joist, but it didn't have a concrete top like the rest of the floors. So it wasn't structural. They had a false roof above it. So when we got into it, we had to put a whole steel new roof on because we're adding we're adding a chiller on top. We're adding some of the mechanical equipment that's going to go on the roof for order to be structurally sound up there to place that equipment. We had to add a lot of structural steel. The other thing was a big change was the the roof that as I mentioned, because of the flooring, we had to put in that false work to hang all the mechanicals. So here are some of the floor plans. The basement is going to be reconfigured. The IT department is going to be going in the basement. So as you can see, I just really hard to see because it's small, but all the furniture is designed for the new floor plan. So that's what's before you. So when we move back to City Hall, the furniture is designed and built to fit in the new spaces that are is being designed. So the first floor, you come in first floor, we're going to have finance on the right, as well as HR in a suite. And then the clerks will be on the left side as a whole suite. We have a nice major, what I would say is going to be the new committee room on the first floor of City Hall. So this is a 20% table, it will have two TVs in here with with cameras and video conferencing for for meetings, as well as a speaker system in microphones. So that that floor basically will will be able to accommodate committee meetings where the public can come in and they can go right in the first floor and it's right easily accessible. They won't have to come up to the third floor necessarily, unless it's a large public meeting. Second floor, what we have is we have the attorney's suite on the on the east end of the building in this area. And this whole area is going to be planning and building inspection. Again, all the furniture is designed to fit in these spaces as well as electrical and data for computer systems and telephone are all integrated in with the furniture. Lastly, third floor, council chambers right here, as I mentioned, the council will now face the public. The mayor and administrator suite is on this side. We have a large conference room, which will be used for closed sessions. So if there's ever a closed session, the public won't have to believe the council will actually get up and go into this meeting room to meet privately as well as a lounge, a break room that City Hall currently never had. So some of the some of the furniture typical office open furniture. This is kind of just some of the examples and they should have been in your documents as well for this evening.  So if you can sit and work and then if you for ergonomics and for better circulation, you can raise your desk and work at it standing as well. So these are just some of the photos and typical up in the colors are very neutral beige tan. Really, really nice and neutral. This is kind of just an example of the conference room and technology. The table will actually have outlets right in the table built in. So when you're there and you bring your laptop, you can power it up as well as connect it directly to the TV without looking for remote or looking for plugs, it will be all interconnected. I use this example because this is the City Hall will have a lot of glass partitions, especially in the public areas. So when you come in to City Hall, you'll see glass walls that will be open and inviting and create a presence of more openness and transparency. So this is kind of an example. We have two monitors with a camera up here. Again, there's a tablet on the table with outlets. Again, that's what the some of the technology that it will be implemented at City Hall. So we didn't allowance within the budget for furnishings and technology of around 980,000 roughly and tonight the total bids between the two is right around 823. So we saved the least on that portion at this point with the budget on the project. So this is third floor. It wasn't today obviously because there's still leaves on the tree, but this is what it looks like now. If you're in the council chambers with your back to the arched windows, this is the view you would see now. It's going to be all glass looking out. And this is kind of what the finished product will be. So real quickly, this is the December 3rd. Hold the date. You'll all be getting an invitation for this. We're having a topping ceremony on December 3rd at 2.30 in the afternoon. Topping ceremony is basically placing the last piece of structural steel that is on the addition. So it's kind of a ceremonial stage of the process of the project. So we're going to do this as well as you'll have an opportunity to sign the beam before it gets placed to have your name is as Olderman on that piece of steel and they'll have a tree on it as well. It's a ceremony. Then what we'll do is we'll have a hard hat tour and give you an opportunity to see the progress actually inside the building. Again, we'll have formal invitations, but I wanted to at least give you a hold the date this evening. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions on the progress this far, but things have been really good. Our partners with Bray Architects and Quasius Construction and all the the subs have been very cooperative. It's a very tight site. As you can see, there's not much room for lay down. We're using, you can see in the the right photo. A lot of the steel is being in the parking lot currently, and hopefully we'll be freed up shortly. So I just wanted to give the council a quick update. And if there's no other questions, all the person will thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say, Dave, to you and all of the city management and employees, you guys are doing a great job. This is a huge undertaking for any community, for any any organization. And I think you guys are doing a great job. A lot of people don't realize when you take a 100 year old building and take it apart, you've got asbestos.   And the analogy of the don't break the ice is quite interesting because I believe that the architect that designed our city hall did that in several buildings, but it's a unique structure that isn't used in today, today's world. Yeah, it's correct. And it was interesting. We actually were able to find some literature back in the archives of of that system and the fireproofing as well with the clay tile. So I'll ultimately our goals to put this all into a very nice, complete package and scrapbook of the whole process of how we started the process to through the construction and to the finished project project. Good job. Thank you. All the person boring. David being somewhat of a history buff myself. Are as any of the older furniture going to be able to be used? Or is it just not going to fit in the new decor? And then also with the stairway, we're keeping the stairway was the marble be the marble on the floors be able to be preserved? Or if not, is it going to look similar to what it did before? The marble on the stairs is actually going to remain in place. The rest of the marble where we could save it is going to be reincorporated into the front of the council dais. So that curved, they're actually going to have inlays of the marble on the on the square sections in there. So they repurposed that the council chambers is probably the only room that is going to have that nostalgic feel. We're going to redo. We're going to refurbish all that crown molding. We're going to refinish the oak woodwork in there. We're going to the dais, although it will be somewhat new. It's going to reincorporate some of the oak that was in the council chambers as well. But the actual furniture, we tried to we tried to use the council desks for the staff on the sides, but the layout and with the drawers, they just didn't fit. And when you start putting the technology and the computers on there, it just didn't seem to work. Thank you. Okay, if there's no other questions. David, thank you very much for the presentation. We appreciate it. We have a few people that are standing in back. I'd like to tell you that there's some chairs along both the walls on the side. If you like to come and sit down, please go and occupy those chairs. Next is our public forum, City Clerk. The first one is Dane Schaefer. Dane, can you state your name and address for us? Dane Schaefer, 3728 South 13th Street. Thank you. You'll have five minutes. All right. Before I get to my written remarks, I want to say that that looks great. And I commend you guys for doing the work on that building and keeping it around. I really appreciate that. And I think that it's unfortunate that it happened that the budget for it went through without anybody ever batting an eye. And when the community is asking for something that would be a similar cost, there's this nonstop process. But regardless, I want to start by thanking elected officials and city employees for listening to my comments. I also want to again thank those common council members that gave us the opportunity to seek private funding to save and operate the armory. While we are disappointed with the outcome, we are truly grateful. I'm here tonight not to discuss what has been done, but to look to what we must do moving forward. To have this discussion, there needs to be an understanding of what Wisconsin's public trust doctrine and how it applies to the armory and the lot on which it sits. Wisconsin lakes and rivers are public resources owned in common by all Wisconsin citizens under the state's public trust doctrine. Based on the state constitution, this doctrine has been further defined by case laws and statute. It declares that all navigable waters are common highways and forever free. It also forbids private development on filled state waterways. Any filled lakebed must be owned by a public entity and be of public use. As shown in the provided maps, which I handed to Alderperson Sorensen, the vast majority of the lot that the armory sits on is former lake bed that was filled between 1847 and 1903. This means that while the fate of the building itself must be determined, our state's constitution provides that the land on which it sits must remain public property with public use. The city will be unable to provide a clear title to any non-public owner, including even our own group, the Armory Community Project. The city of Sturgeon Bay has been involved in a very similar situation in which a private developer hoped to build a hotel on filled lakebed. The property has been stuck in a state of limbo for years with community members successfully blocking the private development. The developer has since sued the city for roughly $500,000 and that case is waiting to be heard at the federal level. Should city leadership choose to ignore Wisconsin's public trust doctrine and seek to use the property for private development, I believe they will be exposing the city and its taxpayers to unnecessary legal and financial risk. Furthermore, residents, city leadership, and any developers that may want to develop the lot, should expect that this already long-debated issue will most likely be unresolved for many years. With this in mind, city leadership ought not be discussing demolition bids, private sale, or development. Instead, you need to determine what the public wants to do with property that is and shall remain rightfully theirs. The morally and legally just way to make that determination is by referendum. Thank you again for your time. Thank you. Next is John Dolson. Can you state your name and address for us please? Sure, it's John Dolson, 409 New York, and Sheboygan here. Thank you, you'll have five minutes. Thank you. Thank you for your time this evening. I mentioned time because time is important, time is valuable, and time is one of the key elements of a successful capital campaign for any non-profit undertaking. I've been part of non-profit capital campaigns for decades, and time was as important as the capital goal itself. Proper time was not given to the Armory Community Project, in our opinion, to complete a successful campaign. There are many people that think that the Armory Community Project was given a ridiculously short time frame to hinder the group's success and that the group's hands were tied from the start. I happen to agree. Additionally, many area charitable foundation representatives to whom we spoke were appalled at the short time frame given to the capital campaign for a project of this magnitude, and that time is the key element in a successful capital campaign. Recently, the YMCA took on a capital campaign that I was privileged to be part of, for additions and remodeling, totaling just over eight million dollars. It took us more than two years just for the silent portion of that campaign alone. Maywood recently put on an addition, I'm told, that took almost nine years to garner the pledges totaling roughly 1.7 million. Time is important. The Armory Community Project Board discussed this time frame at length and made a decision to accept the challenge, regardless of the obvious obstacle, and start on an energetic and somewhat successful campaign, in spite of the short time frame, because we believe, along with so many others, as noted in social media surveys in this community in recent months, that the city needs and wants a community center, and why wouldn't we simply use a facility that's already standing that meets the size requirements. The initial four months allotted to the Armory Community Project, then extended another couple of months, even with the first several weeks being consumed by our 5-1-C-3 non-profit application process that we needed prior to soliciting pledges, generated almost a million dollars in pledges and in-kind donations to date. And I have no doubt that being given a reasonable time frame, we would have met our goal of a fully functional community center, a facility that the city desperately needs with no tax dollars needed to operate in. One luxury we have right now, regarding the future of our Armory, our Armory defined as the taxpayers of the city of Sheboygan, is time. The building is simply sitting vacant. It is not falling down. That's been discussed at length by credible area contractors. The city is not putting any money into the building. They put in the bare minimum for upkeep since the beginning, and now have a dilapidated building, wondering why less and less groups were renting it before it was closed. Other areas in the city are experiencing new apartment and condominium construction projects to meet the demands spelled out in recent economic development surveys. There are even more housing construction opportunities on empty lots where buildings have already been raised. There's simply no dire need to raise the Armory at this time. We're talking about taxpayer-owned land, a taxpayer-owned building, residents wanting a community center, and the council needing to come up with a plan for the best use of that property that is in the best interest of all the taxpayers of the city of Sheboygan. Simply raising the building to add more housing near the lakefront is not in the best interest of the residents of Sheboygan, and I dare say now illegal knowing of the public trust doctrine for Wisconsin. Thank you for your service to our city. Thank you. Next is Jane Kettler. Could you please state your name and address? Jane Kettler 1503 Terry Court. We'll have five minutes. Thank you for having me speak tonight. I was excited about the Armory Community Project with Gorman and company apartments generated $100,000 in annual city revenue plus $10,000 annually from the ACP. I'm not emotional about the Armory but I favor sustainable measures, restoring the Armory with its embodied energy plus new energy saving features is the greenest option. I worked on over 15 projects for Gorman as a consultant. Gorman finished and still manages those 15 sites. I know Schmidt Construction and Jennifer Lerke, their longevity proves they know their stuff. Gorman and Schmidt survived the 2008 recession which hit development and construction so hard legacy architecture started in the midst of that recession. Does anything say success better than that? The city is considering demolition and alternative new construction so I read the 2017 Scott Crawford proposal. It does have some nice concepts and an aggressive timeline so I researched the firm's previous projects but could not find any projects completed by the firm. The proposal has two successful examples community within the corridor a $60 million development with first phase expected late 2019. Newspapers state Scott Crawford partnered with Roars company to apply for grants and tax credits and they may receive some later this year. The group is still working on other project financing. The second example is Villard Commons at 3619 West Villard Avenue a $9 million project to break ground in 2018. City assessor's records show the city of Milwaukee is still the owner. In October 30th newspaper article called it a $7.3 million project with Binshore owning 65% and index development group owning 35%. Scott Crawford is however affiliated with index group or Scott Crawford personnel. Binshore website says the project is coming in 2020. The proposal also says working on various projects in the hospitality industry, affordable family, senior housing, etc. But what are those projects? Scott Crawford website lists two other projects in Glendale and in Milwaukee. Both those sites are currently vacant lots. No construction underway yet. The Crawford project timeline includes for this army project includes received tax credits QC 3 of 2018. But the schedule from December 2017 did not include application for the tax credits to be received in 2018. Page three of the proposal says constructed over 45 residential real estate transaction totaling tens of millions of dollars. But page six states constructed over 45 residential real estate transactions totaling over 5 million dollars. Is it 5 million or tens of millions? Since the four development projects have not broken ground what evidence supports either number. The army is built on fill. Construction will unearth the unexpected may be contaminated soil unstable soil trash, etc. I have watched Garmin and Schmidt successfully deal with unexpected problems. Your alternative developer hasn't broken ground on a project yet. How will he handle the unexpected? The number three respondent priority in the 2014 Harbor Center master plan was more restored buildings and 78% of my suburban poor respondents wanted the army remodeled and reopened. Last spring the common council voted overwhelmingly to respect these wishes. The ACP formed and raised 6 million dollars in six months at least as well as Scott Crawford has done. There's no reason to change direction now. Schmidt construction and Gen Lerke were part of the successful wild center renovation as larger larger than the army. They understand the process. Garmin is still interested. This team has tremendous experience and each is represented on the project by a long time member of their company. That shows commitment and the ACP includes the kind of young, successful area entrepreneur Sheboygan is courting. They think the project is viable. Who among common council or finance committee has the architectural business or construction experience to tell ACP members they are wrong? Does the common council as a whole have the architectural business and construction experience assembled by the ACP? How many on the council have drawn architectural plans? Started a unique business or completed as many multi million dollar projects as Joe Schmidt or Gorman and company. The Scott Crawford proposal doesn't offer evidence of the completed project and I found them. They're still working on financing as the ACP was. Scott Crawford's development is not unique. It can be on any parcel, any city, anywhere. The ACP will be unique to Sheboygan. It will preserve and celebrate the history of the area but create a new and different something to set Sheboygan apart. Thank you. Thank you. Henry Nelson, can you state your name and address for us please? Henry Nelson 1926 settlement trail. You'll have five minutes. Thank you. And good evening. I really wasn't expecting to speak tonight. I fully expected that the discussion of the public forum would be full. So I didn't bring any notes. So I apologize if the discussion is sort of disjointed but I want to first before I forget I want to thank Jennifer Murkey particularly for her. I want to commend her on the job she's done. She's been very passionate about this project and she's just a great asset to our community and I think she's doing a wonderful job. However, as John Doulson said, time is important and the time is now. Time is to make a decision. Time is also money. As things are delayed, they cost more. I firmly believe that the armory group had actually almost two years actually. I rather if they decided not to start their project until six months ago, I recall the meeting in the Wild Center, I think that was at least two years ago when we started talking about this. I also believe that the community is not necessarily involved. We have 50,000 people in the city. Are 20,000 people passionate about this? Probably not. Are 1,000 people passionate? I doubt it. That's not to say that the people that aren't involved aren't passionate. I'm sure they are, but we have to think about taxpayers in particular. Now, it does not, as has been stated, that the existing armory isn't costing us money but it might be costing us time. I think the building should be removed. It's not going to get any better. The armory group has demonstrated that there is not financial traction for renovating it. My suggestion is that we go ahead and remove the building. I don't tie that necessarily to the Scott Crawford project. I was kind of uneasy about that project when it was first presented over a year ago. I'm still not convinced that it's the right project, but I see that we can remove the building. We're not collecting taxes on it now, so if we just plan grass there, it won't collect taxes, but at least it will be one step towards the future. So that would be my comments for today. Remove the building, but don't necessarily accept the Crawford project. Thank you. Thank you. Last we have Sherry Fessler. Can you state your name and address for us please? My name is Sherry Fessler. I am a part time resident at 244 Center Avenue. You'll have five minutes. A member of my family has been there since 1982, and I wish to speak in support of keeping the armory. Sheboygan sort of has done a great job of demolishing things over the years. All you have to do is take a trip down 8th Street to see what has happened, or any of the other major arteries don't like something, we tear it down. The armory is a far different situation than some of the buildings that exist in this city. And frankly it adds to the character of the community which is rapidly being lost why anyone would want to put apartment buildings on a piece of land that belongs to everybody. I cannot understand. I was here when there was a meeting to discuss whether or not the building should be landmarked. That was earlier this year. And I believe that it was landmarked. My question is now that it is on the National Register of Historic Places has the National Register been notified about the plans for this particular building? I look at so many of the decisions as being short-sighted. I know we're talking about money here. I am very much delighted to see what's been done with the City Hall. And I think we should be doing that with the armory as well. It's part of the historic district. The new things that have been built do not fit anywhere. It's as if there's no architectural guidance here. And there are no standards that are being followed. It's just a mishmash of everything compared to some of the other places that I have visited and where I have lived. I want to see Sheboygan Prosper. I'm planning to come back here on a permanent basis. I look at what happened to Prangies. I look at what happened to Meade Library. The old one, the Carnegie Library, probably should have been preserved as well. Yeah, I'm a history buff. And I just don't want to see things taken down. I'm told that it costs about $325 a day to maintain the armory. That's about $118,000 a year. About what my long-term care policy pays. I should think that somewhere in the city budget there would be that amount of money. I'm also concerned that if there is a move to remove the building, that you haven't looked at the environmental impact. It's an armory fellas. It's got walls that are this thick, that are reinforced, I'm sure, with steel. What's it going to do to all of the buildings around when they demolish it? I think that's something that would need to be looked at very carefully. In some, I don't feel as if there has been much notification about this entire process. It looks as if there are things that are going forward and that things are sort of out of order. I'm no lawyer, so I can't explain what the legal ramifications might be. I hope that this decision will be very carefully considered. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to everyone for your comments. Next, we'll move on to Mayor's announcements. I just want to remind everybody that December 1st, winter parking, alternate side restrictions start. Remember the basic rule is to park for tomorrow. So next week Friday in the evening, please park on the odd side of the street because the next day is December 1st, which is an odd day and cars not properly parked can be ticketed. The City Community Survey is still open through the end of the month. Please consider participating in this resident survey. There's a banner ad on the city website that will take you to the survey page. Parking at all metered city parking lots and streets is going to be free on Black Friday, November 23rd and also small business Saturday and November 24th. So please support your local businesses. The 26th annual GC holiday parade and tree lighting ceremony will be this coming Sunday, November 25th. The parade will start at 5 o'clock on 7th Street near the Sheboygan Press Building. Proceed north to Erie Avenue, then west to A Street and we'll end at the Mead Public Library Water Feature and we will conduct the lighting ceremony there and the Sheboygan Post Office will be collecting letters for Santa along the parade route. Leaf collection is coming to a close on November 30th after that and December leaves can still be dropped off at the Department of Public Works on New Jersey Avenue and the collection area. Making spirits bright will be opening up on the day after Thanksgiving on Friday 11 23. They'll be open evenings from 5 to 9 o'clock and then they'll be open through New Year's Day and just closed on Christmas Eve. And when you come to the city rather to the courthouse for future city council meetings, the courthouse next Monday will be implementing their new security measures that were installed. The drive in front will be open and the front door will be the only way that you'll be able to access this building. So just keep that in mind in your plans when you come to the next council meeting. Thank you. Then we'll move on to the Consent Agenda. This will include items 2.2 through 2.15. Alderperson Wolff. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to accept and file all ROs, accept and adopt all RCs and pass all resolutions and ordinances. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the motion on the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll for passage? Ten ayes. Motion passes. Under reports of officers. Item 3.1 is RO number 173 of 1819 by the City Planning Commission. Do members refer General Ordinance number 23 of 1819 by Alderperson Boren and RO number 157 of 1819 by the City Clerk who submitted a communication from David Gass requesting an encroachment into the Wisconsin Avenue Right-Away and recommends to file the RO and approve the amended ordinance. Alderperson Boren. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? Ten ayes. Motion passes. Items 3.2 through 3.7 will be referred to various committees. Under resolutions, items 4.1 through 4.9 will again be referred to various committees. Under reports of committees, item 5.1 is RC number 182 of 1819 by the Finance and Personnel Committee. To whom was referred, resolution 116 of 1819 by Alderperson's Wolf and Boren. Terminated the current agreement with the Armory Community Project for redevelopment of the former Sheboygan Municipal Armory and recommends approving the resolution. Alderperson Rindflash. Thank you for that motion and support. Under discussion, Alderperson Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My first question is directed to the city attorney regarding one of the issues that was brought up during public discussion today regarding the public trust doctrine. Do you have any comments of this? Does this encroach? Does this violate any issue regarding that? So I hear there was a piece of paper handed out today, which I haven't seen. However, when this was brought up before, we did a little bit of looking into it. And the information we had suggested that the area that the Armory sits on was not covered by the public trust doctrine. It was not part of the film. OK. Thank you. Anything else, Alderperson Sorensen? Not at this moment. OK. Any other discussion? Alderperson Trester, please sit down and use your microphone. I first would like to apologize to the members of the finance committee and personnel committee for disrupting their meeting last week. Most of you know what's been going on in my life, so I'm not going to elaborate. But I am going to say that I am very passionate about the Armory. The folks that have contacted me in the six months that I have not been attending the meetings are very passionate about the Armory. And maybe it's the parts of the city in which we live and serve why there's such a discrepancy as to phone calls and emails. But I have gotten many. I have gotten messages and my private message on Facebook. I've gotten my personal email where my constituents are saying, save the Armory. And building apartments on the Armory site, to me, is not what Sheboygan has been saying in the last year. We've been talking about bringing tourists to Sheboygan. And Sheboygan could be a place someplace better. How are we someplace better if we're going to put apartments on a piece of property that needs to be investigated more as to whether or not it is part of the public trust doctrine or not? Because I think we need to look at this before we make any decisions. And if we find out that it is part of the public trust doctrine, do we want to be held liable for that if we sell the property to someone? And what modifications does that have even for Blue Harbor and the South Pier if we are violating the public trust doctrine? So I think we need to slow down a little bit. I think we need to look back again and decide what the people want. And if the people want this property that belongs to them anyway, I don't think any one of us, council members, the mayor, or any of us have the right to tell the people that they can't have what's rightfully theirs. And so I'm going to ask that we not vote on this tonight, that we look into the public trust doctrine to be sure that that property is not part of it, because from my understanding and from the research I've done, it is. So I'm asking this council to postpone this vote tonight, put it off. And if you really want to do something and find out what the people in this town really want and put it up for a referendum vote. Thank you for those comments. City Attorney, I'd like to ask you about, we talked about selling that land if it is or not in that area. But does the city also have an option to give a 99-year lease like we do for many of the properties on South Pier and that would suffice even if it was in that area? That's correct. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Alderperson Boren. Thank you, Mayor. Attorney Adams, so you feel with your investigation that you've done so far then that there's no doubt that this public trust is not going to be an issue? The map that I've seen suggests that the fill area is across Broughton Drive and does not include, you know, obviously if people have other information it would be interesting to see that. But the only information I've seen suggests that the fill area is across the street. Well, if it is part of the public trust then I would think all the buildings on the west side of Broughton Drive would be in jeopardy, including probably the YMCA. So I'm sure there must have been some research done before the Y was built and before those other apartments were built down there.  Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Alderperson Phillips. Thank you, Mayor. I would be interested to know if the community project representatives, if the group itself has any desire to continue their fundraising efforts and if so do they have any prospects or do they feel that they've tapped out any potential financial resources? Alderperson Donahue. I would be interested in how much money has actually been raised. We were told at one point that there were commitments for about $600,000, although specifics were not shared. And tonight I hear that there is a million dollars in commitments pursuant to our agreement. The initial amount to be raised was $1.25 million. So if we can actually get information from the Armory Project as to their commitments, unless donors have asked to be anonymous, the names of those donors and so forth I think would be helpful. It was a tight time constraint. There's no doubt about it. The group did not object at the time the agreement was negotiated. The group did not object when we offered another two-month extension. So I'm just, I'm a little befuddled about just where they stand and if that information could be provided. And then just building on what Alder Phillips requested, is in fact there a desire to go forward. I think that would be helpful information. And perhaps the chair would consider opening the floor that those questions might be answered. OK, thank you. Alder-Prusan-Wolf, you had some comments first? It's been addressed. Dane or Jennifer, would you like to come up and respond to those questions? I'm sorry, I missed some of the initial questions because I was getting some comment. So I missed what your initial questions were. Rose, please repeat yours. Hi, yes, I was wondering if you had a desire to continue your fundraising efforts. And if so, do you have any perspective fundraising potential? As a board, we've decided not to continue to pursue. In the last week, we have made a final push, hoping there'd be a miracle for tonight. I do have to say the 650,000 that we've reported previously has grown to about 905,000 just in the last six days. If that gives you any indication of trajectory, should we continue? But as a board, we've decided to change tact a little bit. We'd like to pursue public trust doctor. And we'd like to pursue referendum. We feel that that's the right way to go. We don't think we've exhausted our efforts yet. I think there's a lot yet that could be done. You know, we were in a silent portion. We didn't open it up to the public. We had the public portion kind of mapped out already. But we didn't get an opportunity to do that. In comment to we didn't object to the timeline, we did. When we had our private negotiation meetings with city staff, we objected significantly. And we're told, nope, that's what council said. We're not changing it. So we were given absolutely no flexibility with regards to the timeline we tried. And we're shot down. Alderperson Sorenson and Adonio?  So if you're sort of indicating tonight that your group does not want to move forward with fundraising, however you suggested possible referendum. So just kind of want to type and talk hypothetical with you. So what's your timeline look for that? Like the idealistic timeline? So you say we get a referendum. The city votes overwhelmingly to support you. Then what would you guys like? Are you just not going to do the fundraising? Do you guys hope that this will go on the tax rolls? What's your vision like that as well, too? Because this has only been a week, we haven't sat down to talk as a board. So I'm speaking just from me personally. My ideal situation would be referendum in April. If it would pass, it would be lovely if our group would transition to a friends group similar to meet public library, similar to Maywood. There are mechanisms that already exist in the city that allow for these friends groups to get involved, to help fundraise, to help program, and just generally help keep the operation going. That would be my ideal scenario. So are you looking to have the referendum as another sort of mechanism to have more time to raise money? No, as a mechanism for the public to let their voices be heard. I think there's a lot of voices out there that like to see the building. Yes, that they want to keep the building. Then you want to move forward again with fundraising. Or assist. OK. And then my other question would be follow up to the referendum question. Would you have verbiage or any sort of ideal about what the referendum would look like? I know in the last session for the City Council, someone, one of the council members, made the motion and put that on the agenda to be debated. And then there was some sort of verbiage around. So I don't know if there was any other sort of other towns or municipalities that have done something similar like this that you guys are trying to mirror. What do you envision? Because I'm not seeing a whole lot of clarity about how us as a city council would move forward on this. So personally, and I realize that Attorney Adams currently disagrees from the research that we've done on the public trust doctrine. If that is to be believed, the referendum would look like and this again is a matter of because we haven't sat down on a board. In my opinion, it would look like, are you willing to pay to fix this building? And I mean, obviously, in clear legal terms or however that's written. But in my opinion, it's a taxpayer-owned building. The property cannot be transferred to any private entity. As a group, I would hope or I would feel that, again, we could transition into a friend's group that would help program or whatever. But as far as I'm concerned with the political nature that has kind of hung over this building for so long, looking at what the fund raising was like for us and speaking with other groups that have done fund raising similar to this in the past, I don't see. I think that it's been made harder and it's not anybody's fault.  I'm willing because I believe that asking the citizens of this city what they want to do, I think asking them, will you pay for this as the question, I'm okay with that because then we heard we're not 10 people or 12 people fighting over what to do. We're literally a city that made a decision and we can just move forward which is why I was in support of the referendum when we were standing here six months ago despite my group wanting to, you know, to do the whole thing on our own. I mean, I was in support of that which could put us that in the water after the election but it's the right thing to do. All the person down here. Could I keep holding my time, Mr. Mayor? I have a few more questions. Okay. I'm sorry. Where did you guys get your map, this reference that you're using? That first map is the original plot of the city of Sheboygan. The subsequent maps are sandborn maps for the city of Sheboygan. And where did you get them from? Oh, they're all available online. Okay. I just didn't know if it was like from a city department or if it was. No, no, no. Okay.  Yeah, sorry. Are for, sorry. I'm looking at like the front one because I'm just curious, you know, if the city attorney is disagreeing with kind of what our map is looking like as a city and you guys might have got a contradicting map. I'm just wondering if you guys saw any contradictory maps or. No, no, those are just some historic maps. Those are resources any historian would go to because we are architectural historians. I have access to those maps. We use them regularly. Anytime we do research in communities across the state of Wisconsin and it's, you know, not made up or whatever. I mean, they come from actual sources. Now, I will say the underlying maps were the original maps. We did go in and overlay to show and indicate the amount of fill that has been added to our lake shore over time. So those lighter green areas was an overlay that our firm put over it just to, well, and that was based off of CAD files that we've had from city engineering department back in 2002. So that was overlaid over the top of it to provide a baseline. So it was really easy to see where the fill is. Sorry, if I may. I just want to touch on another question that was asked. There was the question of leasing the property and having it developed as far as from the people that kind of study or practice the water law, which is what this falls under. You can't have private development. It needs to be public access. It's public property. According, again, if that property falls under it, that's how the Wisconsin Public Trust doctrine has been interpreted. I think I have one more question, Mr. Mayer. I guess moving forward, I guess still talking in hypotheticals to help make up my decision on this. So say we do decide to not terminate the agreement. And you guys, we gave you an extension to continue raising the funds. Is there something you guys would want to do differently? Would you want to do sort of a jump into, and we all want to do things differently, but would you guys like to jump into and start going public more aggressively? Would you kind of speed up the silent portion of the fundraising? I think there's a lot of things that we would do differently. This has been a grassroots effort from day one. Dane likes to say we haven't done anything by the book, but I actually do believe that we've done everything by the book. I think we'd like to flip it on its head a little bit in that campaign, capital campaign science, because there is a science to it. I think I'd like to flip it on its head a little bit. I think we should have went public a lot earlier. I think we should have maybe did the public portion first before we did the major corporate silent portion. But yeah, hindsight is certainly 2020. We had some plans for the public portion that I think would have been fun and exciting in this community. Other thing, hindsight, I think I would have demanded in our redevelopment agreement either complete silence by city staff or some outward show of support by city staff. We have gotten repeated even just this past week of city staff at neighborhood meetings saying, they're gonna fail, don't worry about it, there will be apartments on that site. That is incredibly disheartening to have that while we're in the middle of the silent portions of our capital campaign. It makes it really difficult for us. People are not necessarily taking us as seriously as they should because we've gotten no support. Other than that, awesome 13-3 vote that we got from you guys in April, which was amazing and thank you. I mean, that's really been the only indication of support from the city on this. Everything else has been contradictory. Because I do think for me, I do find it a little disheartening that maybe you guys didn't fight a little hard enough in the beginning asking, talking about the timeline because I'm on the Maywood board too and the fundraising portion for that, like I think it was stated before, that took nine years. When I applaud you guys for doing what you can in this timeline and taking up a very almost impossible project, I think other nonprofit examples were brought up today, like the Wile Center and stuff like that, so. And I agree with that that ideally we could have or would have fought harder, it felt very much and it was take it or leave it and I feel even in the meetings that that was fairly clear. I feel like that's been the attitude that I've been dealing with from the beginning of this. When this started at the Historic Preservation Commission and I was pitching a park after that meeting when demolition was held back for 90 days, I was told by elected officials and city staff essentially, all right, well now you have to do this. Now you have to get a group together and you have to start raising funds and you have to make this happen and it wasn't thanks for your input, let's see how we can continue forward. It was you have to do this or we're tearing it down. So then I started to do this and then it's well, you can have this or we're tearing it down and you can do this or we're tearing it down. So I kept on taking the not tear it down option because that was the only option that in my opinion is okay, but I have felt and I still feel as I said earlier, I didn't actually want this. I don't wanna be running the organization and earning the money. I'm doing it because that's the only option and the other option is absolutely not okay with me. So I'm gonna continue doing it when that's the only option, but as I said already tonight, in my opinion, this is the city's problem, meaning all of us, the taxpayers, we need to make a clear decision on it. We need to decide whether or not taxpayers are willing, again, like City Hall, which nobody even cared, nobody batted an eye, we spent $10.5 million. Now we want a community center, we wanna spend the same amount of money for something that's actually no offense, not many people wanna hang out in City Hall, but we're trying to make a building that people wanna hang out in for the same amount of money and this is what we're faced with. It doesn't make any sense, it's unclear. But again, like I said, this is the route we've taken because it was always the alternative was tear it down or this is what we're giving you. So we took the keep it up option. All the person, Donahue, then Ryan Fleisch and then Boren. So what I am hearing, and please trust me, the City Hall decision was a very long, protracted, complicated discussion, just so you know, we didn't come on Monday and then decide on Wednesday, just so you know. And $10.5 million did take us a long time to figure out where that money was going to come from. We've borrowed some, we've used some of our savings and it is a building that's pretty critical to the functioning of the city and so even if people don't wanna come to have fun at City Hall, they do wanna come to get things done so I, just to put that in perspective. So what I am hearing now, and I just wanna be clear, so what I am hearing now is that the Armory Project no longer wishes to pursue fundraising. It no longer wishes to pursue the renovation and operation of the building. It does want to, and I've been asking for language about a referendum, you know, it's just been tossed out. So what I am hearing is that what the referendum that you will propose and get signatures for and so forth will require the city taxpayers to either borrow or borrow at least $7 million and either borrow it or raise our levy. And then I think what I'm hearing is that you'd be willing to, the Friends of the Mead Public Library for example, book sales and such. You'd be willing to do the equivalent of a book sale but then you want the city to be in the entertainment business to, well, no wait, because if your group is not interested in this and you wanna be the Friends of the Armory, or are you saying that you will incorporate as a private business to operate an entertainment center? No. So we need some clarification if you would. Yeah, I'm attempting to do so. So what we were discussing or what Jennifer was getting at with the Friends of group was that similar to Maywood, the people who operate Maywood aren't normal parks and rec, but Maywood is owned by the city of Sheboygan. So the people that operate the Armory don't have to be you guys making entertainment decisions. And what I was saying was not, there's a difference between wanting to do something and doing something. And so if the option of whether it's gonna be torn down or we have to continue raising the funds on our own because you guys are unwilling to put it to referendum, then that's what we'll do. As I said, I'm gonna continue to do to fight for what I believe is the correct thing in the situation, but I believe the most correct thing is again, asking the community. And just so you're asking the community, essentially to pay the bills, $7 million, probably 10. Okay, and that's great. For my money, if we're gonna do that, I want our roads fixed. Okay, but that would be what you would get to do as a citizen of Sheboygan. You could vote like everybody else and yours would count the same as mine. So, I mean, you could also do a referendum for roads if that's what you're concerned with. That's literally what you're elected to do is make those decisions. All the person, Ryan Flesch. Just want to call the attention of the chair that the motion we're talking about is only whether or not we're gonna terminate a current agreement with the army people. The committee voted unanimously after Mrs. Lurkey indicated that they were not interested in continuing the current agreement to cancel a current agreement. And that's really the question we have in front of us right now. Thank you very much. All the person, Boren. Thank you, Mayor. Jennifer and Dane, could you tell me some of the corporate donors and the nonprofit donors that decided not to contribute? Did they just give you a no or did they give you some feedback on weaknesses of your proposal? Why they weren't giving? What was the feedback from the people that said no? So, in one case specifically, one donor that I would say is generally considered as a large donor or somebody that can make things happen in the area when I spoke with them, they said basically, and I think Jennifer had a lot of these conversations as well, that we're not going to do anything at this point. However, if things look like they're going to happen, give us a call back and we'll get in on that. Nobody wanted to be the first mover. Nobody wanted to put their name on this, which is what I was getting at earlier, that this thing has had this dark cloud over it. It is politically on, you don't want to get involved in it because it ends up in this situation where you feel like you're going to be the bad guy regardless of what you do. So, why would businesses want to be, again, the first one to jump into this? But yeah, the answer that I feel that we received most commonly was check back with us, please, but we're not going to be the first. Jennifer, was that the case with the one you mentioned that finance and personnel that you were holding out hope for one? Was that pretty much the story with that one? There was no feedback whatsoever on that particular one that I was waiting for. There were some very simple notes. There were tapped out for this year. Please come back to us next year. Well, we don't have time to come back to them next year because of the constraints that we're under. And as I said, there were a handful that we still haven't heard back from. In fact, I talked to one this past week, a major, major one, that they lost our application. Their charitable giving person looked back in their records and she said, why are you calling me on Friday and you are hoping for a miracle on Monday? And she said, I can't make that happen. I can't wave that wand and make that happen. And she said, why did you wait to reach out? And I said, we sent you mailings in July, we called you in July, we've called you in August, we've called you in September, and they're reconfiguring their charitable giving, staffing and how they handle their requests. They totally lost it. She went into her records and she said, we have absolutely no record that we ever received anything. And she's like, personally, I think this is a great project for us. It fits a lot of what we want to give towards. But she said, I can't reach the owner on a holiday week on a Monday to get an answer to you. And that would be a major, major player in the area here. So yeah, the one that I was waiting for was, they were allocated for the year two. They asked us to come back. I mean, we got a lot of, we got a handful of we've spent the year for 18, please come back at 19. Alderperson Wolfen and Decker. Thank you. I want to compliment you guys. I think that you guys have done a really good job trying to, as I called it earlier, climb the mountain and take the project on. I've always been, since the beginning, I've always been the one that's challenged you with questions and different things. And I've also been the one that said, I supported if it's something that you guys can make happen. I've still, even in talking with you guys, I've still said I'm very concerned because it's not just raising the money to fix it. It's to maintain it and keep it alive. I do want to make a statement though that when you guys said that you want the voice of the constituents, the taxpayers, to tell us to save it or not to save it. And I want to remind everybody that there was an email that was sent out to all of us Alders that showed the history of the Armory, which I think was amazing. Goes back to the 1940s. And 1940s was a totally different time than today. I mean, it's not even something you can say. It's totally different than night and day. The technology, the times, the culture, everything is so different. But what I want to remind everybody is the fact that over the decades, if you look at that long list of interesting things, interesting opportunities, interesting events that happened over the decades continue to get less and less and less. And I've lived here since the 80s and I remember when it was still actually used, but it was very, very minimal. So when we talk about the public and what does the public want, it was the public that decided to use it less and less and less from event to event to event. And some of that's because of technology. Some of it's because of changing times. Some of it's because we have, I mean, state-of-the-art basketball things that are at our expanded high schools. We have the Blue Harbor, which we didn't have back then. We have the capacity to do larger events and small events in different areas. We have the Wild Center, as you guys pointed out, that offers great opportunities for different musicals and different events again. But I guess the public, prior to the city talked about raising of this structure for a long time and when the city decided we need to move forward, we need to do something with it. It has issues, whether we all agree or disagree. The issue is that your group came forward and, Dan, you did a great job. Originally, you wanted to save the facade and turn it into a park. So we went from saving the facade and making it a park to saving the whole building, which is now creating a mountain again. But we're still back to what are we here to vote on tonight? It's whether to keep your project run, our agreement going and let the city continue to look at different venues. I think you guys have done a good job, but I just think that the project is very large and we don't, it's something we can continue to beat that horse to glue later. Thank you. Alderperson Decker. Thank you. I guess my question to though, Jennifer and Dan, would be what kind of timeline are you looking at? I mean, where does the end, where is the end of the tunnel? I mean, people need to have, are we looking at under six months a year? I mean, I think people wanna know where we're looking at. I mean, that's the question I have. I guess in my opinion, again, I think that's why this is that the smartest path forward is to ask the community and to have, to put it to a vote because we, if had we had a crystal ball, we would have known we'd be standing back here six months later and in this position. But we don't. So I wish that I could tell you that we can get this done in six months, we can get this done in another year, but I don't want to be standing back in this room in six months or a year from now, not having done that because there's again, a perfectly logical way to proceed without having to predict the future or we have to come up with some sort of way that instead of having these strict deadlines looking at whether or not we're in good faith attempting to continue, the problem with that is at what point I've said from the beginning that my interest isn't to, I'm not just gonna drag my feet forever to screw things up and, but at what point might common council members start to feel like that's what's occurring? So again, I don't know that there's a good path forward. I'm willing to continue to try, but I don't know that there's a good path or a smart deadline to give you. Thank you, Alderperson Phillips. Yes, as someone who works for a nonprofit, I just wanted to say that I recognize the amount of effort that it takes to fundraise, especially when you're trying to meet a goal as large as the one that you guys had. And I think that the amount that you raised and the time that you raised it is impressive. So I commend you for that. But to be really clear, I guess, and as others have pointed out, the vote that we have to make tonight is directly relating to your agreement and whether or not to terminate it. And I'm wondering if you are interested in continuing the agreement, or if it sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe you've decided that that's not the best route and you'd rather see this go to referendum and not continue the agreement, is that correct? I mean, we can't continue as it's written. I mean, yeah, we're past the deadlines. Basically all of it anyways. Yeah, we can continue as it's written. And beyond that, again, because of the order of the agenda, which is the way that it is, again, I guess my feeling is that if the alternative is that we're going to be looking at tearing this thing down again, then by all means, please do not end our agreement and we will continue to, as we have been, work hard on raising the funds. But if we want to have some sort of end to this and to have a clear, concise decision from your constituents, then again, I think that there's a clear answer that's easy. I mean, realistic timeline for a campaign like this. YMCA, as John Dolson mentioned earlier, was over two years for their silent portion. The Wild Center was three to five years. They raised seven million and after construction was done, it was, oops, we needed 10 million and it took them another three years to raise the rest to get to 10. Bookworm Gardens took three to five years. These things are all amazing aspects of our community and they're all great and they were all worth the wait, but they take time. And we just, it doesn't appear like we have that and then what makes matters worse is we're fighting. We've gotten no clear support. We've gotten, in fact, it's been nothing but subversive stuff behind the scenes that's been going on and it makes it almost impossible for us to continue when there's that kind of. All the person in the right place. Stop happening. Just want to point out, even if we as a council approve all three of the resolutions concerning the Army Project tonight, that doesn't mean that it's anywhere, anywhere, anywhere near over. The second resolution simply is to find out if Crawford is even interested. Doesn't give them the authority to the administration, any authority to enter any agreement with them. That would have to come back to us. But the first question is just if they're all interested. And the last one is simply to go out for bed so we get a good idea of what it might cost to take it down. Again, we're not, we wouldn't be authorizing the actual destruction of the Armory at this point in time. It's simply a matter of getting to bed. So what we're attempting to do is, I think, get a bunch more information. It's certainly, even if we approve all three, it gives you the opportunity to come back with another proposal. Not similar to the first one, but whatever you're, when you have a little bit, you would have some time as we go through the process for the rest to come up with another idea, which I think you're attempting to articulate and get together with your group as to maybe, and we've asked some questions here for you to think about, how about how you would do it again. But I didn't, I want to get over the misperception of the orders particularly important here because nothing we are doing is finalizing anything tonight. Okay? Okay. Dean Jennifer, thank you very much for answering those questions. Seeing no other hands, I'd like the clerk to please call the roll for passage. Eight ayes, two noes. Motion passes. Next item is item 5.2, which is RC number 183 of 1819 by the Finance and Personnel Committee, to whom was referred, resolution number 117 of 1819 by Alderperson Wolfe and Boren, authorizing the city staff to negotiate terms and conditions of a contract for the sale of land for private development with Scott Crawford, Inc. at the former Sheboygan Municipal Armory and recommends approving the resolution. Alderperson Reinfleisch. Thank you for that motion and support under discussion. Alderperson Reinfleisch. At this point, we don't know if Scott Crawford is even interested in continuing what he had proposed a year ago. This resolution is basically to let the city administrators get with him to find out if he's still as interested. There are some concerns about the actual proposal that he had last year that we discussed at the Finance Committee meeting so there would be definitely some renegotiation from the city's perspective. If there would be anything, because there were some parts of the proposal that weren't in unanimous consent with the committee at that point in time. So all we're looking for here is the ability for the administration to get back to him to see if he is still interested and then to negotiate with him for some of our concerns. Alderperson Reinfleisch, there has been some conversations. Scott Crawford saw their name in the paper and some of the previous votes that were taken on the committee level and Alderperson Hoffland has had a conversation with him. Alderperson Hoffland, would you like to respond? In talking with Mr. L. I mean, he identified that there is interest. However, it has been over six months since he put together his business plan as well as the city has approved several other projects that are rental in nature and so he would need to do additional homework and including getting updates as far as construction costs. So pending action taken by the common council tonight, we would communicate that with him and see what kind of response we would receive.  Yes, should he have an interest? Should he have an interest? Alderperson Decker? Yes, thank you, Mayor. I guess what I've heard from most of my constituents is that I've heard different opinions as far as the Armory building itself, whether it should be torn down or not, but the one consistency that I have heard from a lot of people is they don't want to see, they don't want to see apartments on that property. I would like us, if we would, to open it up to possibly other different types of development other than pursue this. Thank you for those comments, Alderperson Sarnson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My question is sort of a follow-up to Alderperson Decker's question. If Scott Crawford expresses that they are not concerned, let me back that up first. Did Scott Crawford, Administrator Hofflin, did he articulate any sort of timeline that they would be getting back to us or what they would have to do to resubmit a proposal? Did they indicate anything like that? He did not identify a timeline. Okay, and then kind of a follow-up question that I have, Mr. Mayor. Would be at what point do we want to open it up to accept RFPs from other possible developments? If Scott Crawford just says, sorry, we're not interested anymore, I do agree with Alderperson Decker too, that I'm open up for other suggestions as well. So I guess my question is probably for Daryl again as well. Do we have a timeline for opening it up for other bids for development? Alderford, go ahead, Administrator. It would depend on his response and whether there were significant changes to his proposal. Based on that, staff would go back to finance and personnel committee, provide the update, and a recommendation whether substantial changes, in fact, were made. Then at that point, it becomes almost a new project. And subsequently, one option would be for staff to recommend that we reopen it to other developers. Alderperson Savaglio, and then Ren Flaish. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to see bids open back up as well. That's my only comment. Thank you, Alderperson Ryan Flaish. At this point, the finance committee and personnel committee has not discussed opening the bids or not opening the bids or what we would do. All we discussed was to see whether or not Crawford might be interested in coming back to us. If we're open for bids, it opens up a whole other issue, which I would like the finance committee to discuss. You know, if that's going to be it, but we haven't gotten to that point yet. We're pushing faster than where we have actually had discussions here. I think, you know, he was a second place in the recommendations of staff when it came to council. And it seemed suitable to, if we're not going to go up for a new RFP to go down the line and give it to the next person. So if this is defeated, then that could come to your committee for discussion. Otherwise, if it's approved, we can see if we can put the same deal together or something better and then bring that back. You're still going to have to approve the development contract in the end. If you reject it, then we can still go back to opening up bids. Any other discussion? Alder Person Donahue. Essentially what Alder Rinfleisch said, but I think just building on what Alder Decker mentioned, and even before, after we lost the SEAS project, and we were looking at other apartment developments, there seems to be, and I think it's financial, of course, trying to put 10 pounds of apartments on a five-pound lot. And that is a, it's just a difficult thing. So I, we can vote aye tonight and we are not approving the apartment project. And I think Alder Rinfleisch has made that very clear as well as the mayor. But I think it's a lovely piece of property and I think that we should be creative and think about the best way to use it in a neighborhood that is one of the original city neighborhoods and has not been gentrified. Thank you for those comments. Any other discussion? Alder Person Mitchell. I understand going back to Crawford in this scenario as our second choice, but as was mentioned, a lot has changed. I just want to echo a couple of the previous speakers that whether we do it ahead of time, have that conversation soon, or we wait until we see what Crawford comes back with, I too would certainly like to see if there are any other options on the table if it comes to that. So I'd encourage us to have that conversation where need be sooner than later. Okay, thank you. Is there any other, Alder Person Boring? Hey Mayor, we're talking about time before and whether it would be, you know, the armory people doing their project or Scott Crawford doing his project or some other developer interest rates have gone up substantially over the last six months. So whether the armory people were refurbishing the armory, those costs were going to go up and it's going to be difficult for the Scott Crawfords of the world or any other developer to get financing for some of these projects. And indications are that the Fed in tenant raising interest rates a couple more times in early 19. So it's going to be a tough slope for anybody to develop that down there, whether it be the armory people or a private developer. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Seeing no other hands, will the court please call a roll for passage? Six ayes, four a noes. Motion passes. This next one I think is kind of moot, but we'll have to see what you want to do with it. Item 5.3 is RC number 184 of 1819 by the Finance and Personnel Committee. Tumas referred Resolution number 118 of 1819 by Alderperson's Wolf and Bourne authorizing the purchasing agent to prepare and issue a request for bids for the demolition of the Sheboygan Municipal Armory and recommends approving the resolution. Alderperson, Rin Flesch. No, we'll only accept an adoption. Thank you for that motion in support. Is there any discussion on this motion? Alderperson Wolf. Again, this is just to update our quotes. You know, it's been a while, we've had some work done on the building already. I believe having some lead taken out and some other things, but it's basically, it's not approving anything. It's not approving the raising of it. It's just making sure that the information that we have on file is updated and that when we do reference the raising process, we have accurate information. Thank you for those comments. Any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please, Alderperson Boren. Thank you. Just a clarification, we've done some of the remediation down there and the original bid that we got for demolishing the armory was that, in the bid originally, that was before the remediation, so. That was a part of the bid. We only executed the leaden asbestos portion of it and we were waiting for a decision. So that bid is now expired. This will renew that bid and give you the information that Alderperson Wolfe was describing. Minus the remediation, correct. That's already been done. Okay, thank you. Seeing no other hands, would the clerk please call the roll? Eight ayes, two noes. Motion passes. Item 5.4 is RC number 185 of 1819 by the Finance and Personnel Committee. To members referred, resolution number 119 of 1819 by Alderperson's Rindflash and Boren authorizing transfer of appropriations in the 2018 budget for City Hall renovations to recommend approving the resolution, Alderperson Rindflash. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? 10 ayes. Motion passes. Item 5.5 is RC number 186 of 1819 by the Public Works Committee. To members referred, resolution number 120 of 1819 by Alderperson Wolfe authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into a contract for the design, provision and complete installation of technology improvements and enhancements for the newly renovated City Hall and recommends approving the substitute resolution. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to accept and adopt and pass the substitute resolution. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on that motion? Alderperson Suvoglio. Thank you. Could the department speak a little bit more about what's going into these rooms? What's your question? Could the department speak a little bit more about what's going into the rooms as far as the technology goes? David, can you handle that? It says to me that we currently have probably the biggest upgrades going to be in the council meeting or something. And that will allow the council meetings to be streamed live to the internet to either YouTube, channel, or Facebook Live so we can have that as an option as well as an enhanced broadcast to the cable network along with that. And the ability to have in the, what we probably don't have, that will be a basement of City Hall, will be a training center, which will have terminals for staff to come down and actually sit in a classroom type setting with terminals in front of them and actually interact with classroom type setting in terms of running financial software or personnel packages and so forth. So we're all consistent with how we operate. So I think in your package tonight, there's a ton of different items in here that I have to admit are a little above my threshold in terms of electronics. But everything that we've worked with our consultant and as well as the furniture company, this is all integrated along with the floor plan. So it will take us from kind of where we were in the past with the building as you recall into more of a modern functioning office setting that we'll have. And I think too the other thing is occasionally we've had a meeting where we've don't have enough room to seat everybody in the council chambers. Well, I think the layout now will seat more than we currently do. You can put that meeting on any one of the screens in any one of the conference rooms in the building and we could make several or all of them available for anybody that come in and we have an overflow situation. Does that answer your question? Yes, it does, thank you. All right, any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll. 10 ayes. Motion passes. 5.6 is RC number 187 of 1819 by the Finance and Personnel Committee. Tuma's referred direct referral resolution number 125 of 1819 by Alderperson's Rindflash and Bourne, authorizing the preliminary action and connection with the prospective Broadway Avenue and business drive tax incremental financing redevelopment project and recommends approving the resolution. Alderperson Rindflash. Thank you for the motion and support on that. Is there any discussion? Alderperson Rindflash. This isn't actually from the city in order to pursue the development, this is the Vandenberg property. Correct. We also have a representative of Green Street in the chambers today came up from St. Louis for our meeting. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, would you please call the roll city clerk? 10 ayes. Motion passes. Thanks for waiting. Item 5.7 is RC number 188 of 1819 by the Finance and Personnel Committee. Tuma's referred direct referral resolution number 126 of 1819 by Alderperson's Rindflash and Bourne, authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into an agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and the city of Sheboygan, Wisconsin regarding environmental contamination at 2117 Indiana Avenue and recommends approving the resolution. Alderperson Rindflash. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the motion? Alderperson Decker. This has been a blighted area on Indiana Avenue for quite a while and I'm happy that this is heading forward. I know that the members of the Indiana Corridor neighborhood, this has been on their radar for quite a while. So thank you. Thank you for those comments. Chad Pellecek, did you have something to add? Yeah, I just wanted to state that as I said at the Finance and Personnel Committee, the county has graciously agreed to tax foreclose on this property under interim tax foreclosure as part of it since it has the suspected tanks and potentially some minimal environmental contamination the DNR is requiring an agreement between the city and the DNR that should we redevelop that property in the future, we're gonna abide by state laws as it relates to environmental contamination. But what I would say at this stage is we're hoping to get this property by the end of the year and then we'll look at what we're going to do going forward in conjunction with the Indiana Corridor neighborhood. So as we've heard from a lot of neighborhood meetings it is a contentious situation and it's good that the city and the county can work together and be proactive to try to remove that blighted property. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk call the roll? Ten eyes. Motion passes. Item 5.8 is RC number 189 of 1819 by the Public Works Committee. To almost refer direct referral general ordinance number 25 of 1819 by Alderperson Wolfe clarifying the city's snow emergency rules with respect to the streets that are not snow emergency routes, boulevards, cul-de-sacs, nor dead end streets and recommends approving the resolution. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to accept and adopt and pass resolution. Thank you for that motion and support under discussion. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. This is really just some verbiage changes during the development of the actual information that was going to be given out to all of the districts and to like the police department and that. There was some information that wasn't clearly defined in our original ordinance. So it's basically it's just cleaning it up and making sure that everything is correct. Thank you very much for that explanation. Any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? Nine. I is one abstain. Motion passes. Next is general ordinances. Item 6.1 will be referred to the Licensing Hearings and Public Safety Committee. Next, I'll turn it over to city attorney Adams on other matters received after the agenda was published. 7.1 is an RO by the fire chief submitting the draft summary report of the operational and departmental structure review of the Sheboygan fire department prepared by Fitch and Associates. This will be referred to the committee the whole. Alderperson Sorenson, do we have any date for that yet? The city administrator date is still TBD. Hopefully we wanna get a good discussion on this while it's fresh and while everyone can read and take a lot of notes, prepare their questions over Thanksgiving break. So we were trying to hope on Monday, but I think fire chief Romus is working with the consultants to see when they can come and kind of talk through and answer any questions. Okay, thanks for that update. We'll let everyone know as soon as those arrangements are made. Yep, go ahead. 7.2 is an RO by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending December 31, 2018, June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2019. That'll be referred to the licensing hearings and public safety committee. 7.3 is a resolution by Alderperson's Wolf and Sorenson authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into a contractor contracts to obtain trees and tree planting services to replace street trees in the city of Sheboygan. That'll be referred to the public works committee. Next we have a contemplated closed session. Alderperson Wolf. Thank you, mayor. I make a motion to convene in closed session under the exemption provided in section 19.85 sub one, sub E, Wisconsin stats where competitive and bargaining reasons require a closed session related to the development opportunity on parcel number<PHONE_NUMBER>0. Thank you for that motion in support. Will the clerk call the roll for closed session? Not on my screen. So we'll just do it manually. Soren? Hi. Decker? Hi. Donahue? Hi. Mitchell? Hi. Phillips? Hi. Rineflesh? Hi. Savaglio? Hi. Sorenson? Hi. Trester? Hi. Wolf? Hi. All eyes. Motion passes. For our TV viewers, this will end our broadcast for this evening. The council will be adjourning the closed session. Thank you very much. We'll take a short three minute recess and reconvene.