Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

It is 5.30, and I will call the Public Safety Committee meeting to order for September. Call to order, roll call. We have everybody present except for Alderman Beeman. He's not on the... Zoom, is he? He contacted me earlier, so we should mark him excused as opposed to absent. I'm going to now open the meeting up to public comment. If there's somebody from the public that wishes to speak on an item, Now is your time to do so. Once again, opened up for public input. Is there somebody from the public that wishes to speak? If you, sir, yeah, if you would come up to the front and sit by one of the mics where the little green thing is on, if you would please list your name and your address for the record.

Thank you. My name is Michael Pearson and my address is 713 North Water Street, manitowoc wisconsin so members of the committee thank you for allowing me to speak tonight i want to begin by making something very clear i'm not against law enforcement i'm not against technology and i'm certainly not against finding better ways to keep our community safe i am here because i believe there is a line that our city should not cross in the name of public safety one that more than likely leads to a permanent surveillance state and that puts and once put up is nearly impossible to tear down. I believe the Manitowoc Police Department and public have the opportunity in the coming weeks and months to come to an agreement on just where that line is and to decide if we are comfortable with crossing that line. Tonight, I am firmly asking you, the Public Safety Committee, to send a recommendation to Common Council to not only officially terminate the city's contract with flock safety, but immediately discontinue the use of the cameras. And also recommend that the city will not simply replace Flock with another company selling a similar surveillance model. Because the problem isn't just Flock. The problem isn't even the cameras. The problem is the enormous database and questionable encryption. The ability to search and share that database with little to no oversight. the AI integration that is only an update away from other recognition capabilities, and the new sensor-based detection technologies that these surveillance companies are now beginning to roll out. And I think this is where we need to stop pretending that we are simply talking about cameras. Another surveillance company, Axon, which is most known for their body cameras and tasers, but Axon is also developing a much broader technology ecosystem. Its FUSES platform is designed to bring together over 85 million public and private camera feeds, body cameras, drones, license plate readers, gunshot detection, AI models, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi sensors, and other data feeds into a single operational interface. Axon already has existing relationships with police departments and is in line to replace FLOC in some jurisdictions, including in Wisconsin. Another surveillance company is Cognite. They have a product called FalconNet, essentially a cell phone tower and a police cruiser. In use, it causes all phones in the area to disconnect from traditional cell towers and become intercepted by its own tower, gaining access to IMEI, geolocation, metadata, and all unencrypted central traffic occurring on any phone within its range. The Texas Police Department just purchased four of these vehicles in March. Think about that for a moment. These companies that started with just cameras that read license plates have quickly escalated into sensor dragnets that capture your digital fingerprint and deploy mobile systems capable of intercepting all cellular activity in a given area. And these technologies don't exist in completely separate worlds. The direction of this industry is towards connecting more cameras, more sensors, more data, and more artificial intelligence into increasingly comprehensive surveillance systems. Flock, Axon, and Cognite, and many more, these companies are all mass surveillance companies, and they are publicly telling us what they are building. And I think that is exactly why I don't want you to make the mistake of simply thinking this is a decision about flock, because if we officially cancel flock and turn around and purchase another company's version of essentially the same surveillance infrastructure, then we really haven't resolved the problem. And I think one of the things that we have lost sight of is the Fourth Amendment. Warrants are supposed to create friction between the government and the information it wants to obtain. The friction is intentional. It is part of the checks and balances of the different government branches. Technology like this is intentionally designed to remove that friction. So I guess one of the things I also would like to ask is what has Block done and what has our investment got us here in Manitowoc? Block's safety pitch is public safety and its core mission is literally to eliminate crime so how many murders has flocked helped solve in manitowoc how many shootings how many missing children how many stolen vehicles how many serious crimes has it actually helped to solve i'm not asking what the technology could do or the promises the company has made i'm asking what flock has actually done while i do not advocate for any of this at all i think if we're going to build a permanent surveillance infrastructure in the community we should be able to demonstrate that the public safety benefits justify the civil liberties we're giving up to create it. Block and Axon and all the other mass surveillance companies are out there making some pretty extraordinary claims and that they seem to have adopted the tech industry's motto of move fast and break things. I don't think this is an acceptable philosophy when we're talking about constitutional rights. We have the opportunity here to draw the line before the technology gets ahead of the law. before the databases get bigger, before more agencies get access, and before the next capability gets added simply because the technology makes it possible. So my request to this committee is simple. End flock and do not replace it with another version of flock. And if somewhere down the road the police department and this committee believe that there is a legitimate public safety need for surveillance technology, then bring that proposal back to the public. Tell us exactly what it does. Tell us what information it collects. Tell us who can access it. Tell us how long it is kept. Tell us what safeguards exist. Tell us what oversight exists. And most importantly, tell us why we should trust the government with this capability. Because once you build a surveillance system, taking it away is a lot harder than deciding not to build it in the first place. We have the opportunity to draw that line now. and I hope we have the courage to do it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to speak? Yes. Just please state your name and address. Yes. I would have said your name had I known it.

My name is Sherry Lobs, and I'm a resident in the city of Mantua at 921 North 43rd.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the Public Safety Committee. Today I'm asking you to reject the use of automated license plate reader technology in our community for three reasons. For privacy, for system error rates, and the potential for abuse of power. first alpr systems threaten everyone's privacy they can create a record of where people drive when they drive and what places they visit even when they've done nothing wrong people should not have to wonder whether visiting a doctor going to a place of worship attending a protest or meeting with a political group is going to be tracked and stored in a government database Courts have recognized that prolonged digital tracking can raise privacy concerns even when individual observations occur in public. Second, ALPR systems make mistakes. Independent reviews have found ALPR error rates to be substantially higher than what the manufacturers claim. Cameras can misread license plates or connect a vehicle to outdated or incorrect information. False matches can lead to a traffic stop, a search, or worse, a dangerous interaction with law enforcement. The recent incident in Brookfield where an innocent person sat in traffic with guns pointed at them is a frightening example. It is unfair to expect innocent people to endure the fear or danger resulting from a technology that is far from foolproof. Lastly, ALPR technology can enable abuse of power. While our police department could have strict protocols and the very best intentions, the agencies we share data with may not. And that means that the reader system used is irrelevant. It's the availability of this data to a network of unvetted agencies that creates a situation that is ripe for abuse. There is no oversight of the system as a whole. Once the information is accessible outside of local agencies, there's no way to know how far and wide our personal data may go and in which potentially nefarious ways it could be used. Public safety is indeed important, but safety should not require surrendering our privacy or our basic rights. Pivoting to another system is not the answer. I ask that the city would slow down, listen to resident concerns, and consider whether the risks outweigh the promised benefits. Our community deserves transparency and not a system that appears out of nowhere and quietly monitors everyone without their knowledge. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anybody else from the public wish to speak? Yes, ma'am. Name an address, please.

Wendy Schmidt, 910 East Cedar Avenue.

Thank you.

I'm just backing up what these people are saying. I'm against the cameras and the ALPs. I think we're going too fast. I'm a single white woman. I travel all over. I just got back from Lake Geneva. How many flock cameras did I go by? Are they tracking me when I go somewhere? I do a lot of protesting. Am I going to be an enemy of the state once they deem that illegal? Would I be able to be followed or harassed if I was at a protest? Because they are right on the bridge. So yeah, I'm against them. I did reach out to my alderman, Chad Beeman. I don't know if the email didn't go through or what, but I had no response from him. But I think we need to really slow down, get out of the flock camera, and don't replace it with any other ALRP systems, okay?

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else from the public here to speak? Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Your name and address, please.

All right. So my address is technically on the border of Newton and Manitowoc, so 8730 English Lake Road. But I do work both my jobs within Manitowoc City as well as when my children go to school in Manitowoc.

And your name? Tiffany Strong.

Thank you. So I care deeply about public safety. I have children. I live and work here. I want my family and my community to be safe. Surveillance and public safety cannot really fully coexist when we don't know who we're fully sharing our data with, which I'll get to in a second. First, we are spending at least around $38,000 on Flock with 13 cameras generating about 20 alerts in 30 days, which are not deactivated because they are not covered and only a request to Flock was put in. And I've brought forward examples to officials before that there are cities with smaller populations or about the same size with less cameras who are getting over that 1,000. And when I raised that comparison, I got a response back that it's all about the positioning and where they have their cameras. But let's look at where we live, right? We live on the lake shore. We have Highway 42, Highway 151, and other major routes with truckers, commuters, and people constantly traveling through Mantua. People using our Badger, right? People going, traveling across up to the UP. We have people coming and going throughout all the time. So if 13 cameras are only producing about 20 alerts in 30 days, taxpayers do have every right to ask why. Taxpayers and people who work here and live and are being surveilled. So why are they paying $30,000 for this? And I know that I was also given the comparison of how much the first year lease officer gets, but that has nothing to do with it. That's a totally different... situation and a totally different argument I have there as somebody who has a master's in counseling and a master's in special ed and don't even make anywhere near for that. So that's totally off. It has nothing to do with this. We've been told flock helps with serious crimes, but we've had people die and have their bodies found in Lake Michigan since flock cameras have been up. How have flock cameras helped with any of those investigations or domestic violence or things of that nature? How is this really benefiting the city? We also have to consider that our data is shared with approximately 177 other agencies within the state. And I don't know what each of those... are doing with our information or what their policies are or who they sell their data to. We know that part of the reason Sheboygan got rid of theirs is because Flock wanted to buy some of their data. So do we know if any of those areas are selling their data to Flock or the federal government? Regardless, when I asked the police chief about the fact that there's 170 agencies they're sharing with and if he knew any of their policies at all, He said it's not his responsibility, but I guess our safety and protection doesn't matter. And if we're serious about pausing surveillance while we evaluate whether we're going to continue, modify, or choose a worse corporation, why aren't we covering the cameras while we're waiting to hear back from Flock or trying to decide what we're gonna do next? We've seen communities take immediate action. So if this concern is serious enough to reconsider the contract, why isn't it serious enough to temporarily stop collecting? while that decision is being made. There are also First Amendment concerns besides the Fourth Amendment, which I've already discussed. Flock has provided law enforcement trainings throughout the country on using its technology in connection with protesters, and that's our First Amendment right to freedom of speech and peaceful protesters, not violent, not rioters, not revolutionaries, peaceful protesters trying to speak their voice. which then goes back to the concern of a surveillance state. Peacefully exercising your constitutional right should never make you a target for surveillance. And this isn't just about Flock. If we replace Flock with Axon or other ALPR providers, we're potentially just changing the company, not the underlining surveillance, and could be increasing the issue at hand and you will not hear the end from people. Because Axon, for example, yes, they're great for body cams, that's great, okay, but the body cams are not collecting the same data that the Axon cameras for surveillance have been proven to be doing. Nor are they having contracts with Israel, which is a whole different concern, but at the same time overlapping. I mean, this isn't just one thing. And also in the contracts, there are these tiny little lines in there that say that, essentially suggest that if the federal government wants to use our data, they can without a warrant, without any of you agreeing to it, and without the police chief agreeing to it. And if they do, what they have done is done gig orders on that city. I don't want to live in a surveillance state, and I don't want my children growing up thinking surveillance is the price of safety. We can support public safety while demanding privacy, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. So I ask this committee, don't just ask whether we can keep flock, afford flock, modify flock, but ask whether it's actually working and if we actually should be going to something even more dangerous. but that does not take away from the abuse of law currently. All are dangerous, and I do not want to live in a surveillance state.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? You in the back are the only one that has not... I'm here for a different topic. You're here for a different topic. Okay, so then I'm going to go call for public input twice. Anybody? Three times, I will now call public input to close. You had mentioned you brought up the subject of flock. That is not on our agenda tonight, and because it's not listed on our agenda, the committee members cannot discuss anything to do with that or whatever. But I am sure that something will be posted or brought up at some time in the future for the committee, and it will be on the agenda, and then you'll get a chance to hear how each one of us feels about it. But until it's on our agenda, we can't do anything right now. But thank you for your input. Consent agenda is the next item on the agenda. Does anybody want to? We only have one item on the consent agenda.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Motion and second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Anderson? Next item on the agenda is request for new sidewalks on South 21st from Summit to Flambeau and on Flambeau from a particular address on 18th to the 23rd Street. There was a number of items in your packet and a map or two. Greg, our city engineer, would you like to make a little... Yeah, you'll be more than... Sure. We'll let him... Maybe you'll answer your question in the interim, and if not, we will call you up and... Yeah, I didn't really have anything...

prepared other than what was in your packet. So I know we had gotten a request from a citizen who had claimed that they were almost hit out there, I guess, walking with a stroller and was asking when sidewalks were gonna go in that area. And I guess certainly they could go there. It's gonna be up to the committee and the Board of Public Works and the council to decide if they wanna move forward with it and fund it.

Real quickly, how many requests for sidewalks? Just one particular request?

Currently just one that I'm aware of, I guess.

Okay.

So I think that was the email that went to the mayor's office and contacted you and decided to put it on the agenda. I mean, in theory, our ordinance says sidewalks are supposed to be constructed on any side of any street where the Board of Public Works determines the sidewalk is necessary for the public health and safety. The determination is approved by council, and the property owner is given notice to install the sidewalk then. So anyway, I mean, that street was paved in 2010, I believe, so it's been there 10 years already, so certainly it's a street that you know, both the streets could have sidewalk. Um, with this, I know we have the, the park there. So certainly I know the parks department supports, you know, would have support having sidewalk or on the park.

Um, a question, if I may, regarding that, uh, there seems to be like two and a half sides of that, of that park currently have sidewalk. I believe I drove around there and, uh, would the park department out of their budget pay for the sidewalk that would be on their property, or how would you anticipate handling that, I guess?

Just be out of the city budget, I guess. It would be a portion that wouldn't be assessed.

No, no, but there's a cost of putting it in, and I was just wondering, would the park department get charged for that portion of it out of their budget with public works? pick up the tab.

I don't know, it'd be a capital project, so it'd be part of the capital budget that we bond for. So I guess I don't, you know.

Well, I mean, they could pay for it out of outlay, out of their budget. You know, you budget, you levy for it, and you pay for it right away in one year for the parks. But that's why I'm asking, you know, it's,

I don't know if I have a good answer for that right offhand. I mean.

I'd like to have a 20-year bond for a sidewalk, you know, for a little portion, you know.

Yeah, but in theory, sidewalk should be lasting 40, 50 years or more, hopefully. Well, I hope so. But so that it's a, you know, something that could get bonded, that's for sure. That is not a short-term item, but.

so i don't know i mean it's like i'm not here i guess i'm not here supporting it one way or another i guess really the request came through and so i'm trying to give the committee information it's just next time you guys get together you can pose that question oh by the way is that coming out of the park department budget or public works or how do you anticipate you know i i want a lot of things too and the first thing my wife asks you is how you're going to pay for it you know but it

i don't know it seems kind of i mean it's all city money so it's just whether or not who it's getting charged to right i mean it's still a cost to the city that the city is going to absorb and not a property owner with a direct assessment but um So I don't know, I guess, yeah, I mean, technically the property owners, the budding property owners are assessed for that work. So I don't think that this would be included even in next year's budget because we're probably kind of late. But typically assessments go out the year after the work's done.

Sir, could you just give your name and address for the record so we have that?

My name is Mike Mulphy, 2109 Summit Street.

Thank you.

I'm right at the start of this project. And I have one question. I don't know how any of this works. This is my very first time in here. I'm nervous as can be right now.

You shouldn't be. You didn't get the bill yet.

I just found out about this literally 10 minutes ago. Sure. I had no warning about this. No one on my block that I know of has heard about this. My concern is who's paying for it. Got a little bit of an answer. But at the same time, you have wetlands there. Man-made wetlands. On either side of Summit Street, or I'm sorry, either side of 21st, and then down a little further, right next to my property, there's a wetland as well. Deep hills that will need to be filled to expand wide enough for a sidewalk. And drains that would have to be moved for those wetlands. which means those drains will have to go into my property and my neighbor's property.

Yeah, I drove that area way back a couple weeks ago when I first got the email from the mayor and that lady who was requesting it. And I drove it again today. And I'm very familiar on each side where I'm going, how the heck are we going to get a sidewalk in there because it looks like a jungle area. and a big ditch and you name it.

My concern is now that drain that's there would be the west side of 21st Street right by my house would be into my property then.

First off, it's real simple. Who's going to pay for it?

Who's going to pay for it? Eventually it's going to be us, obviously.

Well, the property owner because what's going to happen, it ends up as a special assessment You can either pay for it in cash when it's done and you're done, or you've got an option of a five-year or a 10-year payment program. If you do the five or the 10, it doesn't matter. Usually it's five, but they do offer a 10-year, but you get charged interest on that like you would a bank loan.

Then my question is, do I have to pay more for the more dirt that's gonna get brought in? compared to someone else that has it flat? Because there's going to be truckloads and truckloads of dirt brought in.

Oh, yeah. I would say not. I mean, that's one of those special circumstances. And he's right. And I mean, I didn't even get into that part of it yet. There's certainly issues on 21st Street on what he's referring to, as well as whether or not your area was designated as a wetland. I'm not sure.

It is, it's there. I was called and said I had noxious weeds. Sorry, I see it on here.

So yeah, whether or not we'd be looking at some pretty intense permitting probably to potentially extend that pipe and then... that's going on and get an easement from you on your property we'd need to you know get an easement and then same thing for the main there's a 12 and 15 inch culvert right where that street narrows to pass that water and so that would have to be extended as well so there's definitely some cost in that yeah typically i don't think we would assess those additional costs it would just be the sidewalk itself But even that, basically it's been going about $10 a square foot.

It's not a small area over there that I own.

Is it safe to assume that there's got to be a little bit more research and information gathered on staff's side? so that we can answer questions like that. Usually what happens, at least when they do a road, they'll send a letter to all the affected properties and the letter says, here's what we're- I've heard nothing about this. No, no, no. But the process for sidewalks is a little goofier than it is for a street or a road being replaced or put in. A sidewalk is a goofy animal, and the fact that our committee doesn't even necessarily make a recommendation one way or another, it ends up going to the Board of Public Works. And they have to determine that the sidewalk is necessary for safety purposes. If they do that, then it goes to the next step, but it's basically, yeah, it will happen. And so I... Our committee can recommend to the Board of Public Works, yes, we'd like to see it done or no, but it's still the Board of Public Works, when they meet, they're the ones that would put the stamp of approval on it, and then it would go to the next step, which would be sending out letters, I'm assuming, and also budgeting the money accordingly, because a lot of people take the five-year, 10-year plan, but the city has to come up with that money when the work is done. And so it's a big process. But somewhere along the line in that process, I am sure that the Public Works Department would put together a letter and make sure that it gets to all the different property owners that are going to be affected by that, correct?

just like when you put in the street yeah we're extremely early i mean it was the first meeting to even discuss this so it's kind of really tonight it's i think more for this for whatever reason i guess we kind of take it to the oversight committee more or less for it so i take it to them first then it's up to them they could say don't want to move forward with it and i guess or you can say, yeah, we think that it should be looked at more closely by the board and make a determination and then go from there. And even if they approve something, I don't think it would be put in a budget till next year. I mean, he's working on that right now. So I think we're late for anything happening in 27. So if it were to go in, it would be like at the earliest, probably 28, which would mean you wouldn't be assessed till 29 until summer after the work's done, I believe.

I just, because myself and my neighbor would be getting a lot of sidewalk right there. And they're school teachers.

What happened, if I may interrupt, I'm sorry. In my district, I had the same thing. I had one person call me. I went out there, okay, you want the sidewalk? I started the process sort of like the lady did. Okay, we got to go to this committee, so on and so forth. And the rest of the neighbors in that whole neighborhood and even beyond that heard that. And so I had one person call me that says, I want sidewalks. And I had probably, what, 150 going, you better not put the damn sidewalks in. So what I did is based on what our public works department says, if we do it, this is how we're going to do it and where we're going to do it. I went and I visited each of those neighbors over the course of two or three weeks at night. And I visited each one and I said, here's the deal. Do you want a sidewalk or do you not? All but two said, I do not want a sidewalk. So I went to the Board of Public Works and I said, technically, if you say for safety reasons we need it, it's a done deal. It doesn't matter that all but two people don't want it. But I was there and I said that the individuals do not want it except for two people. The chief of police was there, said there's no accident records to justify that it's a big safety issue. The police chief at the time says, he even lived in the area, says everybody drives slow anyway, it's a small area. So they decided, okay, we don't need sidewalks. You could end up doing the same thing in your area, but visit the neighbors and say, do you want a sidewalk? Do you not want? And at least make the Board of Public Works aware of that, or at least your aldermen. Because when I spoke for the majority of our people in a meeting, the other alders listened and said, we will support what they want, and they don't want sidewalks. So I don't know if the Board of Public Works, when it gets to that stage, whether they'll say, hey, it's dangerous enough. We don't care. We've got to approve it. Or we can disapprove it because nobody wants it. And the accident record and things like that don't justify that it's a real dangerous area. So that's kind of what I did. like I said, contact your alder and then visit the neighborhood that's affected and see are they for it or against it. That helps determine what ends up. And in the meantime, I know Greg is our engineer for the city and he will sharpen his pencil and start looking at all those anomalies so we have some answer for you.

Yeah, I mean, going back to, I guess, just a little history, like any time that the developer did these subdivisions, typically they put in all the utilities, they grade and gravel it, and then the city would come and pave it in concrete one to three years later. then we would usually come along after that, you know, after the cave at some point, say five years after paving and do sidewalk so that property owners weren't getting hit with, you know, all the assessments at one time. So you kind of had the paving, let that, you know, start getting paid for and then put in sidewalk. But in this case, you know, I don't know, I guess the last 15 years, there's not been a whole lot of new sidewalk put in that I think cities had more of a, uh i guess priority to try to maintain what we have existing versus keep adding new but historically we were intended to be sidewalk on both sides of the streets now obviously there's all kinds of examples where there's not um and so i mean that could be a decision too by either you guys or the board could say, no, we're only going to put it on one side because of the uniqueness with the wetlands or this or that. So, I mean, that would be up to them to decide potentially.

In this case, the east side would be easier compared to the west side.

And that actually, through the wetland area, I think if I'm reading my plans right, we were only planning to have sidewalk on the east side and be curbside sidewalks that would be right tight to the curb. And then they were going to put pedestrian crossings on each end of it. but that there would still be sidewalk on the, on the west side up to those wetlands. But I guess that, you know, it's going to be up to board or somebody to decide if we do or not. I mean, one option would be don't do 21st right now and just do Flambeau or don't do any of it or do all of it, I guess. And that's kind of what we're kind of trying to go through with the committee and the board to decide what should be done, if anything, I guess.

In my case, in my neighborhood, I bought a lot and we built a house and the builder was building a house and he noticed there were sidewalks all over in my neighborhood. And he just says, oh, by the way, I'm putting in a sidewalk, you don't have a choice. So sometimes the builders realize that and they just put it in right off the bat and then we don't get into some of these things, so.

I get that. I didn't hear nothing about this. My wife told me literally five minutes before I came here, she's seen it from a co-worker. I'm just wondering why hasn't anyone ever been told about it? I know it's the first thing that you just said, but I think we should have been notified about it, that there is talk about it.

Well, because of this process being a little strange, because I learned it when my neighbor says, I want the sidewalk. and the city attorney sat down with me and said well here is how it works we're not to that stage where you would be notified and it doesn't mean that once you're notified it's already been a done deal you know what i mean so uh i am sure that before it would go to the board of public works for a definitive answer you would have gotten some information and like I said, been able to either try to sell it or put a car wash on it or whatever. But it sounds like our engineer, based on what he just said, oh, yeah, we're only going to do it on this one side in this area. You know, I mean, he has to know exactly what he wants to bid out. And that's when we would start, I guess, informing the public. So we knew we were informing him with good data and the right answer. Is that a, please correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I think that's fair. I mean, I'm trying to think of the right way to say it. I mean, we always want to try to notify the homeowners, not trying to keep it from them, but sometimes it's nice to have a discussion with them without everybody here because then if we invited that whole neighborhood and everybody probably being a rile yelling at us and every, you know, and it's like, we don't even know if they want it.

Cause you have a lot of duplexes along both sides. So, and they don't care. You'd have pop builders would be.

Well, and, I know on Flambeau street, several of those homes are the habitat properties. So I'm sure that there's, you know, perhaps limited income and that they may speak up on that too. So, I mean, but that's why, you know, it's going to be an option, you know, choice by the board and the council to decide whether they want to move forward with some or all or nothing, I guess. So, and that's why, so sometimes we do have meetings or discussions before bringing it to the property owners to, to try to, that some of those things out to see if we're even going to move forward with it and not get people riled up, I guess. So hopefully that makes sense. And that makes sense. Yes. You know, like I say, I don't think anything would be happening. Even if they say, let's do something, they're probably going to be till 2028 if we're lucky. Cause then even if board approves that, it kind of like not automatically, I think it's still going to have to go to cog, but you know, to our capital group to, uh, each year we rank all various projects and see what ends up coming out as, you know, and so it's possible through that process. It doesn't have money to do it for two years or three years. So it's kind of, yeah, I don't know. That's just, it could be several.

It depends upon the financing mechanism because there's two or three ways of doing it, but you know, depending upon which way you go, then there's a, that committee has to sign off on it or this one or that one. So there's a lot of variables and depending upon which ones you pick, there's a different process that we have to do. So like I said, sidewalks is just a pain in the butt when it comes to getting to the point where we don't irritate somebody, but then after you find out what we've got to go through, hopefully you're not irritated and you realize When something is about to happen or going to happen, you'll be notified, and at that time, just because you're notified, it doesn't mean it's a done deal. You know what I mean? It's something like we couldn't talk about the other people that spoke about a certain thing going on. I can tell you there's going to be a lot of openness if I have anything to say about it if something's happening, but... so i appreciate that i just i didn't know anything about it until just you know and i'll tell you what thank you thank you for coming it it's unbelievable if people have something to say like the rest of the people here it pays to come and and say your say your piece because the alders listen because Like I've been telling my district as I've been going out canvassing my area on certain matters, it's I'm there to represent them, not me. And I think that most of the other alders feel the same way. They're here to represent their district, not them. So we love it when you come out and you say your piece so we've got something to react to. I'm sorry, doctor, are you being called? No, obviously. Yeah, we're good.

Yeah, it was my phone that's dinging.

Oh, OK. I just promoted you to doctor, so. Well, thank you. Do you have any other questions?

That was it, actually. Thank you very much.

OK. Thank you, Greg. Committee, I suppose, do you have questions or comments? Or you're sitting there wondering, what do we do next? If you're wondering, yes. You got it. What do we do next? I learned a lot. I... We were to the... I mean, if we were moving forward on it, we would make a motion to forward this to the Board of Public Works for them to review. But because our city engineer has a few... items that came up tonight i'm i'm thinking we don't do anything and let him look at it a little more and put together hey if you do put in the sidewalks what are we going to actually do and then come back to us at that time and before we move it on and try to get it passed or shut down when we've got questions yet yeah that i guess i was thinking you guys i if you've

if you felt that maybe there should be sidewalk on one or both streets that you would just forward on and try to maybe hash out more details moving forward with them, I guess. But I don't know. I guess however you guys want to do it. Whether or not we're going to have to re-delineate those wetlands, I'm not sure, but that's a possibility. And look at that a little closer, maybe shoot grades on how far we'd have to go and the fill and what would all be needed and if we can do it under a permit. So 21st Street definitely has its issues, and that's why I was saying maybe the right answer is just look at Flambeau at the present time as an option. and not even deal with 21st, but I don't know. I guess it's up to you guys how you want to handle it. I mean, I guess that's, like I said, I don't really have, you know, I guess you guys kind of up to the board and you guys to counsel as to what you're interested in looking at moving forward with potentially, and if it's, you know, feel that there's a safety need or not.

Well, the accident information that were provided, there was only, I think, one accident in 26, and there was two other accidents, and one goes back to 21, I think, and one was 24, 25, don't quote me on it, but from what I remember, and out of those two that were prior, it sounded like It was a wintertime accident type of thing where the speed and slippery conditions caused it. And the other one was a backing up incident. So I'm going, I don't think there's a safety issue that's jumping at us that we need to push it forward so fast that we can't get more information. For example, I guess not only what would you do because of the wetlands and the gullies and the stuff like that, if you're serious that only one side is going to get it, I would like to see that on the map that says we're only going to do this when we move forward. We're only going to do that. That was going to change the cost drastically. It might even be that this gentleman has property and he doesn't see a line that he's putting in any sidewalk. until you got something more firmed up. I would rather see that before we would pass it on to the next committee because then it would be duly noted on our agenda and people would have a chance to see the, hey, this is what they would like to do if they're going forward. They have a chance to come back to us and say, hey, go to hell, I don't want, you know, or something. So I would rather put it off on you for a little bit more work and then bring it back to us again like you did, but with the so-called final plan. And if you would like to break it down to, here's the final plan, but you can do an A and a B or AB together. Like you said, if you just wanna do Flambeau now, this is what it is. If you wanna do 21st, this is it. And if you do them together, that's what you're looking at. I don't think we're in a hurry because, like you said, you could give it to us next month to discuss. But heck, nothing's happening until 28 anyway. Yes?

Just a comment on that. I guess I'm under the impression that the plan of all of that doesn't necessarily... So we just need to make the determination whether or not we feel it's, yes, it's crucial because of public safety that it's reviewed by the next committee. We don't really have the say in the factor of all the building plans behind it. Am I correct?

Yeah, no, I kind of agree, and that's what I was trying to get at is I think the details would come out, I think the board would ask us to get more information on it versus you guys, but it,

It's kind of a goofy process, but I guess my understanding is we're kind of supposed to take it to the oversight committee first, and then... That's kind of what I was thinking, but I guess certainly up to...

The only reason I agree with you 100% that you were very, unlike me, you were very succinct. But I also sit on that other committee, so I know what I'm going to be looking for.

And that's what it should come out.

And that's what I'm looking for. But my concern is if it comes back to here with a little bit more Finite data as far as here's the final product Granted our only decision would be to move it on to that other committee At least the public would get a chance to look at this new here. It's going to be because To my knowledge we don't have anybody show up at those other committee meetings

They could be invited to the board too, I would think. I mean, it's different that we usually don't have a lot of that at the board, but.

Let me ask my committee, how do you feel, Alder Cummings?

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. So first off, I guess, from my piece of it, I've been on this committee for a long time. Obviously, a request came in. This road was built in 2010, right? So we're talking 16 years. And this is the first request, to my knowledge, has come in for a sidewalk. So we went 16 years without a sidewalk right now. I look at the data. And in fact, there was just actually two accidents. There was one in January. on South 18th Street driving too fast for conditions. And then there was one in 2022 in July, actually, July 28th, unsafe backing. So I look at the data, at least the data that was provided in our packet, and over a 16-year period, granted, I didn't look to see once, I guess, how long that data was ran for, but that's just two. There's no indication on there that there was pedestrians that were hit. It was just accident data on that aspect. So from just that pure standpoint, from my piece of it, unless I'm missing something greater in the picture, I do not see a full-on safety issue that we have to enact on this right now. Thing is, if we do decide to act on it, there's two things that obviously need to be considered in the future. First off, the grand total that we're looking at is $156,120, which is a fair amount of money.

And I get just the comment on that that would be sidewalk only. That would not. I didn't price out any like filling that area if we're even allowed to do that with the wetland and or extending the culverts and all that stuff. So that would be on top of that. So that would be pretty much just the sidewalk.

So we're looking at probably 250,000 if not more total right to the city. And then on top of that, you're gonna have whatever's assessed. Granted, I'll be hitting three years to the property owners on that piece of it. So this is no small project. And mind you, in 16 years, we had one request. and no actual data to back it up. So from my perspective, I would say regardless of the process, there is no need to at least do it right now unless this meeting spurs a bunch of property owners that said, we need the sidewalk, which then in that case, you get more data, we say, yep, forward it on to the next committee, and then they decide at that point with more of that information. Am I correct in all that?

I would say so.

okay so my official recommendation would be that it does not need to move forward so from my perspective but i will yield to the rest of the committee if you have anything else that i'm missing thank you yeah not really i mean that's the request went to the mayor and he asked it to be put on the committee and try to give you guys information and that's just yeah it's kind of like

I'm not sure it's really up to me. All I can tell you is if we do A, B, or C, it's going to cost this, but I think you guys still need to decide one side, both sides, one street, both streets, no streets. So it's, you know, I mean, I guess, and that's what I was sort of trying to do with the spreadsheet that I had to say what the cost was on each street roughly. But yeah, no, I don't disagree. I mean, there may or may not have been other, you know, requests over the years, but I don't think so. I didn't try to go back and look at anything. I don't remember any other ones here at the moment.

Yeah, I mean, I've been Alder now for five years and on this committee, I think, for all four of the five years. And I do remember the one that Alder Ruckelberg was referencing with the old police chief's neighborhood. But that would be about the only one that I can recall where... There was like a legitimate, you know, big time where it was an ask and got to that point, right? And obviously we decided not to go forth even with that one because the community didn't want it. So, but.

Yeah, I think the main reason maybe would be the park, but it's not, doesn't have a lot of amenities there. So I'm not sure how much it's used, but that would have been part of the, you know,

Well, either way we have, even for that one, we have now a Parks and Recreation Committee. And in that event where the Parks Department decided, hey, we want a sidewalk, we can bring it up in that committee, which I'm the chairperson of. So that would be more apt for that if we wanted a budget for that because it'd probably come out of that budget regardless. Since it's an official park.

If you would like to make that in a form of a motion, then I'll call for discussion.

Okay, I would like to make that as a motion that I said before. What did I say, to officially not proceed forward. Place on file. Place on file, since I do not see a safety need at this point.

Got a motion to place on file. Do I have a second? Second. And a second by Alder Anderson. Any discussion or comments? Not hearing any, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Unanimous. We'll place that on file.

And then, I'm sorry, Chair. Go ahead. And for the gentleman in the audience, if... Obviously, you know, your people that live in your neighborhood probably will be watching this and see the minutes in from it. If obviously this is totally wrong, you can contact your alder and say, yeah, we want a sidewalk. There's more of us that want it. It can then come back. It's just for this moment, it's placed on file and essentially a dead issue at this point. But if that, you know, 10 of you guys say, hey, we want this sidewalk and it was just one that put forth, then by all means, go into it.

Thank you. Next item is a closed session. Notice is hereby given that the above governmental body may adjourn into a closed session during the meeting as authorized by section 1985 sub 1 sub f of the Wisconsin statutes, which authorizes the governmental body to convene in closed session for the purpose of considering financial, medical, social or personal histories or disciplinary data of specific persons, preliminary consideration of specific personnel problems, or the investigation of charges against specific persons, except where paragraph applies which, if discussed in public, would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect upon the reputation of any person referred to in such histories or data, or involved in such problems or investigations. Specific subject matter that may be considered in closed session is the Manitowoc Fire Rescue Billing Dispute, incident number 25-3304. There is a motion by- So moved. Alder Cummings, second by- Second. Second by Anderson. And I wrote this backwards, so we got to do this. Reckleberg, aye. Beeman, not here. Cummings. Aye. Anderson. Aye. Benzinger? Aye. We are now in closed session. Okay, we are now back in open session. We've got one item left on the agenda before adjourning, and that is Manitowoc Fire Rescue Billing Dispute, incident number 25-3304. I'll accept the motion. I'll make a motion to deny the request. Second. Motion by Cummings. Second by, that was Anderson, I believe, I heard. To deny the request. Any discussion? Not hearing any, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Unanimous. And now we're down to adjournment, I believe. We'll make the motion to adjourn. Second. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I apologize. I like meetings to go about an hour, but we did have a nice public input, so I'm not going to be the fall for it, I guess. I enjoy public input. Then you know that we're trying to do what they want.

So thank you.