City Clerk Sue Richards will read us the quote of the evening. Thank you, Mayor. There are two ways of meeting difficulties. You alter the difficulties or you alter yourself to meet them. Thank you, Sue. Roll call, please. Belt. Here. Warren. Here. Carlson. Here. Decker. Excused. Hammond. Here. Hammond. Here. Heidemann. Here. Con. Here. Kittleson. Here. Maddochuk. Excused. Rindflash. Here. Racler. Here. Sampson. Here. Ben Akron. Here. The other wheel. Here. Inverse seat. Here. 14 present. We have a quorum now if we can all stand and join Alderperson Cotham, the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Julie. Looking for approval of the minutes of the prior Common Council meeting, President Rindflash. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the previous minutes. Second. Motion in the second to approve the minutes under discussion. There is no discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Mayor's appointments. Attorney McLean. I don't believe there are any. No appointments. Public forum, sue. Thank you. First on the list this evening would be Meltstorm. Could you please come up to the front? And can I have your home address, Melt? Well, I really don't like to give my home address because I'm getting a couple of nasty letters, you know. But I'll give it to you. It's 1736 Marvin Court. That's Sheboygan, Wisconsin. And you will have five minutes. Thank you. I'll try to be brief, but I'm going to present me to take longer than five minutes. I want to thank Mayor Ryan for this time to address this council. I would like to read two letters to the editor this evening, one from a fine young lady who I have adopted as my daughter. And the other letter is my letter to the editor of December of 2001. My letter was never published in the Sheboygan press. Now, I'd like to read this letter. And it's titled Personal Attacks on Mayor Ryan Are You Not Appropriate? Who sat on a judgment throne and declared themselves judge and jury in this city? Now that everyone knows our mayor battles the horrible disease of alcohol and just how is it that productive and beneficial to him or to this city of Sheboygan? Have you ever been used as every human level of a selfish, self-serving purpose by someone you trusted?  It's awful. It's evil. And in some cases, illegal. The ones guilty of this need to get off their judgment throne set aside their emotional outbursts that are now causing the taxpayers of Sheboygan and give basic human decency, logic, and reason to try. If more could do that around here, perhaps we could stop being the laughing stock of the state. I paid attention while Mayor Bob Ryan was an alderman. Never saw a problem with his job performance. And I spoke with several people in his district on a regular basis. Never heard one complaint or negative word. I emailed all 16 aldermen, asking what our mayor has done in the job that his drinking has affected negatively, crickets. No response from 14 of 16. And the two that had the courtesy to respond said they knew nothing. People following him, texting with alderman about him. That's stalking. Stalking is a crime. Should we know which alderman were involved in this heinous behavior? You want to sit in judgment seats. Sit in judgment of the people behind the creation of this mess, not the mayor. All you gossip among others, perhaps it's time you see your faces splashed across half of the front page of the Sheboygan press for all seven to 10 days running with lots of immoral judgment calls and revolting anonymous gossip. Give yourself a taste of your own despicable behavior. After all, fair is fair. For alderman Versi, I've received more nasty letters with no return items and no author. It may involve former alder persons. My letters are with the police department for investigation. Now my letter that was never published in the Sheboygan press. I've got a picture of who a lady wrote an editorial letter into Sheboygan press. Her name is Sue Strandberg. A plummet says she discovered Mark Twain when she was 11 and promptly became an atheist.  We don't worship anything, including human beings. We follow principles instead of people and question, investigate, and test everything. Now here's my letter to her response. Jerry Doyle, the former alderman and Jeffrey Valen and myself responded to her letter. I would like to read my letter, but before I do, I asked Mr. John Hill if this Mark Nurgle Collins was a friend of Sue Strandberg. He's the one that wrote and attacked me and Jeffrey Valen and Jerry Doyle. I asked Mr. Hill if Mr. Collins was a friend of Sue Strandberg. When I had him on the phone, he said Sue Strandberg told him that this Mark Nurgle Collins of Brandbury, England, the UK was not a friend of hers. I asked Mr. John Hill, why didn't you publish my letter to protect my good name, and here's the letter. It certainly seems appropriate for me to respond to the Suboygan Press editorial letter from Mark Collins, December 4th, 2001. It must be a first to be trashed by a self-styled, tolerant liberal with his goobly god for debunking the views of his friend. When he demagogues my character, along with Jeffrey Valen, Jerry Doyle, and other Christian people of Suboygan, Mr. Collins shows his own arrogance, bigotry, and intolerance when comparing us to extremists who attacked the WTC, that's the World Trade Center. They were not extremists, they were evil criminals. Mr. Collins needs a lot of repentance and learn forgiveness. Maybe he and his beardies, cronies are still bitter for a Christian like General George Washington, and many of the founding fathers for ruining the Revolutionary War. Chapter 23 of Proverbs, verse seven, states that, as a man thinks in his heart so easy, because of his ignorance, Collins has insulted many a Christian in our Suboygan community. Suboy... Excuse me, would you like your extra minute? Yes, please. Thank you very much. Suboygan... Am I okay? Just continue. Go ahead. Suboygan can be proud of a community of many denominations, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish churches open to all people. This is why I believe we have an environment that makes our area a unique place to raise a family. Here is my Christian message to Mr. Collins and his ills. Number one, learn to honestly and truthfully evaluate yourself, lest you fail in your endeavors to run others down. Number two, identify your needs before your wants. Learn some real tolerant behavior. Number three, be responsible for your own actions. Learn not to criticize others falsely. Maintain your ways and learn more about repentance and forgiveness. Number four, get out of your comfort zone. If you cannot tell the truth, then stay where you are and suffer the consequences. Let's keep the Suboygan community a place of high moral and Christian values. Thank you, Mr. John Hill and Suboygan Press. Thank you. Thank you, Mel. Thank you, Mel. Next. Next on the list is Jerry Plain. Jerry, if you could come up. Jerry, can I have your home address, please? Yes, 1238 Castle Avenue. And you will have five minutes? Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for giving us the opportunity. I'm here with many of my fellow Rotarians tonight to talk to you a little bit about a project that we're very excited about. The motto of Rotary International, which includes the four clubs in Suboygan County is service above self. And in an attempt to provide a local community service, we wish to host a new annual holiday event beginning in 2012 called Making Spirit Sprite. This would be a drive-through light display where the admission is simply a donation of non-perishable food and other needed products to be delivered to local food pantries and the food bank, or we would accept a cash donation. As has been the tradition of the club's fundraising efforts, 100% of the profit would be used by the participating clubs for local organizations requesting assistance. Following the model of other successful communities, we anticipate collecting 30,000 to 40,000 food items the first year. According to the United Way Food for Tomorrow report, individuals requesting food share increased from 10,794 in 2009 to 12,000, 12 individuals in 2010 or an increase of 1,218 recipients. 29% of our school-aged children in Suboygan County use the free or reduced school lunch program. These are your neighbors, the people that sit next to you in church, the unemployed and the underemployed in our community and in our county. I've been a Rotarian for 17 years and never have I been more excited about a service project. With the loss of the Festival of Trees in the last year or two, there is no other holiday event currently being conducted. Certainly none that would have the impact that we propose this project would have on our county. Many volunteer groups would be assisting us in creating a general feeling of goodwill and certainly providing much assistance to our county families in need. We contacted and visited eight different locations in the county in trying to select our venue for this event. After six months of meetings and exhaustingly investigating all options presented to us, the steering committee voted on Evergreen Park as our choice of venue. A city park for the use and enjoyment of all citizens of Sheboygan County. Even though we understood and still understand the skiers have traditionally had exclusive use of this park during the winter season, our hope has always been to reach a compromise with them and still accomplish both of our goals. We would encourage in fact, the ski club members to work with us in the operations aspect of our event to help maintain the integrity of their skiing season. Although we have asked to access the park until December 23rd for Making Spirits Bright, the Public Works Committee voted unanimously at their meeting last Tuesday that Making Spirits Bright may have access to the park from November 15th to December 16th in the year 2012. With removing the holiday light displays by December 19th. And we are asking the Common Council tonight to uphold their recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. Thank you, Jerry. Next. Next we have Greg Leibig. Leibig, I'm sorry. You have the first one. There you go. This is a pretty German community and it's a pretty German name. There you go. Greg, can I have your home address? My address is 419 Fury Avenue. Fury? And you will have five minutes, sir. Okay. I am the chair of the Design and Build Committee for Making Spirits Bright. You've just heard of the number of pantries we will be contributing to, allowing the different service organizations that will be helping us put this event together. I would like to share some additional details with you. In the Spirits Shabwagon, I don't see any reason why both groups can't coexist. One of the charts you see in front of you the first one with the purple lines on it. That's the chart showing the different groups that do this in Curling and Wisconsin. The cross has been doing it the longest for 15 years. Unfortunately, it could not get the data quick enough for the last three years of their event, but you can see they've gradually increased their success rate for the food pantries in the La Crosse area. La Crosse and West Bend are similar sized communities to Shabwagon and you'll see the West Bend graph. They started two years ago. Looking at the first year totals, that's kind of what we used for our projections. The second graph on the second page, what that shows is the only group that we had information from on a daily basis was Marshfield. So what I did is I took the Marshfield information and plotted it out. They run through the 31st of the year. So based upon the Park Sport recommendations, we cut ours off at the 16th. That's why you see that line in the green area. That was kind of on a high and low, based upon the projections that we had not taking account of the difference in time from the Christmas time. So that's kind of where the difference that Jerry mentioned about 30,000 to 40,000 versus what we have here, that was just an adjustment that was made. We have to rethink some of the things that we're gonna be doing. The biggest thing that we're looking at against service above self is Rotary's model. Each Rotary Club in Sheboyin County has already pledged $2,500 per club for seed money, which totals $10,000. This is about one-tenth of the projected cost that we're looking at doing. It's gonna cost us to put this event together. Again, we're being smart about it. We started this project in November of 2010. Really, it's been that long already. And we had already planned to do this in 2012 anyway. So we know it's gonna take time to put this together. It's a pretty big project. It's gonna be something that we're gonna service the whole community. We don't understand why anybody would not want to help their neighbor. And we're looking at this project as a way to build a better community. Again, with the right attitude, both groups could overlap for a few days. And we hope you consider allowing us to use the City Park as a public works department as recommended until Sunday, December 16th, 2012. Your support will show Wisconsin that she'll work in truly care as a lot of citizens. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Greg. Thank you, Greg. Next. All right, I'm not gonna butcher your name. David, I have. How do you pronounce your last name, sir? Big O E. There you go. I was going to say that. David, can I have your home address? 1609 North 22nd Street. And you will have five minutes, sir. All right, first off, I wanna thank the Common Council for listening to me today. On behalf of the number of stakeholders and user groups, I wanna express my opposition to the use of the one-mile paved road at Evergreen Park for the Rotary's Making Spirits Bright Xmas Christmas Lights Project. Today, members of the Common Council received an email letter from Jim Van Akron expressing similar concerns about the project. His letter touches on many important points. I hope that if you have not had a chance to read it, you will do so. The Rotary clubs have had previous contact with the volunteer groomers, including Mike Van der Steen. We appreciate Mike's and other groomers' work on this issue. The issues for the ski trails include the Northern Kettlemarine Ski Club, the Fat Cats Mountain Bike Club, the Middle School and High School Cross Country Ski Teams, and the many local users of the ski trails have yet to have significant input into this decision. As a volunteer coach for the high school teams, we already have a disadvantage for our kids being that where we are geographically located, we compete throughout the state. So the kids up north tend to have a longer season and I really, really would hate to cut it short for them where the ski team has grown. From at the inception, we had seven kids and five years ago up to now, which we have 30 plus kids involved in which we see growth throughout that sport, which we would hope to continue. The one mile road loop at Evergreen, along with the upper parking lot, is the prime ski area there. More importantly, the road loop is positioned such within Evergreen that there is no way to make a new trail around it to get into Maywood without removal of a significant number of trees. Even with that, it would not be user-friendly or allow lighted night skiing. There is no good alternative to the present trail system that includes the road loop. The groomers have reviewed this information with the Department of Public Works and the Rotary Clubs. Sheboygan is one of the very few communities to have a cross-country ski trail within the city. The road loop is lit, which makes this location even more unique and useful to the residents of Sheboygan as well as the high school and middle school ski teams. This is a fantastic trail system, easily accessible, thanks to the efforts of the Department of Public Works and the JC's volunteer groomers. I want to agree with Jim Van Ackren in the closing of his letter to the council. I am sure the Christmas Life Project is a good one for our community, but so is the use and maintenance of the urban ski trail for the entire ski season. The trail provides a quality recreational opportunity in our city during the winter months, a time when too few people get adequate exercise. Thank you, David. Thank you, David. Next. Last this evening would be Mike Banderstein. Michael, can I have your home address, please? 320 Lincoln Avenue. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you again tonight. I want to thank the Public Works Committee and the council for taking another look at it and giving us a chance to express more of the concerns that we had about the cross-country ski trail. I want to read you a little bit of a quote that I feel applies to tonight. Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another, too often ending in the loss of both. Well, I hope this compromise will get past this quote and whatever reasons it was written for. The, as we explained in the Public Works Committee, the cross-country ski trail that resides on the road in Evergreen Park is one of our prime areas for skiing because we don't have to wait for areas to get filled up with snow in order to groom. Any other part of that trail in Maywood or JC Park, you've got a varied terrain and a lot of rocks and different kinds of things growing there. And it takes a number of snowfalls until we can establish a base there where we can establish a base very quickly on that Evergreen Park road. So at the meeting Jim Boren, Chairman asked our groomers, well, when do you normally get in on an average for most years? And they said, well, it was around the middle of December. So Jim asked the Rotary Club if they would concede to bringing their event back to that. Then we took a look at the 2012 calendar, saw that Sunday was the 16th and they needed a few days to remove all the lighted items. So we agreed with the 19th. I think this is a good compromise. It's something that we can try for a year. Now, the one thing I noticed in the documents that you have before you tonight, it's got the right dates in there, but the Public Works Committee also talked about that this would be for one year and that would come back to public works before future years would be approved. So I don't know if there needs to be an amendment to take care of that. I guess I just wanna, you know, the thing that's happened, I just wanna explain a little bit about like Ivan and others who have spoken up about the ski trail and have been opposed to any compromise. You know, there isn't a real good list of all the skiers. When we try to communicate with them, it kind of goes by word of mouth and it's taken some time for more and more people to hear the news that this might be affecting the ski season for them in 2012. So I appreciate you listening to the concerns, but I think that we can all live with this compromise that was formed at the Public Works Committee meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Mike. That's it. Okay, thank you everybody for speaking at Public Forum this evening. Next under Mayor's Announcements, this is an announcement for the public as well. I ask for the Alderman. Next, Council Meeting, two weeks from this evening. The Survive Alive Trailer has been, is going to be complete, sponsored by Sheboygan Chevrolet, correct, Chief? And will be out in front of City Hall for before the next Council Meeting for Viewing. So we thank Sheboygan Chevrolet for that. It will be out in front. Couple other announcements. The Erie Hill neighborhood will be having, it will be completing a door-to-door survey this Saturday, October 8th from 9.30 a.m. until noon. Erie Hill neighborhood is from 14th Street over to 17th Street, correct? And is it? Superior. Erie Avenue to Superior Avenue. So those Alderman, definitely that that is their district. It's very important that they attend. I would hope to be there myself. Neighborhood associations are very important to sustain our neighborhoods. We did have, as we know, the Gateway neighborhood is thriving. We've done the survey in the Indiana Avenue neighborhood. I understand this weekend. There was a block party in the Cooper Cleveland area, which Alderman Hammond, that's his district, he attended. It's very important for neighbors to get to know neighbors. The Erie Hill neighborhood is a neighborhood that is in need of being stabilized. And so it's very important, not only that we, as city officials, partake in this door-to-door survey. It's quite enlightening when you actually bang on doors and talk to people and ask them what their concerns about their neighborhood are. But the public is also welcome people from the Erie Hill neighborhood and volunteers to help out with this. It's a well worthwhile project for the future of our city. Registrations are available for the Landlord Training Program. I announced this last council meeting sponsored by the Planning Department and the Police Department. On October 20th, from 5.30 to 9.30 at King Park, I think it's very important that anybody who owns rental properties in the city take this, go through this training program. Nominal fee of $10 is being charged. That includes all your information in that $10 fee. On both of these items, you can contact the City Planning Department at 459-3377. If you'd like some more information on these, on the Erie Hill neighborhood, Alderperson Kittleson will also be taking calls on that. Jean has been very active in the Neighborhood Associations and we thank her for that. Another one of Jean's favorite causes here, the third annual march of the Pink Brigade, two to four mile fun run walk, will be held Saturday, October 15th, from 7 to 10 a.m. beginning at the YMCA Sheboygan. Wear something pink, make a donation, receive a pink bandana. This is all for breast cancer awareness and to promote early detection. There'll be raffles, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm sure Jean, if you have any questions, City website, Alderperson Kittleson will take care of any questions you may have on that. Again, that will be on October 15th from 7 to 10 a.m. I received an email that I wanted to read to the Council. This is from Dave and Judy and I apologize if I butcher your last name, Wahola, J-A-U-H-O-L-A. And this was sent to myself and to Chief Herman. It says, hello, my husband and I from Esco, Minnesota, want to express our sincere thanks to your fine firefighter EMTs at station number two, which is the 18th Street and Mead station. We are spending a few days with my 87-year-old mother who recently fell in broker right arm. On the morning of September 27th, she was experiencing shortness of breath and chest pains. We called 911 and personnel from station two arrived. They came in the house, set up, took vitals, received information from us, asked questions, and looked up information from her clinic. They were professional, polite, compassionate, respectful, and most of all knew their stuff, in quotes. In their communicating with the clinic or hospital in Sheboygan, it was determined my mother needed to go to the hospital in Grafton. I was able to ride in the ambulance which was a huge relief to be with her as we didn't know what would happen. She continues to be in good hands and is facing a stint procedure. Before leaving the emergency room in Grafton, one of the EMTs even stopped to talk to her and wish her luck and asked her, and said that they hoped that she's feeling better. So again, thank you to your great fire and rescue personnel. It's a tough job and they deserve the praise. As mayor and chief, you need to know what great personnel you have. Signed by Judy and Dave Wahola. This is good stuff. I mean, this is what it's all about. This is people in the city doing their jobs, doing their professionally, and doing them well. So we thank our fire department and our EMTs on this. Congratulations, chief. This is doing a good job here. Other than that, I have no other mayor's announcements this evening. I think I went through my snack. So we will move on to the consent agenda, 13-1 through 13-7, president Rindflash. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the report of officer be accepted and placed on file and the six reported committees be accepted and adopted. We have a motion and a second under discussion on the consent agenda. If there is no discussion, 13-1 through 13-7, roll call please. Belt. Hi. Warren. Hi. Carlson. Hi. Hammond. Hi. Kittleson. Hi. Rindflash. Hi. Racler. Hi. Sampson. Hi. Van Ancron. Hi. Vanderweel. Hi. Inversy. Hi. 14-i's. Motion carries. Communications and petitions 13-8 through 13-12, to be referred. Reports of officers 2-13-13 by the city clerk submitting a communication from Mary Rager, along with an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled, some nine union government workers get pay increases to offset pension contributions. And requesting that the proposed 2012 benefit plan be re-referred to salaries and grievances for further discussion. Alderman Van Ancron. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd make a motion to refer this document to salary and grievances. Second. We have a motion and a second to re-refer to salary and grievances under discussion. Alderman Boren. Thank you, Mayor Ryan. I attended the last salary and grievances meeting when this long discussion took place. Many, many minutes on the proposed changes to our employees pension and other benefit package. And I thought it was a very long and thorough discussion and I really don't see any purpose in referring it back. So I'm not gonna support sending it back to salary and grievances. Thank you, Alderman Boren. Any further discussion? If there's no further discussion, we have a motion and a second to refer it back to salary and grievances and the aye vote would send it back. A no vote would not. Just to be clear, this is a communication only that you're sending back. You're not sending back the employment plan. This is just a communication from Ms. Rager. Correct. This would just be the communication. It'll be next. Alderman Kettleson. Thank you, Mayor. I guess then the document that goes along with it is 13-29, am I correct? So, could we? If you wanted to do something with 13-29, we'd probably make a motion to pull that forward. I'd make the motion to pull that forward and include that with document 13-13. Second. We have a motion and a second to pull it forward. Alderman Kettleson, did you have anything else on that? Well, I guess I just wanted to say if we send those two documents back with salary and grievance to discuss one more time, I think that Mary's communication was well put together and that if we'd have a chance for the non-reps to talk about it again, sometimes when you get things and they're thrown at you rather quickly, you still would like to digest some of it before you have a chance to talk about it. I think that giving them one more chance to talk about some of the things in here would just be good. Thank you, Alderman Kettleson. Alderman Boren. Thank you again, Mayor. I'm prepared to vote on 13-29. A lot of the other Alderman weren't at salary and grievance, but we did have a pretty good contingent there and it was a very thorough discussion. I'm wondering if our finance director, Jim Immody, was prepared to discuss tonight with the council what the financial repercussions would be of changing this benefit plan from what it was already proposed. I believe him and director Rice have put a lot of time and effort into this and as I said, it had a thorough discussion already at salary and grievances. To my satisfaction anyway, I'm ready to move forward on 13-29 and vote on it tonight and pass it. This has huge implications on our 2012 budget and I'm afraid we're going back and we're gonna modify this part of the benefit plan and somebody else is gonna want something else benefit. Another thing, take another look at something else. I noticed today in the paper that the budget has whittled down to about $1.3 million for next year and then we're gonna start making changes on this benefit plan after they spent many, many hours on it. I think we have to move on and I think we have to approve it. So again, I'm not gonna support sending either one of these to salary and grievances. Is a director of Mordio prepared to discuss this at all with us tonight? We haven't even pulled it forward yet. No, the discussion is on pulling it forward. Well, I mean pulling it forward is a pretty basic function. Do we need to vote on pulling a document forward? We don't need to vote on pulling it forward. It's pulled forward. But Alderman Versey, would you have anything to say before Director of Mordio speaks? Sure, real quick. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two quick things, yeah, we had a very long discussion on this and we came up with a great compromise with all the benefits that we went through. So we don't need to resend this back to us to come up with the same ideas. The first thing is, Director Rice isn't here, but he said this is kind of a timely manner to get this done so the people that are thinking about retiring this year know what it's gonna be so they have that option. They have to have this sooner than later. This is already pushing it out late enough, not going another two weeks before we see it again, is pushing it out too far for these people that are thinking about retiring. So they need to know their benefits. Another reason why we got this done, completed for tonight. The second part is, if she's concerned about raises, this is why we have a new merit pay plan to base your raises on your merit. So the point is they're getting a raise because of their pension contributions, so she can get a raise with her good merit and her good work that she does already. So those two major things right there are already in place. So we need to get this passed tonight so all those people that are thinking about retiring can get their finalized version in front of them. Thank you all to Minversi. I think I'll make it clear Mary Rager is my secretary. And I've told her I don't agree with sending this back to committee. And I'm sure she's watching this evening, probably throwing a brick at her television, but Director Amodio? No. No. As I understand it, there were two changes that were made in salary and grievance to the original proposed plan. The first one was on health insurance where employees who chose to leave the city's health insurance plan, how would you receive a one-time payment of $1,200? The impact on that is very difficult. I think that was an error actually. I think it's a one-time payment per year. Of 1200. Yes. If I can ask the person who made the motion. Sure. That was correct. That's correct. It's a $1,200 payment per year. Yes. If they choose to leave the city's plan. Correct. Not involving the spouse. I believe if they left the plan, yes. That was the payment. That would be a payment that the city would make for the spouse leaving the plan. No, for the employee to leave the plan. Okay. The, if we look at 2010, which is the data we have for a full year, we had roughly $5.5 million in claims for the city. That doesn't include any of the administrative or stop-loss costs. But we had roughly 1,000 participants, which are the employees and their dependents. So if you take a look at that and divide 1,000 into 5.5 million, our average claim cost per employee in the city is roughly $5,500. Unfortunately in the city, a lot of our employees don't use the medical plan as much as others. We have a small group of employees from the ages of 50 to 65 that are the primary drivers of the healthcare cost. But if you strictly look at an average, if we paid an employee $1,200 a year to be off our plan, the theoretical savings would be $4,300. Based on 2010 actual results. But again, we wouldn't know the full impact because of the, depending on the employees, their usage of it in that year. If that answers the question. That was the first change. The second change, I believe if an employee retires and chooses not to use the city health insurance plan, they would be eligible for a 50% payout of their accrued sick leave. The proposed plan took sick leave and said there wouldn't be any further payouts, but that payout would go towards paying their medical premium. This change would say that an employee if they chose not to continue with city insurance after retirement could get 50% of their accrued sick leave as a cash payout. They would lose the balance. However, that is, when that happens, whether it's the employee's choice or not, that event triggers COBRA and the employee would still be required to be covered for 18 months under the city's plan, even with that payout. Are there any questions? And I guess to calculate what the savings that would be, we'd be like trying to look at a crystal ball because you don't know who's going to take it. That's correct. I mean, the average accrued benefit is probably in the $20,000 range. Half of that would be $10,000. We'd still have to provide coverage for COBRA, even though the employee would have to pay those premiums. The primary age for our health insurance exposure is between 52 and a half and 65 years old. These retired employees would be in that category. Again, a good situation for someone who's going on their spouse's insurance or actually old enough for Medicare or Medicaid or something. That's correct. Any other questions? Those are the only two changes. Thank you, Jim. Okay, we have 1313 requesting that this be re-referred to salary and grievances. We have pull forward 1329. We have a motion to refer the document 1329 to salary and grievances. So under discussion on referring this to salary and grievances, Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In reviewing these documents, I really see two, or I should say I have two major concerns. One is to do with the workers comp changes that this proposes as well as the sick leave payout that are proposed in this document. First to do with the workers comp changes. There are jobs that our employees do that are inherently dangerous. We ask our fire personnel and our police personnel to run towards danger and oftentimes to go help someone. We ask them to do that. They gratefully take on that obligation. And I'm concerned that those jobs being inherently dangerous, we are now gonna change their workers compensation package to only pay them two thirds of their base pay or if they get injured on the job. I'm concerned about that. Again, they put themselves on the line. If they get hurt while doing a job, we ask them to do serving their community. I don't think it's fair that we're only paying them two thirds of their salary for up to six months while they're out doing what we've asked them to do. So I'm not in favor of that change.  I think this more comes down to living up to our agreements and living up to our obligations. I think this is something where a plan that has been in place for some time that people that have worked for the city for some time are depending on this as part of their benefits package. People that are close to retirement now are looking at this as something that is being completely stripped away from them without any recourse. This is, again, something that people have worked their career for and are depending on and now we are just going to end it arbitrarily just because we can save some money on that idea. My concern is, again, are we living up to our obligations? Are we living up to the agreements that we have made with our employees, people that are depending on these benefits, and we are just cutting it off. We're not sunsetting it. We're not saying for new hires, we're just saying, come contract time or come the time we pass this, this will no longer be just to save money. So those are my two concerns. I would be in favor of sending this back to salary agreements to hopefully work out some of those issues yet. I realize people have different concerns and people have different views on this, but I would hope that we can come to a better compromise on these two issues. Thank you, Alderman Van Akron. The only thing I have to point out is that most every move we make in this city, in these economic times and in these financial times are made for financial reasons. That's why we're doing what we're doing. There is such a thing as standing up for our obligations and standing up for our employees, which I feel we do. However, we have something called economic reality that we're facing. It's called a budget deficit. It's called something that will repeat itself year after year after year. What we fix today will not carry on over to next year. If we don't fix it now, we face the same dilemma every budget year in the future.  It's just they can't take it as a cash benefit upon retirement. So it's not like we're stripping them of their money. But everything we do in this city, in these times, is done for economic reasons. If we were living off the fat of the land right now, we wouldn't have to make the decisions that we're making, but we have to make the tough decisions. And we have to do it now because every year in the future that we don't do something now. And this is not drastic in my opinion. It's not drastic. Is it significant? Yes, it is. But it's not drastic, but it's something that needs to be done because if it's not done this year, we face the same problem that carries over from year to year to year. Decisions being made now, we may not reap the real benefits from them for five years in the future. But the decisions have to be made in order to reap those benefits. President Rindflash. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess to echo some of the sentiments you just stated, but also to echo what I had stated and the committee in the hall when this came forward, the first time around. We changed the mentality a little bit instead of looking at this document as a change from a really good benefits program to a horrible benefits program. If those that are employed in the private sector would look at this list upon hire and say, here's your list of benefits. If you just look at the column under proposed, even the amended one, I think it's a phenomenal list of benefits that we offer. Now, is it a change from something that's better? Absolutely. But even as proposed, I think most people in the private sector would accept happily these benefits. They're still better than what people are getting in the private sector, I maintain. So if we look at that mentality, it's something that we have to, perhaps do a better job educating the employees that are most affected by this, but I do think that if they sat back and compared that to any other thing in the private sector, they'd still see that's a superior to that. A second comment that I just want to reiterate again is that ultimately we're not making these changes for our own benefit as a body, as a council and as a mayor. We're placeholders. We're the chairman of the board for the actual employers and the actual employers are the residents of the city of Sheboyga. It is for them that the city employees work and provide services, but it is from them that they get paid. It's not my checkbook. It's my portion of my checkbook through my property taxes, but it's the full city paying that as well. And the employer do not have the ability to maintain the better benefits packages that we've had offered. They simply can't sustain that anymore. And in the private sector, when you have an unsustainable budget, big opportunities occur. Well, we don't have an option. We just can't go under and let someone else do the job. We have a responsibility to provide, a balance of budget, responsibility to the actual employers to make sure that their money is being used appropriately and wisely. And so I urge you not to refer this back. I urge the council to vote upon this today, even as amended pass it, so that the retirees have an idea of, if they choose to retire or not, they know what the benefits package would be. Thank you. Thank you, President Rinflesch. Okay, I have no more lights up here. There is no further discussion. The vote is on referring this back, document number 1329, referring it back to salary and grievances. In aye vote, we'll send it back a no vote. It will remain to be voted upon its passage as is, which will be a separate vote. And also 1313. And also 1313 on sending 1313 to salary and grievances, correct? Both of them to be referred back to salaries. Right. Okay, roll call please. Everybody clear on what, okay, Borne? No. Carlson? No. Hammond? No. Hammond? Heidemann? No. Todd? No. Kittleson? Aye. Rinflesch? No. Raceler? Aye. Samson? No. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderweal? No. Percy? No. And Belt? No. Three ayes, 11 noes. Okay, the document stays where it's at. Seeing as we're dealing with this document, I will look for a motion on 1329, President Rinflesch. Report a committee to be, 1329 to be accepted and adopted as amended, is that correct, for those in salary grievances. And then the report of officer document number 1313 to be accepted in place on file. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept and adopt and a motion to accept and place on file, Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess I do need to clean up the language and add after the $1,200 per year as it was initially proposed to the salary grievance. Okay, now this language is on which document? This is on 1329. 1329 under the health insurance. It says where employees who choose to leave the city health insurance plan will receive a one-time payment of $1,200, I believe it was meant to be per year after that. It was initially proposed as a $100 per month. And at that point in time, it was has to be an allowance. To receive a one-time payment, so it should be to receive an annual, surement of $1,200 and that annual payment obviously would be while that person is not on the insurance policy. Correct. Does that make sense to everybody? Is that a motion to amend that? Yes, please. Do we have a second on that motion? Second. We have a motion and a second to amend it where the bottom line written a little bolder than the rest will read, employee who chooses to leave the city health insurance plan would receive an annual payment of $1,200. Okay. Now, that's just a, does everybody agree that that is simply a typo error or do we want to vote on that amendment? I have no disagreement, so we'll call that a typo. Okay, we have a motion and a second to place the amended document with the grammatical change upon its passage under further discussion. If there is none, roll call please. Carlson. Hi. Hammond. Hi. Hammond. Hi. Heidemann. Hi. Cuth. Hi. Kittleson. No. Rindflash. Hi. Grasler. Hi. Samson. Hi. Ben Akron. No. Vanderweel. Hi. Bursey. Hi. Felt. Hi. Amborn. Hi. 12 ayes, two noes. Motion carries. Okay. 1314, reports of officers too, by the city plan commission recommending annexing territory owned by the city to the city of Sheboygan. City plan commission Alderman Samson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the ordinance be put upon its passage and that the ROB be accepted and placed in file. Second. We have a motion and a second under discussion. There is no discussion, roll call please. Hammond. Hi. Hammond. Hi. Heidemann. Hi. Rindflash. Hi. Grasler. Hi. Samson. Hi. Ben Akron. Hi. Vanderweel. Hi. Bursey. Hi. Felt. Hi. Amborn. Hi. And Carlson. Hi. 14 ayes. Motion carries. Resolutions introduced three, 1325, by Alderperson Kittleson officially recognizing the Ellis Historic Neighborhood Association. Alderperson Kittleson. Thank you, Mayor. I just missed nine documents here, so. Thank you, Sue. You're welcome. 1315 through 1324 to be referred. Sorry, Gene. Didn't actually miss them, I just missed to refer. Okay, Gene, Alderperson Kittleson. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the resolution be put upon its passage. Second. We have a motion and a second to put the resolution upon its passage under discussion. Alderperson Kittleson. Well, this is really wonderful, officially recognizing the Ellis Historic Neighborhood Association. We have another neighborhood association. This is the second one, I believe. And it's just, it's a good thing. We're really excited and happy that neighborhood associations are taking off as they are. As you stated, we met with the Cooper Cleveland people, Erie Hill. This is, it's really, it's great. And this neighborhood has counter-fentasy in it, which is seed and better. Better watch out. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Alderperson Kittleson. Any further discussion? There is no discussion, roll call please. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Sue. Reports of committees six, 1326 by law and licensing, recommending denying taxi cab driver's license application number 8316, based upon his failure to accurately reveal all relevant convictions on his application, his record of violations related to the license activity, his record as an habitual law violator and his failure to cooperate with the committee. Alderperson Van Neel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the RC be accepted and adopted. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept and adopt. Under discussion. Is Nassar Jaber here? He's not here yet. Please continue. We invited him to our meeting, which our committee meeting twice. He did not show our calls, so we denied the license. Very good. Thank you, Alderperson Kittleson, or Alderperson Van DeWille, excuse me. Any further discussion? There is none, roll call please. Hammond. I'm sorry, Hammond. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Katt, aye. Kittleson. Aye. Rindflash. Aye. Racler. Aye. Samson. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Van DeWille. Aye. Percy. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carries, 1327 by Public Works, recommending filing documents submitting a communication from Mike van der Steen, stating that the request by the Rotary Clubs for the use of Evergreen Park as the site of a Christmas Lights project seriously challenges the continuation of the Ski Trail project. Public Works, Alderman Boren. Thank you, Mayor Ryan. Could I take 1328 with it? They're both related. Sure, 1328 is a communication from the Rotary Club to utilize Evergreen Park and the Quarry Shelter Commencing in 2012 for the Christmas Lights project. Take those together. Yes, please. Before, well, I'll make a motion to the report of committee be placed on file, but I would like to take the suggestion of Mr. one of the people at the, Mr. Van Der Steen at the public forum that this agreement, we should probably add that on the end of 1328 that this is an approval for one year and it'll be revisited by the Public Works Committee in the spring of 2013. Second. You have a motion and a second that this approval will be for the year 2012 and it will be revisited for the year 2013 by the Public Works Committee. Correct, that's what that was the understanding of the Public Works Committee and I'm glad Mr. Van Der Steen brought it to our attention. It should have been in the document and wasn't. Okay, thank you, Alderman Barr. Thank you. Any further discussion? If there is no further discussion, I'm gonna do roll call on these. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Stain. One abstention. Yeah. By a Rotarian. And non-skeer. That's me. It's downhill. Not well either. Okay. Okay, 1329 we've already disposed of. The Report of Committee 81330 by Public Works recommending authorized entering into contract with Sheboyton County Highway Department for the ditching and resurfacing of portions of South 16th Street, Peasant Lane and Maple Lane in passing the attached substitute resolution. Alderman Barr. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the Report of Committee be accepted and adopted and the substitute general ordinance be put upon its passage. Second. Substitute resolution. Substitute resolution be put upon its passage. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second from Alderman Heidemann. Under discussion. There's no discussion. We'll call please. Heidemann. Aye. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Winklage. Aye. Racler. Aye. Samson. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Van Der Wiel. Aye. Fersi. Aye. Belt. Aye. Warren. Aye. Carlson. Aye. Common. Aye. And Hammond. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carries. Reports of Committees 91331 by Salary and Grievances recommending creating Division 5 of Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code relating to the position of Chief Administrative Officer in passing the Attached Substitute Ordinance. Alderman Boren. Nope, I apologize. Old Light. Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to pull forward documents 1240 and 1241 considering that they are very similar and I'd like to do those first place. You would like to take 1240 and 1241 before 1331 is what you're saying? Correct. Okay, 1240 matters laid over. RC number 1831112 by Committee of the Whole to whom was referred General Ordinance number 241112 by Alder, Persons, Hammond and Raceler creating Division 5 of Article 3 of Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code relating to the position of Chief Administrative Officer. We will take 1240, would you like to... Alderman Hammond, do you have something on 1240? Just in general, you're on it. Please. All four of these documents 32, 31, 41 and 40 all are relatively the same document. I would ask that we take them all together because there are, I think there will be components of each that may be... Okay, I will read through them all once and we will take them all together. 1241, RC number 1841112 by Committee of the Whole, blah, blah, blah, blah by Alderman Hammond and Raceler amending Section 2975 of the 1975 Municipal Code so as to add or delete positions in the Mayor's Office and the Finance Department TO recommends that the ordinance be passed in the job description for the Chief Administrative Officer be amended as follow under reports to Mayor and Common Council and throughout the body of the document to be replaced with reports to Common Council with input from the Mayor, recommends passing the Attached Ordinance, that is 1241. Then we will go back to 1231 and 2, 1231 I've already read or 1331 I've already read, excuse me, and 1332 by Salary and Grievances amending Section 2975 of the 1975 Sheploagum Municipal Code so as to add delete positions in the Mayor's Office and the Finance Department Table of Organization. Under discussion Alderman Boren. Thank you Mayor, I talked with City Clerk Sue Richards before the meeting regarding 1240 and 41 and I was gonna, the City Clerk recommended that I file 1240 and 41 depending on what happened with 1331 and 1332 because there are some differences in the language, the original documents that came out of the Committee of the Whole were changed in Salary and Grievances so if 1231 and 32 pass, then I was gonna make a motion to just file 40 and 41. That's what Madam City Clerk recommended. Only because 1331, Alderman Van Akron and 1332 have the substitute ordinance, the newest one, 40 and 41 so it just depends on which one of these you wanna take first. Correct, that's why I'd like to do 40 and 41 first. Okay, they are different. They are different, if I may have some input on this one. On 1241, and hear me out on this please. Under reports to Mayor and Common Council and throughout the body of the document to be replaced with reports to Common Council with input from the Mayor, I would like to have a discussion on that and here is why. To have a basically the administrative officer of the city reporting to the Common Council with input from the Mayor structurally is a disaster. Myself being right now, every Monday morning I have a department head meeting. That department head meeting is with all of the department heads of the city. If we are to have a Chief Administrative Officer in the city, now I know that the way this is designed is the Chief Administrative Officer will become what is now the Finance Director, will become the Chief Administrative Officer. Being the Mayor of the city, every one of my days begins, my first conversation in City Hall begins with what is now the Finance Director who is basically doing the job of the Chief Administrative Officer of the city. That's where my day starts. That's where we have coffee and we discuss what's going on today and what needs to be done. To have that person report to the Common Council or the President of the Common Council doesn't work because if that person who the Mayor deals with every day and I can say I, and I can refer to that person as right now Director Jim Amodio, but if you take Mayor Ryan out of it and Jim Amodio out of it and call it the Mayor and the Chief Administrative Officer personalities aside, you can't have that individual reporting to a body that is less than part-time at best because the Council does not know exactly what happens on day-to-day activities in the city with the department heads of the city and especially this position being the most important position in the city. A good example of this, and I hate to open up old wounds, but Angela Payne. When Angela Payne was the HR Director of the City, HR Director of the City, and there was word that she was going to be terminated when Mayor Perez was the former mayor. A lot of people in this Council and some of them, some of you are still here, I know I am, came to her defense saying that we believe she was doing a great job, that we believe that she should not be terminated. I myself went to Mayor Perez and said that I didn't believe that she should be terminated and I would hope he wouldn't do that. Not knowing that her performance was subpar and viewed as subpar by most people in the city at that time. Being on the Council and not working with everybody in the city every day, I didn't know nor did some people who are on this Council right now. We didn't know. To have the person that is holding the Chief Administrative position of the city report only to the Council is structurally not going to work because the Council will not know one way or the other if that person is doing a daily basis a good job or not. So that is my input on it. I have no problem with it reporting to the Mayor and the Council but to have it only report to the Council with input from the Mayor in my opinion and that is not me, Bob Ryan, the Mayor. I'm talking any future Mayor and any future Chief Administrative Officer structurally it doesn't work. Alderman Hammond. Old Light. There's an old light. Old Light? Okay. Alderman Raceler? Old Light? Old Light. Alderman Sampson, Old Light. New Light. New Light. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate that. Just got a couple notes here. I'm going to go back to my original position on this. I just, going through the process of this whole city administrator, going through the timing of it, the rate of speed at which it's getting escalated through the process. My initial thought was, no, I post a city administrator position. I'm going back to that original position and here's why. So tonight I'm opposing the city administrator position because number one, I just don't agree with it. Just going off of a couple things that the Mayor was saying. Right now, the structure of our government is we have a Mayor and a Common Council structure. Mayor is elected, Common Council is elected by the people. If you add in the city administrator, the city administrator isn't voted on by the public even though it's appointed and a lot of the authority and the control is given by the council who's elected. We still take away a lot of power from the voters. Right now we have a system of checks and balances. We have the Mayor in place, the Mayor appoints people.  We can vet them. We can interview, we can do whatever we need to do that we feel fit to do. We can vote to approve or disapprove. With the city administrator, you lose that system of checks and balances, I feel. Again, what you're doing, you do two things by bringing in the city administrator. Number one, you give one individual a tremendous amount of power. A tremendous amount of power. And then you grant a lot of power to a very few certain number of people. The one is to count the council here of 16. But then you filter that down even more. The evaluation process, I guess the disciplinary process is taken on by three people, the president, vice president, and the chairman of the community of the whole. So you greatly diluted now the power of the vote and you've increased greatly the control of this council. I just feel that's a huge disservice to our constituents, the people that vote for us. We're attempting to make this change. Another reason for this, for me opposing this tonight is we're attempting to make a change by taking out the voice of the public, not taking it to a referendum. I think a position this magnitude deserves public input. We're gonna take away a lot of the voting power, let's give it back to the people, let the people decide. We have a survey that we haven't heard any results from that we're supposed to help us determine what the city wanted. We haven't seen or heard any of those results yet officially. I can't make a decision on what the people want. If the survey that we had was supposed to tell us what the people wanted. And if city administrator was one of them, then fine, let the people tell us if they want it. That's what they want, then I say we give it to them. And finally here, no matter what decisions are made in the current structure that we have, or if we add a city administrator, I believe all the decisions come through the council. So if the mayor has decisions or has a different agenda or if he's got things he wants to look at, if the city administrator has certain things they wanna do, they still ultimately come through the common council. So if we had a mayor who was brilliant or a city administrator that was brilliant in saving money, we still have to make decisions on whether we cut services, cut people, save money here. So this body of 16 still has to vote. And I've seen it on a number of occasions where sometimes we just don't make the right decisions. So money's not saved, positions are saved, but we still spend a lot of money. So ultimately the decision still comes through the common council. And we're all still here. The same people are still in place. So I don't understand where there's a miraculous savings of money is gonna come from by keeping all the same people in places just by changing some titles. It's just not gonna happen, I don't see it. So going back to my original decision, I'm going to oppose anything to do with the city administrator. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Sampson. Alderman Hammond, New Light. New Light. Thank you, Your Honor. Quick clarification for either Ms. Richards or which documents are we actually, are we on, did we pull 40 and 41 or were we? We did pull, yeah, we're working on. We have pulled them, we're working on all of them together. But initially we pulled 40 and 41 right now. 40 and 41 it is. Thank you. First off, Alderman Sampson, I do respect your opinion, however, would respectfully disagree. We don't vote, the citizens and taxpayers don't vote on the Department of Public Works head. They don't vote on the finance director when we hired that individual, which is arguably the most influential position in the city or any state government. The citizens don't vote on that. They don't vote who's going to be our development director. They don't vote who's gonna be our recreation director. They don't vote on any other positions other than the 17 of us, 18, 19 of us sitting in this room. They charge us with making those types of decisions. Everything that is relatively controversial does not need to go to referendum in my opinion. The checks and balances still exist. Having a chief administrative officer does not get rid of those checks and balances. It just has somebody inside city hall that's focusing on the day-to-day activities so we can focus on policy and other things that the city needs for us. Again, I think the city administrator or chief administrative officer, whatever title we want to put on it, does a couple things. Want to ensure some continuity in government because you're absolutely right. This body changes. The mayor's position changes. And we need somebody inside of there that knows what's going on on a day-to-day basis and representing the council. And then again, I go back to the efficiency of where this goes. Again, this body, the mayor, can be focusing on policy, economic development, most types of things. The city administrator, chief administrative officer can be focusing on some of the more, I hate to say the word mundane because nothing's mundane, but- Daily tasks. Daily tasks, thank you. Some of the daily tasks inside city hall. So I would encourage people to support this. I think this is a great form of government. Many communities our size have done this to much success. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. President Rindflash, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Having studied various issues and having actually studied myself and got an education in municipal governments, many of the issues that Alderman Samson brought up come up constantly. I think that's probably just a poor job of marketing and what the position is. To try to sum up years and years of study the city has done, there's a city manager, which does create some of the problems that Alderman Samson brings up. One person is empowered, it does not report to the voters, necessarily. That is by no source of imagination what's been proposed right here. That's by state statute, we're not doing that. What we are doing is what Alderman Hammond had pointed out is working with changing our own administrative structure, which we do on a regular basis. It's not a change of government and it does not take away the public's right to make policy via their elected officials. In fact, I think it creates more opportunity for policy changes. It allows, we know development is a big issue with you, Mr. Ryan. It allows this current mayor, for example, to focus on redevelopment, sit into meetings and deal with that issue. Holy line on taxes is my issue. It allows me to create policies that do that. The administrative officer then is simply the one that we direct to do the work on our behalf and report to us, just like any other employee that out there, they're supervisors, they have supervisor control, you have goals you have to meet, you have personalities that have to click. And it's an employee of this body that gets the stuff done. Not the mundane, but the daily tasks. I think he uses a good word for that. It allows then the voice of the people when policy changes are required, that we can focus on the policy changes. We can debate those policy changes, we can investigate those policy changes. The other question brought up is, where does the savings come from? And that's just it. The savings do come from not, the city administrators are doing what they like to do. The city administrators, as we know, does not create policy, does not direct policy at all. They certainly make recommendations to us to create policy, but that's where it is. What's working in other locations? What's working in the private industry? What's worked in other cities with administrators that we may not be aware of? Do the investigation, do the background, do the history, give us the pros and give us the cons that allow us to make a decision from there. Because as you say, we are less than part time in this body here as common counsel. We rely on our own individual abilities to research and come up with new ideas and I think we do a pretty good job of that. But I don't think we are ultimately pushing the new ideas that are out there, bringing them into our city because we don't have the administrative officer at this point in time. That's what savings comes from. People still have their say in policy that doesn't change. Is it change of government? Absolutely not. We're not a city manager. We're just changing the administrative structure here. And thirdly, I think we're actually empowering ourselves even more. So for those three reasons, I say support the city administrator at this point in time. Move forward. I can tell you after years and years of discussion, I think the public is in general supporting that. To back up this, since we do have four documents, and we know we have pulled 12, 40, 41 first, I think we need to have some language on the table that we're starting with. As the mayor pointed out, some discussion on a particular item on that change. But we haven't even brought really the fourth full document yet. So I guess with knowing that, I'd like to put 12, 40, the report committee to be accepted and adopted in the general ordinance we put upon in this passage. Obviously subject to any amendments that are necessary at that point in time. At least this gives us a starting point and then we can add things in if we need to. So you are looking at 12, 40? 12, I want to try the right one. I believe 12, 40 is the right one. 40 and 41. 40 and 41. I'd like to, okay, 41 is that specifically, is that specifically dealing with the amendments to the reports to the mayor or not to the mayor? Exactly, that is 12, 41, which I discuss briefly. I'd say it's not like the ring 12, 40. First I have a set language and then if we, because there's multiple changes between the four documents. And my vision here is to have a base language and then if you want to add 12, 41 in as amendments or some other documents, that's fine. But even if we do, we can't do 12, 40 and 41 because there's two documents. Alderman Warren, I see some frustration on your face. Would you like to take it out from there? 12, 40 and 41 were discussed at length at the committee of the whole, but it was a dual referral to the salary and grievance committee. The 12, 30 and 31 and 32 are totally different from 12, 40 and 41. I would not support 12, 40 and 41 as came out of the committee of the whole. I would support documents 13, 31 and 13, 32. Again, the Salvia and Grievance Committee last Monday night spent great length of time kind of tweaking what 12, 40 and 41 were into 13, 31 and 13, 32. I fully support 13, 31 and 13, 32. My recommendation on 40 and 41 would be to file them and pass the report of committee on 31 and 32. That would be my recommendation. It was a long discussion at Salvia and Grievance last Monday and a number of the Alderman were there that weren't on the committee that had input. And where 13 and 31 and 32 are not perfect documents. There's a couple of things that I'd like to see in there that aren't, but I think they're good documents compared to 40 and 41. If you pass 40 and 41, you're basically negating 31 and 32 because it's a cleaned up version of 12, 40 and 41. So I would make a motion to file 12, 40 and 41. Second. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a problem with discussing 13, 31 and 32, but I would think we'd wanna have a conversation on those before we filed 40 and 41. Considering that the Salvia and Grievance's committee was not the whole body of the council, the committee of the whole, obviously, minus the mayor. Everybody was there and had input on that document. So I would ask that people hold off on that, filing 40 and 41 until we get through 31 and 32. What we have before us right now is a motion to file 40 and 41. We will limit the discussion of filing 40 and 41. If anybody wants to speak on filing or not filing 40 or 41, I'm going to turn off all of the lights on that right now that I have up here. And if you would like to speak on filing of 40 and 41, or if we would just like to take a vote on 40 and 41, it is under discussion at the moment, Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The glaring differences that I see in 41 and 40 and 31 and 32 is the eliminating of the finance director position. The reason I won't support 31 and 32 is because those documents do not eliminate the position of finance director out of the table of organization. That's my understanding if I'm wrong, by all means correct me. I don't believe they do. Alderman Warren. I would ask Alderman Brasler. My understanding was is that the finance director was still going to stay on the TO with 1331 and 1332. That was my understanding. You're correct. And it will just remain open like many other positions. It's going to be on the TO and open. As I said, it doesn't eliminate that position from the table of organization. Now we can say it's going to stay open. It's not going to stay open. It's very easy to fill an open position when it's sitting there. The reason I support 1240 and 1241 is because by eliminating that position, you are having instantaneous savings. You're getting those savings right off the table of organization instantly. You're not looking for potential savings by bringing a chief administrator officer in. You're getting those savings upfront plus any potential savings that that person can find. So I don't support keeping the finance director position on the table of organization and then adding a six figure salary package to our table of organization. And that is what we're doing. I can't support, in our budget time that the mayor has pointed out several times today already, I can't support adding a six figure salary package to our table of organization if we're not going to be eliminating others. The idea of 1240 and 1241, as it was discussed at the Committee of the Whole, is to consolidate some of those director positions to make it more cost effective, to make city government more efficient and affordable. And that's why I support those documents. But I do not support 31 and 32. As Alderman Barn pointed out, they are drastically different and the drastic differences again, to me seem to be the elimination of the finance director position off the table of organization. If we do that, you get that cost effectiveness immediately off the table of organization plus any potential savings that a chief administrator officer can find. I support 1240 and 1241 and I would recommend that we move forward with those as discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting. It was my understanding and I was not in on the Committee of the Whole meeting so I apologize, but I'm not part of the Committee of the Whole, that the finance director position would be eliminated. That was what my belief was and that's why I support this, it makes sense to leave a director's position open in the city and create a new position to add for a six figure salary here and then leave that other position open, doesn't make sense to me either, but it's under discussion. Alderman Carlson. Going along the same lines as Alderman Van Akron and Alderman Hammond here, I think that we, before we go with any vote to file 40 and 41, we need to discuss 31, 32 a little bit more because once again I will not support adding another six figure salary to this city because obviously our budget came out today and I think that would just be ridiculous. Alderman Boren, did you have anything else on this? Yeah, thank you, Mayor. 1332, section three says the current finance director, Treasurer, is hereby appointed to the Interim Chief Financial Officer effective 10, 11, 10, 10, 11. So we're not creating another six figure salary, the current finance director will slide into that position on an interim basis. Now, that could be months before we go out and do a nationwide search for a chief administrative officer for a city administrator. So we're not creating another six figure salary, he's merely sliding over into that position on an interim basis and as I said before, the finance director is still on the TO but it's not filled because he's sliding over to the other position. Thank you. To take your finance director, turn him into an interim chief administrative officer or city administrator, leave the finance director's position open and saying that we're going to go out in next amount of months and to me it sounds like a recipe for instability to say the least. Why would you appoint somebody as an interim on an interim basis in this position, leave the other position open and then you're going to go out on a nationwide search, find somebody for the chief administrative officer position and then take your former chief administrative officer and put him, I mean the whole idea of this is to build some stability into government here. To do this thing with interim positions and leave this one open, move this guy here, let's move him back higher somebody else in the future. Even to make an interim position in my opinion is a recipe for disaster. Why do you want to create a position and make an interim position makes no sense to me? That's my opinion and I can at least have some input on this one. Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, just to clarify the position being open, I think we have, I think we talked to the meeting several, if not a half a dozen positions that are currently open that are not filled so it's not like we're having these positions where tomorrow the salary and grievance committees decides to fill the finance director position. This has to come back to committee for anything that would be filled and we'd all have input on any of the vacant positions that would be filled, thanks. Point of order. Are we still discussing filing 40, 41? Cause I think we've gotten off on a tangent a little bit here. Yes, that's the motion on the floor. Motion on the floor is to file 40 and 41 any further discussion on 40 and 41. We will take a vote simply on filing or not filing 40 and 41, if everybody's okay with that so we can get through that. Everybody okay with that? I'm going to turn off the lights. The next discussion, we are going to take a vote on filing. We have a motion to file and a second on filing 1240 and 1241 and aye vote will file it. A no vote will not. Everybody good with that? Roll call please. Conniff. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Ryn Flesh. No. Raceler. Samson. Aye. Van Ackren. No. Vanderweel. Aye. Versi. Aye. Belt. No. Warren. Aye. Carlson. No. Hammond. Aye. Hammond. No. Heidemann. Aye. Nine ayes, five noes. Motion carries, documents are filed. Now, we will discuss 13, 31 and 32. We have 13, 31 and 13, 32. Do we have any motions on these documents yet? Does anybody recall that far back? Sue? We need to, I don't think so. There's no motion right now. Okay, there's no motion. Do we have a motion? What we are going to do, one of these is creating division five of article three of chapter two relating to the position of chief administrative officer and passing the attached substitute ordinance. The other is amending 2975 of the 1975 municipal code. So as to add or delete positions in the mayor's office and finance department table of organization. We have a motion on these documents. Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the RCs be accepted and adopted and that the substitute ordinance be passed. Second. We have a motion and a second. Under discussion, Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have one friendly amendment to make again another clerical error that was not addressed at salaries and grievance. On the fourth page. Which document? 31, I'm sorry, 1331. On the fourth page. The last paragraph should have deleted the term of the office Shelby for five years, but and the second sentence should start with the holder may be removed by the common council. It's a pleasure. Three fourths for the common council. I'm sorry. Where are you? Actually the second page. It's the substitute. Right. Second. Yep. Of the of the ordinance itself. Yes. The second page being. Section two dash 341. Appointment and term. Correct. And you want that to read. Take delete the term of office Shelby for five years, comma, but and then start the new sentence with the holder may be removed by the common council and the rest has some deletions as well. Is that a motion? Yes. That's a friendly amendment. Second. I see it, but what is the existence of it? Just take this part out, the term of office should be followed by the level of sentence comes out and that's just the bottom. So the term is off. So there's no term of office on this position. So this would then be a permanent, it would be an at well employee is what you're saying. That was a discussion of the salaries and grievance. Obviously Mr. Moria still has a contract with us to the city as well. Okay. So that will just read. Chief administrative officer shall be appointed by the common council with input from the mayor. The holder may be removed by the common council at pleasure by a three-fourth vote of the common council. Correct. So we're talking amendment. That is an amendment, a friendly amendment under discussion on the amendment only, only discussing the amendment. All the person Kittleson, anybody on the amendment? We will take a vote on the amendment all in favor of the amendment. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. You will do a roll call vote on the amendment. This is the amendment only caught. Aye. Kittleson? Aye. Rin Flesch? No. Racler? Aye. Samson? No. Shane Akron? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Versi? Aye. Belt? Aye. Boran? Aye. Carlson? No. Are you sure? Sure. Yeah. Moving it. Back over there now. Wow. Sorry. Hammond? No. I'm sorry, no? No. Hammond? No. Heidemann? Aye. Nine ayes, five noes. Motion carries. So we are discussing the substitute resolution as amended under discussion. I have all the person Kittleson. No. First lights, old light? Old light, thank you. Anybody new light? Alderman Versi, new light? Old light? Old light. Alderman Hammond, new light? I'm new. New light, all right. I'm gonna take, I guess, both of them. First off, under the section we just amended, during sellers and grievances, we, I guess, a little bit of history. The original documentation had our finance director as the chief administrator officer filling out the remaining portion of his term and that's how the initial document was able to keep this relatively cost-neutral. Through the amendment process, it became an interim position under, and keeping the finance director position open, meant he could slide into that and then slide back. The challenge with that is by having to slide back means we've hired a city administrator at somewhere around $150,000 of salary. Somewhere in the next two to three years, whether it's this year or next year, at some point, he still needs to slide back into that home for the remaining portion of his term. So to indicate that, well, we're gonna go out for a national search at maybe months or maybe years and there's not gonna be any cost. It's foolish because there will be a cost to that because you're gonna have to pay that city administrator in addition to the finance director. So I'm asking that we put back in the language that was struck in that to basically was lined out here that we put that language back in and in additional under 13... Alderman Hammond, can you tell me what document you're looking at and what lines? Sorry, 1331. And the substitute resolution. Which is which page? Sub-substitute ordinance. I guess that would be what page four. Second page. Of the substitute. Under the appointment in terms. The one we just made in change. The one we just changed. Yep, the one we just changed. The appointment in term, okay. Okay, apparently you gotta need one of those little bouncy balls. We're just trying to keep track. Not that we get confused in this council change. So anyways, there's a period there now provided however that the initial appointees term shall expire 22 August, sorry August 22nd, 2015 and set appointee may be removed only for causality. The area that is lined out on everybody's document that would ask that we... Original ordinance. On the order. You wanted to add it back into the substitute ordinance. Correct, thank you. I got it. That master's degree coming to work. Okay, so the, okay what we have the lines and hash marks through here. Provide however the initial appointees term shall expire August 22, 2015 and set appointee may be removed only for cause by a three force vote of the common counts of the term cause as use of the sub session is defined as inefficiency neglect of due the official to conduct or malfeasance in office. Correct. That is what you would like added back in. Yes, your honor. Okay, we... Under 1332, because they kind of go hand in hand. So a few people if everybody would just bear with me. Under section three it says the current finance director treasurer is hereby appointed as the interim chief administrative officer effective 10, 10, 11. Again, for the same reasons I just reiterated I would ask that we strike the term interim and have the current finance director treasurer appointed as the chief administrative officer effective 10, 10 to fill the remaining portion of his appointments with the city. Again, keeping in mind that over the last year he's been doing many of those same job duties already just in informal and unofficial capacity. And secondly, when Mr. Amodio was hired I think we need to duly note that he was hired based off of a national search for what is arguably again the most influential position inside of city government. We hired national search 30 resumes qualified resumes were found or received civil service commission interviewed five and then the mayor and we ultimately appointed Mr. Amodio. There was a national search with people that had both municipal and private sector experience and we chose the one with the private sector experience. So my recommendation again or my amendment is to remove the term interim, add back the paragraph and so we can fill this position and move forward. Thank you. Thank you.  Okay, we have two motions, two seconds. We are under discussion on this discussion right now is involved with the amendment presented by Alderman Hammond. I agree with Alderman Hammond. Director Amodio has been basically doing this position unofficial capacity. The only difference between this and what he does now is now when he goes to a director or a manager in the city and says I need something if they don't give it to him he calls me and says call this person and tell him to give me this, I need this information. This will eliminate some of that but he is plenty capable and basically over the last year that he has been here has taken on a lot of these duties and responsibilities in an unofficial capacity. Alderman Carlson. Thank you mayor. I fully support these amendments some for a couple of reasons. One, going back to what we have discussed already in terms of we're not creating a six figure salary because we're citing him into an interim position but that position will be filled. I mean it's just foolish to think that it won't be so that the finance director he would once again be the finance director and then we'd have a brand new six figure salary but if we're implying that we're not gonna refill that why would we make it interim? That just makes me think that there's personal issues and I think we need to move past that. If we want to talk about stability here at city hall and here in the city, we can't have an interim position and we have to have a five year contract with cost free and development based on melt fees and sort of what have you but to have too many unknowns out there it's not gonna do anything good for the city. We need the stability. Mr. Modial has already been has a proven track record. As Don Hammond said, he's been vetted. He went through the civil service commission. He's been doing the job already. We need to move forward with this and that's all I'm gonna say. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Carlson. I think your key word there is stability. Alderman Bursi. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Several things. One of the reasons why we struck a lot of this stuff was because I'll start off with the interim position that we were going for. The reason why we're going for interim position and leaving open the finance director's position because either way what happens here if we went out for a national search for a city administrator or chief executive officer and we have to, we have that position eliminated, Mr. Modial still gets paid out for the rest of his contract, the rest of the appointment. So either way we're gonna be paying him. So his position is left open for him to slide back into his position for a remainder of his term and with that national search. Yeah, we did do a national search for a finance director, not for a city administrator. So that's a big difference in qualifications whether he has them or not which he does have great qualifications, but we didn't do a national search for a city administrator. We did a national search for a finance director. So I mean that becomes an issue in itself. Leaving it as interim is so he can fill that position like he's doing a great job already but we still have the stability once we get that city administrator maybe he qualifies. He can put his resume in with the rest of the national search and see if it compares. But it's still fairness to the citizens that we do that national search for a city administrator. The reason, back to why we struck this out was because of that reason. And to have no term is so it's an at-will employee. You give the city administrator a five-year term, you know how hard it's gonna be to get rid of him if he's not doing his job correctly or the citizens don't like the job he's doing. That's why we got rid of the term. You do an at-will employee year for year you can get rid of him if he's not doing his job. A lot easier than quasi-judicial hearing for the city administrator. You do a year for year, you don't do a five-year appointment so we can do it on his merit. He's meeting all of his requirements that he's doing for us. There's no reason for him to us to even look at it. He'll have the job forever, there's no appointment. So those are the several things that the reasons why we struck them out originally and created the document 1331 versus 1340. That's it. Thank you, Alderman Verson, Alderman Horan. Thank you, Mayor Ryan. I'm not gonna support either one of Alderman Hammond's motions. The committee that worked on this, I believe Alderman Vanderwillian, Alderman Heidemann worked on this for two years with the city administrator. And I've got the report in front of me here. They recommend doing a nationwide search for this position. And I would have to agree with Alderman Versi that when we hire director Ramodio who I have a lot of respect for, he's an excellent finance director, but we did not do a nationwide search for a city administrator. We did for finance director. I have a real problem with the permanent Chief Administrative Officer giving that person a five-year term like an apartment head. As far as I'm concerned, that has to be an at-will employee and that person has to produce or they're gone. If they've got a five-year term, it's almost impossible to get rid of them, almost impossible. And therefore, I'm not gonna support either one of those motions. I think these two documents, 1331 and 1332, pretty well mirror what that committee spent two years on, almost to a T what they were recommending. And I hate to throw two years of a committee and I sat in some of those meetings not as many as I would have liked to because of time constraints, but Alderman Vander really and Alderman Heidemann worked on that committee for two years and what the recommendation of committee is is basically what's in 1331 and 1332. And another thing that I'm gonna be working on very shortly is that if 1331 and 32 pass, we have a deadline for determining what the mayor's salary is gonna be for the next mayor that's elected in 2013. And because of a drastic reduction in the mayor's responsibilities under these documents, I'm gonna come forward very shortly with a document that keeps a full-time mayor but reduces that salary down to about $45,000 plus benefits. So I will be coming forward with that very shortly and that approximately $40,000 at reduction in salary will go to pay either the finance director or our chief, our city administrator salary. So that's where I'm coming on these two documents and I'm not gonna support those two amendments. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Bourne. Again, I think Alderman Carlson hit it on the head. Do we want stability in city government in the future? Or do we want to leave positions open, create interim positions and basically keep the upheaval moving? Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Alderman Carlson's vision on stability but for me it's about being cost effective. The scenario that Alderman Bursi laid out is the exact scenario that will keep me from voting for these documents as they are. I support the amendments that Alderman Hammond brought up but I cannot support going out and do a nationwide search having that person come back and then having two six-figure salaries and that's what will happen. Now they can say that we're not creating a six-figure salary, yes we are and when that nationwide search is done you will have two of them. We will not be eliminating one under the current resolutions that are being brought in. So that is my problem is this will not be cost effective. You're now asking someone to figure out a way to then pay for themselves. By moving the finance director to this position and eliminating that position at finance director you are now making it cost effective. Like Alderman Bursi said, one way or another we have to pay for this person so either we eliminate the position and we pay out the rest of his term or we let him write out his term as the Chief Administrative Officer but either way we have to pay this person and I think again we need to take the personalities out of it. Look at what makes financial sense, what makes sense going forward for efficiency purposes, for financial purposes. 25 years from now no one's gonna care who is the Chief Administrative Officer for the first four years. Is it the best case scenario? No, but it's a scenario that we have to deal with. So for me it's about being cost effective, making this cost effective immediately on the table of organization and then benefiting from any potential savings that this person brings along, being a professional and doing this on a day to day basis. So I cannot support these documents as they're written. I support the amendments as we would go forward. I urge the council to support these amendments, make these changes to the documents and let's move forward with this. Thank you Alderman Van Akron. Taking personalities out of it, the Chief Administrative Officer will be working with the mayor as long as I'm here, I will be working with the Chief Administrative Officer. There is nobody and you can go do a nationwide search that I would rather work with than that guy sitting right back there named Jim Amodia who is now our finance director. He is, I guarantee you, you could do a nationwide search. Point of order. Point of order. Point of order. What is the point of order? We all know Mr. Amodia, we all have our opinions on him and it's a point of order. You're trying to sway the vote, so point of order. Okay, thank you Alderman Bourne for your point of order. President Rin Flesch. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Actually, for the most cases, I think Alderman Carlson and Van Akron said my mind, probably better than I could at this point in time. But the one point I want to add to what they had said is the comments on nationwide search. I also was a member of that committee for two years and fully support in doing a nationwide search at some point in time. But the reason why I want to do a nationwide search for city administrator is because the city administrator with skills will find savings and it seems to be highly irregular to do the first step of trying to find cost savings by adding another layer of government, adding another salary to this position. We have the contract, he's with us in 2015. Let's put him in this position, let's pass these amendments. We can still do the search at the end of that contract is up and move forward from there. But it seems to me that if we hire city administrator in the meantime, we had a settlement, we want to slide him back. That's creating a new position. That sort of defeats the entire purpose quite frankly. As everyone knows, I'm a supporter of the city administrator and have been for years and I think we're finally at the step of taking the step. I would have a tough time voting for this document without these amendments made at this point in time because of that. Because we're creating a waste in the government instead of finding ways of saving. So at this point in time, I urge you to the council to support two amendments. Thank you President Rindflash. Alderman Carlson. Thank you mayor. Only because I'm not afraid to show my ignorance every once in a while. Can we force the finance director to take the interim position? No. The position was offered to the finance director and he has a contract with the city right now through 2015. If his position is eliminated, we're paying him through 2015. If he decides that he doesn't want to become the chief administrative officer and his position is eliminated, we're paying him through 2015. He has a contract for that position. That would be my opinion. Steve, would that be correct? Well, the only thing I'd say contrary to that is it's not a contract. It's a term of office by ordinance. It's established as a five year term. It's not technically a contract. There's nothing other than the offer of employment except for some terms, but it's basically that position is a five year appointment however and that goes through 2014. Again, he could be made an offer to buy him out of his position but again, that's paying somebody for not working. And then building on that, let's say we go with this interim position. He chooses not to take that because he doesn't want to move back and forth. That starts our search immediately. So that six figure salary will come a lot sooner. Correct? In my opinion it would. Thank you Alderman Carlson, Alderman Born. Thank you, Mayor. I believe one of the things that was also in the study that was done by that study committee was that they recommended that the city keep a city, a finance director and also the city administrator. They thought it was a good idea to have that separation between the city administrator and the finance director. And if Mr. Amodio decides he doesn't want to take this interim position, then I would recommend going ahead and doing the nascent wide search immediately. And I have full confidence that either Mr. Amodio is gonna find more savings in city government as he continues or the city administrator. The gentleman that we had in from Plymouth at the committee, at the committee of the whole meeting, their city administrator, whatever title over there has saved them $4 million in the first year out of a budget that's a lot smaller than ours. And I had mentioned one of the benefits of having a city administrator come to Sheboygan is you're getting a person with no preconceptions, no allegiances and a fresh approach and perspective. And I think that's one of the most important things in a city administrator when we finally hire one is we need that fresh approach and we need somebody with no allegiances that's very important and no preconceptions of what's going on in this government. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Boer and now remember we are discussing, we are going to vote on the amendments, the amendments to these two documents that were brought forward by Alderman Hammond and seconded by President Rindflash. Alderman Hammond, you're the last light I have right now and hopefully we can vote just on the amendments before anything else moves forward. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Couple notes I guess. Again, we talked about job descriptions and we hired a finance director, absolutely we did. But if you look at the job descriptions between the finance director and a city administrator, they're awfully similar. There are not a whole lot of differences between them other than there are some now department heads reporting to that particular position. As far as separation, again, I go back to comments I made at salaries and grievances. You still have a treasure. That treasure does not go away. We still have somebody in charge of our finance department. What we've done now is eliminate one position because quite frankly, some of those positions we just don't need anymore with technology. Again, the at-will employee, I have no problem with that but again, eventually, or at least at now the pragmatic portion of this is to make this cost effective we need to do it this way. In my opinion we need to do it this way. It's kind of interesting, last year we also, many of us sat in this body, many some. And we had the same conversation about a city administrator and I believe many people who have spoke tonight said no, we can't do a city administrator because it costs too much to hire another $150,000 salary if we're gonna be looking at cuts possibly to various departments. So enter a resolution that makes this relatively cost-neutral and some of those same people say oh, now it's great. Now we can hire $150,000 salary. It makes me wonder if it's more about personality than it is about the pragmatism of this. As far as cost effective, cost savings, all of those types of things. Again, it's gonna sound like I'm a Jim Amodio groupie, no way shape or form is that the case but I've had the privilege of working with him for the last year and he's doing an outstanding job. Over a million dollars in savings already. So I think he's demonstrated that he could adequately pay for himself. Again, the idea of having an interim, if Director Amodio would say I'm not gonna take the interim tab as Alderman Collison said, now we're out to a national asserts or leave in the city administrator position vacant until something would change in our table of organization. So I just can't get behind something that says last year we couldn't do it, now this year we can. The only difference is now there's some personalities involved. So I would urge everybody to accept the amendments, let's get the city administrator on the table of organization and get the city moving forward so that we as a body can focus on policy and economic development and not the day-to-day daily tasks of what's going on. So thank you. Thank you. Alderman Hammond, we will go to a vote on amendments. Alderman Sampson, we're on the amendments. Thank you. You just go over review since after all the discussion we just review exactly what it is we're going to be voting. Sue will go there before we vote. I will say financially if anybody saw yesterday's paper maybe it was today's I don't read the thing myself but there was something that we are still facing a $1.3 million budget deficit in the city coming up this year, so keep that in mind. Sue, the amendments please. Thanks. Okay, I would suggest first of all that we do one at a time. Sure. Is that all right? Okay, the first one would be on 1331. The amendment that we're voting on now would be to, if everybody has that last page of all the cross-outs we'd be putting that back in, that whole cross-out section that starts with provided however that the initial appointee on and on and on. That's the amendment. Does everybody understand that part of it? The amendment that we're adding back in. Okay, everybody's got that. Sue, next? That's what we probably should vote on first. Okay, so this is on 1331, correct? 1331, this is the second amendment. Okay, 1331, the second amendment. We will be voting strictly on this amendment on 1331 putting the language back in that Sue just referenced. An aye vote will pass the amendment. A no vote will not. Roll call please. This is just on the amendment, they're not the whole document. This is just on the amendment. Thank you. I'm just on this one, yep. Okay, Rin Fleich. Aye. Racler? No. Samson? No. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Versi? No. Belt? Aye. Warren? No. Carlson? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Heidemann? No. Coth? No. Kittleson? No. Seven to seven. Seven to seven. Can I vote on this one, Sue? It doesn't affect me personally. I think I can, yes. I will vote aye that the amendments pass. Can I ask for reconsideration? Motion to reconsider. Second. My understanding from last time we had reconsiderations is someone on the winning side has to make a motion to reconsider. Exactly. Somebody who voted aye would have to make a motion to reconsider. There are no motions. The amendment passes. Moving on, 1330. Wait, wait, wait. We've got the other amendment. Wait, first of all. 1332. No, we need to go back. We need to still finish 1331. 1331. Now you want to vote on, to accept and adopt the report of committee and to pass the substitute ordinance as amended and amended. As amended and amended. Can we do the amendment on 32? First. First. That impacts I think how I was going over. So we will return to 31. We are looking at the amendment on 1332 first. 1332 the amendment was. The only thing on 1332 is to eliminate the word interim on section three. So I vote would eliminate to strike the word interim. And the date. And the pardon me? And the date would be 822, 2015. Hold on, does he have a document? Mm-mm. Oh, no. This is a different one. This is on 1332. The word interim will be struck under the amendment proposed by Alderman Hammond. Correct? Okay, on the amendment only. We will take a vote on that. And I vote will pass the amendment to strike the word interim. A no vote will leave the document as is. Any discussion on that? If there is none, roll call please. Rin Flesch? Aye. Racler? No. Samson? No. Van Akron? Aye. Van Der Wiel? Aye. Versi? No. Belt? Aye. Oren? No. Carlson? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Heidemann? Nope. Coth? No. Kittleson? No. 27. Anybody like to reconsider that voted aye? I thought I'd ask rather than have somebody else. Okay, if there's no reconsideration, the chair votes aye. Motion carries. Now we need to go back to 1331. Okay. For a final vote. 1331, this will be a vote as amended. With all the amendments in there. With the amendments and the amendments to the amendments. To the substitute ordinance. To the substitute ordinance. Do you want to do 31, 32 together? No, I'd rather have them separate if that's okay. Okay. Is that okay? 1331, roll call please. Brasler? No. Samson? No. Van Akron? Aye. Van Der Wiel? Aye. Versi? No. Are you sure? I think so. Belt? Aye. Oren? Aye. Carlson? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Hammond? Heidemann? Nope. Coth? No. Kittleson? No. And Rindfleisch? Aye. Eight ayes, six noes. Motion carries. Now we go to 1332. 1332. The substitute ordinance as amended. Any amendments to the amendments on this one? Just as amended. Okay. In aye vote, we'll pass the amended substitute ordinance. A no vote will not. Roll call please. Samson? No. Van Akron? Aye. Van Der Wiel? Aye. Versi? No. Belt? Aye. Oren? Aye. Carlson? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Heidemann? No. Coth? No. That was a no. No. Kittleson? No. Rindfleisch? Aye. And Rasler? No. Eight ayes, six noes. Motion carries. No, where were we? B and 41 have been filed. Yep. Other matters authorized by law, 1336 will be referred to the special committee on risk management. 1337 will be referred to public protection and safety. Any other other matters? Turning to clean. Sure honor, 1338 is an arrow by the city clerk submitting various license applications. Will be referred to law and licensing? Actually, that lies over. Oh, that lies over, excuse me. 1339 is an arrow by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2013. That will go to law and licensing. 1340 is an arrow by the city clerk submitting communication from Elmer Schneider requesting a waiver from the sex offender residency restriction in order to limit 2626 Georgia Avenue, apartment nine. Will be referred to public protection and safety. 1341 is an arrow by the city clerk submitting communication from Chris Jollets being an amended page to his application for request to the sex offender residency restrictions to change the address to 1405 North 15th Street. We'll also go to PPNS. 1342 is an arrow by the city clerk submitting communication from Kirk Thunewall requesting an encroachment located at 1614 North 26th Street for the purpose of retaining wall. City planning. And 1343 is the general ordinance granting Kirk Thunewall is errors in the signs of privilege of encroaching upon described portions of North 26th Street located at 1616 North 26th Street in the city for the purpose of retaining wall. We'll also go to city planning. We have a motion to adjourn to second. All in favor say aye. Opposed to we are adjourned. Thank you everybody.