Call to order this is the sixth regular meeting of the 2010 2011 Common Council And as is customary our acting city clerk will read us the quote of the evening If you don't like something change it if you can't change it change the way you think about it Thank You Linda Now Alderman Hannah will join us lead us. Do we want to roll call first? Oh, let's do a little roll call first Good idea. I didn't mean to usurp that Let me clean my glasses Roll call Born? Here Bulk? Here Bowers? Here Decker? Here Gisha? Here Hammond? Here Hannah? Here Heidemann? Here Kass? Here Kittleson? Here Montemure? Here Radke? Here Rindfly? Here Vanderwheel? Here Versi? Here Longamond? Here Inferno? Full House we have a quorum. Now if Alderman Hannah may lead us in 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 Mark. Looking for approval of the minutes of the prior Common Council meeting. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve under discussion. If there is none all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Resignations. Attorney McLean. Thank you Your Honor. There's one from Alderman Bowers advising that he's resigning from the Senior Activity Center Commission. Move to accept. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept under discussion. If there is none all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Attorney McLean. And a letter from Glenn Pilling advising that he's tendering his resignation from Sheboygan Redevelopment Authority effective immediately. Motion to accept. Second. Motion and a second under discussion. No discussion all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And all for resignations. Mayors appointments. Attorney McLean. Honorable members of the council hereby submit the following appointments for your consideration. Sustainable Sheboygan Task Force. One place to replace John Hill as a representative from the Sheboygan Area School District whose term expires on 425-2011. Jeff Goans to replace Thomas Grittinger the representative from UW Sheboygan whose term expires on 425-2011. And Laura Gum to replace Pat Hartley representative from Utility Company whose term expires on 425-2011 signed by the mayor. Motion to accept. Second. We have a motion and actually that lies over. Thanks. Lies over till the next meeting. Public forum. Mayor. Mayor. Excuse me. We missed a resignation. Mr. Hiers. I have a meeting with Mr. Hiers over that. I'm going to not denounce that. All right. Thank you. Next council meeting. Thank you. First one on public forum is Michael Lubbert. Would you please come forward? Michael, could I have your address please? 721 Summer Jive. You will have five minutes. All right. Dear mayor and council, my name again is Mike Lubbert. I am a firefighter for the city of Sheboygan as well as a tax paying citizen of the far south side. The closure of fire station number five has made my home and my neighbor's homes more dangerous places to live. Before you today as a document that is in dire need of passing, the Sheboygan fire department has recently closed the station and it will continue to be closed as will others on a rolling brown out basis until the fire department is adequately staffed. This is a terrible unsafe situation that puts the public needlessly in harm's way. You have a concession offer from the fire union to support the replacement of four of the eight firefighters lost through attrition in the last year. By accepting this concession, the citizens of Sheboygan can once again be protected to the same level that they deserve and we know is necessary. Over 1,000 residents signed a petition to ask you to restore their south side firehouse. The signers of this petition may or may not want a tax increase but what they most certainly do not want cut is the level of fire protection in this city. However, funding is in place for these firefighters for the next two years. These firefighters will also help to reduce the city's burden on overtime and help to increase the revenue from the ambulance. Yet another reason that the tax rates have not increased in five years. Despite technology, little has changed in the last 50 years on what it takes to put out a fire. Perform CPR, contain a hazmat spill, rescue a person from entrapment in a vehicle, or pull a person from the lake. It takes boots on the ground. This is a labor intensive occupation and the adage to do more or less is just not applicable to the fire service. We need a minimum amount of personnel to effectively and safely ensure the safety of our public. We are not superheroes. We are average ordinary citizens who happily take on the risks associated with our profession but we also know what it takes to be effective. Much should be said about the fire department's accomplishments in this last year but all that will not be possible next year. We are a department held together with overtime. The temporary solutions will unravel and unless fully staffed a preventable death will occur. This is a burden we do not take lightly.  We urge you to maintain our staff and for safety's sake. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next. Vail Schultz. May I? Please, Vail. Pardon? Your address, please. 1747 Greenfield Avenue, Sheboygan. Thank you. You will have five minutes. You all have a copy of my communication. To you I will read it for the benefit of the viewing public and those present here. Construction of the fire station on 18th Street in Marbury Road was discussed before the ambulance service was transferred to the fire department. I opposed the construction of this fire station and still do not support the need for it. Mark Zier was fire chief at the time. There was discussion at a public protection and safety committee meeting which Mark spoke and I also spoke. After hearing Mark comment supporting construction, I asked, do you build fire stations to improve medical response times? His answer, yes you do. He was at that time already contemplating taking over the ambulance service and that was a deciding factor justifying the need for this fire station. It is my opinion that fire protection was secondary to medical response times. The distance between the station at 18th and Meade and 18th and Marbury Road is exactly two miles. In these tight budget times can the city of Sheboygan support fire stations every two miles. Rotating closing of fire stations is a solution any grade school student could arrive at. Why can't the fire chief do a study of calls received by individual stations, populations served and types of structures in the area that invases decision on the result of that information and close one station. People do not want a property tax increase but still do not want to give up anything. Here is an expense that can be eliminated with no real adverse effect on anyone but the council does not have the political strength to say do it. Public works has been decimated with loss of jobs and employees with the loss of these jobs and employees our fine city will continue to deteriorate with poor streets, parks and dead trees. This will manifest itself eventually with buildings and home maintenance. You will see even more major crime. Council, mayor and department heads do your homework do the research and make the difficult decisions but let's not let our city deteriorate in the process. One mistake I made in this communication is the actual distance from driveway to driveway is 1.6 miles not two miles. Travel time going the speed limit is four minutes and 25 seconds straight down the road stopping for two stop signs with no corners to turn. I'm sure the fire trucks make it in much less time than that. This station was not built to support the industrial park. It was sized and designed to blend in and serve only the residential area. I have not seen the petitions that were circulated so do not know how the question was asked but it should have read do you support paying higher property taxes to maintain five fire stations. At the time of construction there was opposition from area residents to building this station. It should remain as green space. Because of the cost of fire vehicles a number of years ago an enterprise fund was created as a fire department vehicle replacement fund to operate similarly to the public works motor vehicle fund. Unfortunately you have not been putting money into this fund for several years. Consequently the most recent vehicle was leased rather than purchased. If you are not going to support this fund and you cannot purchase vehicles this is more justification to consolidate stations. Rather than fund five fire stations I suggest you invest in the public works department. They put the face on your community which is so important to maintaining an attractive city encouraging visitors and others to relocate here and current residents to remain here. Rotating the closing of all fire stations for a period of time makes absolutely no sense. This would leave huge gaps between some stations and somehow is more apparatus and vehicles than others do. I ask that you and the mayor work with the fire department to let the station at 18th and Marbury Road remain closed until volume of calls justifying re-opening it and adequate funding is available and do not rotate closing up other fire stations. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Next. Mark Zier. Your address please, Mark. Mark Zier, Assuring Wisconsin and I thank the mayor and the comic council for this time to speak. I had mixed emotions about coming here and speaking now that I have moved away for a year and a half but I did spend 57 of my years here in the city of Sheboygan. 35 of them owning a home of paying taxes. I was fire chief for five, my last five years and spent 29 years before that on the rigs responding to calls. I felt compelled to come here for many reasons because I still have relatives and friends living in this city and I do plan to come back here someday maybe when my health starts to fail me. I want to be back in this city where there's good hospitals and an ambulance system. I feel compelled to come because a lot of my friends, Val Schoes, who is a gentleman and we can agree to disagree, made comments in the paper about my statements and the statements are very true. I did build that station to improve medical response time. I didn't build it for the ambulance. If you recall, I tried to get the ambulance way before the fire station was ever built. We failed in getting the ambulance in my days because I believed in it. Responding to calls in this city for over 30 years, almost 30 years, I saw the need for a fire department-based ambulance system. And now we're looking at times and limits. The south side of residents who have friends and relatives live on the far south side are sitting, like Val Schoes said, and Matt Quest says it's 1.8 miles from station two to the new one. But then there are people in Gray Fox, like former employee Tom Holton, who lived in Gray Fox, which is a mile further. If you take a look at all the stations right now, NFPA standards said fire stations should be about a mile and a half apart. Station one to three is 2.1 miles. Station one to four is 2.1 miles. Station three to four is 1.75 miles. Station one to two is 2.4 miles. And a new station is 1.8 from station two. But if you add on the length that it would take for that station to get to the farthest side, it's 4.2 miles. And you're talking about an 8 to 10 minute response time. You know, this council is looking at changing. But a previous council spent a lot of time, Alderman Manny, Alderman Meyer, Alderman Ratke, spent a lot of time on Montemire, spent a lot of time and effort looking into why that was needed to be built. Those people in that solid town are paying taxes to be saved. I hear this as well, what is two firefighters going to do in that station? Let me tell you, if I lived in that solid town, I would want two firefighters to come and defibrillate me in the first four or five minutes of my life, or I'm not going to be surviving. Okay? If you want to have that station, too, out of service, there's one station. Prior to that station being built, the daily roster, when I was chief, there was five people south of city hall and 14 north of city hall and three fire stations. At least now it's 8 and 11. The south side is being treated fairly. The residents of the south side have a chance. If that station goes to a car fire right now, there's nobody to respond to the entire south side, except for this station, to travel all the way to the far south side. Closing that station is not the right thing to do. One council changing another council on this quick notice is not the thing to do right now. Defibrillation of an individual decreases the life once, 10% every minute. It takes a minute for dispatch to get the call. It takes the firefighters' time to get onto the trucks, to gear on in winter. They got to put their clothes on to travel. It isn't only looking at a small amount of time of how long it takes 30 miles an hour to go from station to station. There is a combined time that has to be met for responses. And now the fire department can do it with that station. To comment with only two firefighters, they can do CPR. They can pull you out of a window. They can get into a fire before it's a house fire. They can perform CPR. It's about services. Who has to pay for services? When do you want to have good services? The service, no doubt, has been enhanced since the fire department got it. I'm not saying nothing about Orange Cross. They did their job. But they were in new paramedics all the time. Now we're going to have tenured employees. People are going to spend 15 to 30 years on that ambulance. When they go off the ambulance, they're still going to be in an engine. They train together. They go to extrication together. When I used to go, we couldn't get Orange Cross people in the cars, paramedics in the cars, because they didn't have the gear to get in. They weren't trained to get in the cars. It's a full service right now that the city has that many cities have had for years. Milwaukee, Green Bay, Manitowoc, Oshkosh, Fonlech. If you look on TV, when you see TV on CNN, who is responding to the Memphis floods? Who is responding to the Spokane, Washington? It's firefighters who have dedicated their lives. As I did, and I had almost lost my life three times when I was a firefighter. And I don't mean close. Call me away. Trap three times. Firefighters are dedicated individuals to do the job. They want to do the job. They've offered concessions to give you more time to spend on this issue. You know what? There's been an attack on unionism and on public employees. All public employees are taking a hit right now. They do a great job in this issue, trying to do more with less. But we're a service-oriented deal. Every firefighter paid full-time fire from the state of Wisconsin as a union member. And every union member goes through the ranks. It becomes captains, lieutenants. Some of us become chiefs. Why did Jeff Herman get to be chief? He was a good selection by the city. Excellent selection. He came through the ranks. He lived here. He loved this city. He represents the people of this city. And he was dedicated. He was union president as I was never union president. I was a state president of the union. I gave up that job to take over this job. I took a $50,000 cut in pay to be the chief of the Spokane Fire Department. Because I cared about this city and where it was going. Would you like your extra money? Oh, you better do. I'll talk fast. Second. Go ahead, Chief. Thank you, Mayor. And so what we're looking at is trying to buy some time on the ambulance and the station. Revenue sources. There's no more shared revenues. Where is your revenues coming from? I sent public protection and safety meetings where you're trying to get two more dollars for a license fee, a raise. We need a municipal court to get fees in. Here is the biggest generator of revenue that you have now that somebody else had would love to have back. It's the biggest revenue of a generator that you have and you're thinking about getting rid of it. And yet down the line you're going to need it. And if you look at the numbers that Mr. Hansen gave you, did anybody look at what the deficit is going to be in the police department, the DPW or any other division down five years from now, what their deficit is going to be? If you don't raise taxes and don't work shared revenue, it's going to be worse than the fire department. You've got a golden goal right now. And we were there doing the job and getting nothing. I asked Orange Cross for $50 a call when they had the ambulance. So I could offset my cost and they laughed at me. No. We were spending three firefighters to the call, a fire truck, and we got nothing for it. Mark, your six minutes are up. Thank you very much. I urge you to support the ambulance and the fire station. Thank you. Thank you. Next in public form. Jack Words. Volunteer. Very good. Some of the 47 Muna Vega plays Shebaugen. You'll have five minutes, Jack. Good evening, Mayor Ryan and members of the Common Council. I am sure all of you are aware of my stand on the ambulance service. It should be placed back in the private sector using the personnel to do the job of firefighting and the rest of the duties that Chief Herman has pointed out that they perform. The alleged loss of income would be balanced by no longer having the overhead of wages, benefits, insurance, lease, upkeep and various other costs. In that way, the department could function at a level needed to provide the protection our citizens need and deserve. The needs of the ambulance service could again be provided by the private sector, which has done this adequately in the past and citizen safety would not be in jeopardy. After listening to the dilemma of the other, of the various other departments presented at the last committee of the whole meeting, my concerns for everyday duties of the DPW have grown with leaps and bounds. I think you should seriously investigate privatizing of the garbage collection and return those men to the other duties that the DPW and ease some of the burden caused by the loss of 25 workers over the past periods of times. The thought of deteriorating parts and snow not being plowed constitute hazards to our citizens too. You are not faced with an easy task as you are all well aware of. Efforts by you should be made to spread the burden of the dwindling funds evenly over the entire scope of city operations. Do not break the hiring freeze for the fire department and cause greater hardships in other departments, such as four more people having to go from the Department of Public Works, which according to Mr. Bittner is a distinct possibility. The mission statement of the Department of Public Works is to improve the quality of life by effectively developing, maintaining, and improving the infrastructure, natural resources, and community service. Assist them in fulfilling this mission. Do not hinder them. Look to the future as to what your actions can mean in the long run, which are ever-growing costs in the years to come. These new hires will have to be funded over and over and over, year after year after year. Luck to you with the tasks you must tackle. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Jack. Next? Chase Longmiller. Address, please, Chase. 2611 Rolling Meadows Drive. What was that? 2611? 2611 Rolling Meadows. Thank you. You'll have five minutes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Deputy Clerk Long, Attorney McLean, the members of the Common Council. Thank you for this opportunity tonight. It's very rare I get the last word. Recently, petitions with over a thousand signatures were presented to the council, asking you to staff all five fire stations and hire four firefighters. A few days ago, I was informed of another 250 signatures that had been collected in just one day. After talking to some of those who collected these signatures, I learned that many of our citizens were unaware that you had closed one of their stations. They were adamant about signing the petition in order to send you the message that they want their fire stations opened and staffed. I ask you, will you listen to these constituents with the same enthusiasm you offer to our detractors? Local 43, in addition to the good faith offer made during the last contract negotiations, has made an additional unsolicited concession offer. We recognize that the city is under no obligation to accept this offer. Even though the city and the union came to a mutual agreement, just a few months ago, we believe it is in the best interests of everyone involved to accept this offer so that the city can move forward. Our concession will provide 18 months of staffing for five stations. It offers financial relief for 2011, and it buys time in order to determine a long-term course of action for the city. Some members of council are hesitant to hire any unnecessary staff based on problems they believe exist within the Wisconsin retirement system. This is a complex issue that requires a mind-to-discussion on behalf of everyone involved. As we have proven in the past, Local 43 is prepared to discuss this and all issues in totality as part of the negotiation process. This concession we offer is not a final solution. It can, however, make a difference in the lives of the people we protect. It allows the city to provide appropriate staffing levels so that we may continue to protect everyone we serve. We need appropriate staffing to arrive at the scene of a fire within minutes. If we are going to have any chance of rescuing trapped citizens, we need appropriate staffing to keep a fire confined to one bedroom as opposed to burning down an entire home. We need appropriate staffing to help evacuate an apartment building and to confine the fire and smoke damage to a few apartments as opposed to destroying an entire complex. We need appropriate staffing in order to keep a fire that is rushing through one business from spreading to nearby businesses. Having enough people is what allows us to do what we took an oath to do, to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Sheboygan. An effective, proactive and professional fire department is a vital partner in the fight to keep Sheboygan economically viable in the fight to attract and retain business and industry and to help it remain one of the best places in America to live. Over 1,000 people have told you that they want you to keep their fire stations open and to hire the four firefighters. I hope that you are listening to them. Thank you. Thank you, Chase. Welcome to the public forum. Okay, moving on. Under Mayor's Announcements, I will be brief this evening. First of all, courtesy of Vice President Kittleson, the Wisconsin Dental Association Foundation is doing a mission of mercy, and she's put bullet points on here so I can actually read it. It says, through the efforts of many including Dr. Mark Huberti, a local Sheboygan dentist this was put together by and what? We would like to welcome to our city this weekend the Wisconsin Dental Association Foundation Mission of Mercy. The project will take place at North High School. If you're wondering, this is on Thursday set up is on Thursday, June 24th then two days of free dental treatment will begin starting Friday June 25th and then again on June 26th on both days from 6 o'clock a.m. to 5 o'clock p.m. so the Wisconsin Dental Association is committed to making a difference by improving the oral health of Wisconsin residents through supportive projects such as these that provide dental care for the disadvantaged. More than 930 volunteers have signed up to help this year in Sheboygan so if you know of any citizens that are in need of dental care, they cannot afford it please let them know about this again this will be on June 24th is set up and then on the 25th and 26th which is Friday and Saturday from 6 o'clock to 5 o'clock p.m. at North High School and thank you Jane. Mayor may I say one thing? Certainly. Thank you. Alderman I put a slip on each of your desks and they would love to have any of us or all of us there seeing what's going on there so if you read that brochure over and you can call or email them and you can find out further what's going on there this coming weekend at North High School thank you. Alderman Bourne Thank you Mayor Ryan. When I was having my teeth done about a week ago my dental hygienist Tara from Dr. Kellner's office told me that she was going to participate and their goal this weekend is to do a million dollars in free dental care here in Sheboygan and there is a tremendous as Tara was working on my teeth she told me of the tremendous need in the community of people who can't afford to have their teeth taken care of so very worthwhile project so as you mentioned if you know of anybody who needs dental care it's available this weekend thank you. Thank you Jim. Moving on announcements 4th of July I'd like to go over this again our schedule I believe that all citizens should participate in our 4th of July celebrations Wednesday June 30th again is the Sheboygan Pops Concert at 7 o'clock p.m. at Fountain Park Thursday July 1st is the Sheboygan County's best band finale it says live outdoors here I don't know exactly where but I imagine that's probably on the I think it's at the Art Center It's at the Art Center Thank you President Kisher. It used to was two years ago when my son won the best band competition And now where is he? That's another story. Okay moving on Friday July 2nd Twilight Concert Series will be at 6 30 p.m. at Fountain Park Jerry Schneiderband Venetian Boat Parade will be begins after dark obviously Venetian boats our lit up boats coming up and down the river Sheboygan River obviously live music from the Buzz will be at Deeland Park Buffalo Joe will be playing on Friday evening from 7 to 11 so that's down at Deeland or Deeland or whatever you want to call it Park. Everybody pronounces it differently kind of like Racine I guess Saturday July 3rd is actually we're calling the 4th of July this year is Saturday July 3rd which is Saturday we've decided to set everything up for the Independence Day celebration there's a Freedom Run 2010 beginning at the lakefront at 7 o'clock a.m the parade will be held at 9 o'clock a.m. usual route up north on 7th Street to Michigan Avenue and down to Broughton Drive this has been done in years past the Art Armada I think formerly known as the as the cardboard boat regatta will be at the river following the parade I believe that begins at noon Cheboyon Theater Company will have We the People at Fountain Park at 4 o'clock p.m so that is a free show free live music and children activities will be all day long at Deeland Park also from 12.30 to 3.30 p.m will be the groove hogs 4 o'clock to 6.30 B.C. city swing and 7 to 11 as Alderman Buck says the screaming cucumbers and there's no G on screaming so after that of course we will have the fireworks courtesy of our friends at Johnsonville and the Steyer family and that will begin approximately at 9.30 or when it's dark enough to have the fireworks so I hope everybody participates in our the independence of our country on the 3rd of July this year that's all I have for mayor's announcements we have a public hearing hearing is for the proposed water lateral replacement project Maryland Avenue from south 13th street to south 14th street public hearing is there anybody that would like to be heard I believe do we need a motion to open the hearing move to open the hearing second okay is there anybody that would like to be heard and for the third time is there anybody that would like to be heard for the proposed water lateral replacement project on Maryland Avenue from south 13th to south 14th going three times motion to close the hearing we have a motion to second to close the hearings all in favor say aye opposed hearings are closed consent agenda President Kisha thank you your honor I move to accept and file all reports of officers accept and adopt all reports of committees and pass all resolutions and ordinances we have a motion to second under discussion Alderman Radke thank you your honor I just request a motion on 618 618 okay we have a motion to take a separate vote on 618 so right now we will be going 6-1 through 6-17 6-19 through 6-36 Alderman Bowers do you have a comment on the consent agenda yeah also on 6-18 I was going to ask how much funds we're talking about here okay first of all I'd like to cover the the motion on 6-1 through 6-17 and 6-19 through 6-36 under discussion on those items there is no discussion roll call please Bowers Decker Kisha Hammond Hannah Heidemann Kath Hiddleston Radke Berse Langamann Boren Motion carries regarding 618 Alderman Bowers you had a question yes how much money is involved in this fund and are they asking for the entire amount okay from my knowledge of the bid the bid assessment is set by the members of the bid the business improvement district downtown I believe I don't know the exact number the city only works as a collecting agent for the bid the bid sets the assessments the assessments come out of their members the city acts to collect those revenues and those revenues are dispersed back to the bid authority which supports the members does anybody have that exact amount I know their budget for the year is a little over a hundred thousand dollars I don't know if there is one or two payments Alderman Bowers at one time the city was contributing seventeen thousand dollars so I don't know if that's been changed or not President Kisha that is a separate issue from this this is bid collected dollars as you described that we don't own we're the conduit for those funds based on statute the city does the budget contribute roughly seventeen thousand dollars to the bid through tourism fund I believe that money comes from the tourism and that's done on an annual basis with the budget I'll answer your question Alderman Bowers sir thank you Alderman Hanna thank you Mr. Mayor may I ask a question of the city attorney certainly no yes please do just a question several of us in town here we own companies that belong to the bid should we recuse ourselves from building on the side of I don't think so this is money that the council has already approved in the budget and you approved the the bids operating plan so it's not like it's new money it's just money that the has been collected on behalf of the bid that you're just releasing so I don't think it's necessary is there any other discussion if there is none roll call on 618 please Bowers don't Decker aye Gisha aye Kamen abstain Hanna abstain Heidemann aye Pathe aye Kittleson aye Montemayor aye Ratke abstain Rindfleisch aye Vanderwheel aye Percy aye Langemann aye Born aye Falk aye 12 ayes 3 abstains and 1 no Motion carries Communications and Petitions 637 through 642 to be referred Reports of Officers 2 6-43 will be held for 6-52 so we will go back to 643 Reports of Officers 2 644 through 49 to be referred Resolutions Introduced 3 6-50 by Alderpersons Gisha, Wangeman and Koth authorizing the Finance Auditor Slash Analyst to negotiate settlement of insurance claims not to exceed $2500 without prior approval from the Risk Management Committee of the Common Council President Gisha Alderperson Koth, chairman of that committee could comment Alderperson Koth Thank you Mayor Ryan I move that the resolution be put upon its passage Second We have a motion and a second under discussion The reason why we are changing a few things here is basically to speed up the process and presently we do not have a director of human resources Okay Is there any other discussion? If there is none roll call please Decker Gisha Hammond Hanna Kittleson Montemure Racky Van Der Wiel Wangeman Warren Bowers Motion carries 6-51 by Alderperson Kittleson, Gisha, Van Der Wiel and Versey lifting the hiring freeze in order to hire an employee benefits administrator in the HR department Vice President Kittleson Thank you Mayor Do we need to suspend the rules on this document? No we do not Then I would make a motion to suspend the rules and ask for a motion to put the resolution upon its passage According to the notes here yes we do need to suspend the rules Then I would ask for a suspension of the rules on this document Second We have a motion and a second to suspend the rules under discussion on suspension Under discussion on suspension we would like to get this process moving along They are very busy in the HR department We would like to get this reorganization to get moving along Okay under discussion on the suspension only does anybody have any questions on the suspension? Alderman Bowers Alderman Rindflesch Yes thank you Mayor I understand that they are very busy and would like to continue to move the process along I have gone along with suspensions for drop dead dates contracts or the first shovel full of dirt needs to be moved and I am not necessarily willing to go along with suspension unless there is a date that needs to happen I guess I am asking why I cannot wait two weeks and follow the normal process Could we refer to Tom Rice from the HR department Can you come up and explain Tom can you come up and explain we need a motion to open the floor Motion to second open the floor All in favor Motion to third open Mr. Mayor Members of the council What you have before you is a reorganization of the human resources department based upon the needs that I see going forward You may recall that when I was asked to continue on one of my key objectives was to take a look at the human resources department and to see what we could do to make it more effective to meet the needs of the employees You're talking about now just suspending the rules so we can get this passed We have a couple of meetings coming up within the next two days that I would like the people all of the people in the human resources department involved in It's important that if this position is going to be filled we need to get these people on board so they can participate in the meetings One of them has to do with a information system for human resources which could lead to an automated payroll system for the city All of that has to do with the technology improvements that we want to make that are going to better assist our employees and meet their needs more effectively and more quickly That's the urgency behind it Thank you Tom Next we have Alderman Bourne Thank you I had a couple questions for Mr. Rice No getting away yet First of all on the housekeeping matter here on this position I notice if we look at document 667 which is supposed to lie over tonight unless somebody has to suspend the rules One of the people that's listed on that is an ad of an employee benefits administrator Is that the same position Mr. Rice? Yes I don't know how we can pass 651 tonight if the position is going to lie over until the next meeting or else we're going to suspend the rules My other question Well maybe somebody can answer that Can we approve 651 tonight when 667 is going to lie over for adding the position Attorney McLean I don't think they're theoretically inconsistent that one is saying you're lifting a hiring freeze in order to hire an employee benefits administrator in the Human Resources Department You could do that although I must say I agree with you Alderman Bourne If you don't have a benefits administrator in the Human Resources Department until two weeks out you're not going to be able to hire anybody So we won't be able to hire the person because the other document is going to lie over We can approve lifting the hiring freeze but we can't hire the person for two weeks until this document comes back Is that what you're saying? Well if you suspended the rules on the other one too and authorized hiring or authorized changing the table of organization to put that person into Human Resources Department and you passed this hiring freeze then you could do that the department could do that tomorrow but without changing the table of organization you wouldn't be able to fill the position even if you looked at the hiring freeze tonight And then my question for you Mr. Rice is for the I'm looking at the job description on document number 667 having to do with that employee the employee's benefits administrator and I'm looking at the education and experience I would imagine you and the salary and grievance committee feel comfortable hiring a person with a high school diploma or GED is that common practice? Okay, I'm sorry maybe I can get back to it then Thank you Thank you Alderman Boren Next we have Alderman Rindfleisch Alderman Boren asked my question regarding 667 Next we have Alderman Bauch Nope, my question's been answered And Alderman Bowers on suspension of the rules Well this is in regards to the amount budget No that would be after the discussion of the suspension of the rules please Okay on suspension of the rules I think we will do a roll call vote Yesha Aye Kamen Aye Hannah Aye Heidemann Aye Kev No Kittleson Aye Montemayor Aye Radke Aye Rindfleisch No Vanderweel Aye Boren Aye Bauch No Bowers Aye Dekker Aye Okay, motion carries rules are Sorry about that Motion carries rules are suspended Now we have Vice President Kittleson Thank you Mayor Then I would make a motion that we put the resolution upon its passage Second We have a motion and a second to put the resolution upon its passage under discussion Under discussion you can see that we have the fight form attached to it it was put on your desks here this evening So I believe all the information is there that you need to take care of this reorganization in the HR department Thank you Vice President Kittleson Thank you Next we have Alderman Boren Thank you Mayor Is it appropriate now Attorney McLean to ask my question on that job description Document number 667 I'm not sure what your question is but I guess my comment is the same that you can logically lift the hiring freeze to hire a position but you're not going to be able to actually hire the position until the position is created That's not my question had to do with the educational credentials Mr. Rice did you in the Salary and Grievance Committee and is it common practice in the private sector for a position of this responsibility to be filled by somebody with a high school diploma or would this be more of a bachelor's degree type position Thank you In conversation with Charles Carlson who is our consultant for compensation and working on the non-rep pay plan we discussed this position at length and due to the function that it's going to serve within the city we felt that a college degree was not required but that a high school education plus experience or an associate degree with experience would be more called for Is this, if I could just follow up Certainly Is this a person, the person that's going to move into this position is that a position that's temporarily in the office that's going to move into that position This position would be posted within the city and anyone who meets the qualifications would be considered for it to be a qualified person Thank you Thank you Alderman Bourne Next we have Alderman Bauch Thank you Mr. Mayor It looks like both of those will be around a 5E or a 5C What do they make an hour, Tom? That's the one thing I didn't bring with me was that pay scale That's kind of an important number We had budgeted somewhere in the neighborhood of about $31,000 for this position for six months So it's approximately about $20 an hour $22 an hour $62,000 a year for wages and benefits? That's, yes $62,000 a year for wages and benefits for a high school graduate who's going to be administering the confidential matters of the employees of the city of Sheboygan If I can get some clarification first Nancy, would you happen to know exactly what those pay grades be equated to? That even surprises me I didn't see that coming I just can't imagine anyone in this chamber who would vote yes on either of these measures $62,000 a year for someone who doesn't have a college education who's going to be administering There are comparables for this This isn't even funny Thank you Mr. Mayor Thank you Alderman Bauch Under discussion, Alderman Bowers Yes, I guess that kind of clarifies it I was looking at the 243 and 212 and I thought that was the annual salary Now he brings out at $62,000 That includes benefits? Yes So $62,000 with the retirement the health and everything That's correct That's a lot of money for someone with a high school education Can I just follow up? When you take out the benefits package we're talking about high 30s to 40,000 That's correct Let me make you aware of the fact that we have DPW employees who make more than $62,000 a year who don't have any more than high school education Mr. Mayor I don't know if I'm... Alderman Bauch, you are still on Thank you So this person won't protect a child in a burning house They won't stand between us and a bad guy with a gun They won't fill a pothole and they won't mow a lawn No, this person is going to answer all of the questions that our employees have regarding why their insurance claim wasn't paid or how to file a claim properly This person is going to be working with our insurance carrier to design the insurance program going forward for 2012, 13, 14, and 15 This person is going to answer any other questions that people may have including the council regarding our benefit program are going to be thoroughly versed in that We're talking about someone, Mr. Bauch who has a background who will have a strong understanding of all of our benefit programs and be able to answer questions for all of our employees In these economic times I can't see voting to approve a $45,000 entry of high school educated secretary when that's not what the market in this area would bear and so I'm going to vote no and I urge the council to that $62,000 could fund a firefighter Thank you, Mr. Mayor Thank you, Alderman Bauch Alderman Hammond We'll get off that one for a moment Point number two on the strategic goal says to consolidate traditional HR department functions and relieve finance department How much overlap is there now and if you guys have looked at this what kind of cost savings is going to be gained by getting some of this stuff out of finance or at least efficiencies getting out of finance and over to this employee If we take a look at the organization change we're proposing we're proposing moving the payroll coordinator out of the finance function into the human resource department that person's job duties would be everything that she currently does and expanded to include for example the compensation work that that person would be doing now on the non rep pay plan to keeping that current It's my understanding that it's going to greatly relieve a part of the workload for the accounting department especially for Nancy Bus who does a lot of that payroll work herself now and give her the time and the opportunity to devote her time to the budget and other things going forward Thank you Thank you, Alderman Hammond President Kisha Thank you, I just wanted to comment on the payroll administrator shove over from finance to human resources that's been contemplated it's my understanding for some time it's in full support of the finance department our payroll system I'm surprised they don't pay out in pigs and chickens it's really old time cards are actually used by employees which are checked and double checked triple checked by people throughout the building don't have anything to do with HR or it doesn't have anything to do with finance One of the main goals of the reorganization in general is to automate our payroll system so that we have biometrics so we can track time on task so somebody says what does it cost to do X, Y or Z we can do that and by making that move the finance department is in full support of making that move from the finance department to HR so unfortunately sometimes when you've got to make changes when you make changes there's money up front to make those changes and I'm not speaking to the costs of the employee benefits administrator I'm saying you're going to have to buy systems you're going to have to evaluate a payroll system to find out what's right in the long term that will save you money but there are up front costs in doing that long term I'm hoping this will move the HR department into maybe the 19th century I'll settle for that When I came here I walked into the Human Resource Department office and there was a type writer on the desk, the secretary I haven't seen a type writer in a business office in 25 years and that gives you some idea of where we're going most of the work on the payroll system is done paper and pencil manually entering time cards every payroll period I don't think you have any idea of how far we need to come to bring up the efficiency levels in the city and that's the purpose of the reorganization these two positions are critical to us moving forward and automating some of the systems this was purchased years ago we don't know whether that's a system that can work we're certainly willing to give it a chance but I'm committed to putting in an HRIS system and hopefully as a result of that also a payroll system without these positions I can't do that if I may have some input here the first day that I spent in the mayor's office I looked on my desk and there were these little index cards and I said what's this and somebody told me when I was meeting Mary Rager my secretary she said that's payroll I said you gotta be kidding me I hadn't seen anything like that in many years of operating a small company myself a much smaller company than the size of the city so what what Tom Rice is saying is true I mean we are eons behind when it comes to technology especially in our payroll department I don't think there is an entity of this size in the country that doesn't have an automated payroll system and if it takes moving somebody from one position to another and even though it may be a high school education I believe this person will bring with them experience that may outweigh a degree that they may have in one thing or another so you can say in entry level position but I don't believe it's a truly an entry level position an entry level position is somebody you pull off the street and you say here I'm gonna teach you how to do a job is this an entry level position in that manner? No I'm looking for people who have HR experience quite frankly the education level if I could get somebody who is a college graduate I'd love to have that person in there but I would suggest to you that a college graduate wouldn't accept that job at $45,000 a year Okay next we have Alderman Racky Thank you your Honor I was wondering if I could make a motion to amend to separate out the reorganization from the hiring freeze lift? Okay right now if I'm not mistaken we only have a motion on the lifting the hiring freeze for the position we have not yet brought forward with a motion the reorganization 657 correct No I take that back we are 667 right now we are simply discussing which we started at a while back here right now we are simply discussing 651 if we would have a can we bring a motion forward to discuss 667 and take them together So moved for the last 15 minutes What's going on?  We happen to have an ordinance that says you can't take a city position until two years after you've been a council member but you're welcome to apply that Next Alderman Bowers Thank you Mr. Mayor Don't think that I'm wrapped up in the education there's no magic bullet in a college education but having just hired two administrative people at Johnsonville $45,000 for what we expect this person to do is just way above market rates and this person isn't going to pay anything into their own retirement fund and nothing for their health care unless there's a great new non-rep pay plan coming I don't know about but again it's just not affordable for the citizens of Sheboygan to make this system work better when we're talking tonight about whether we can afford firemen so again I urge my colleagues to vote no tonight Thank you again Alderman Bough we had a motion in a second to bring 667 forward correct? okay I'm bringing 667 forward for a vote along we will take them separately but under discussion on 667 do we all in favor of bringing it forward? Opposed? 667 yes we would need a suspension of the rules if we are going to take them together this evening thank you Mayor I would ask for suspension of the rules also on document 6-67 second we have a motion in a second to suspend the rules under discussion on suspension of the rules only objection okay we under discussion on suspension of the rules Alderman Fletcher would you like to speak? no with the objection we should go to a vote to go to suspend the rules or not and the reasons are the same as previous okay we will take a roll call vote on suspension of the rules unless people would like to speak on suspension of the rules anybody speaking on suspension of the rules on 667 if there is no roll call please on suspension Hammond Hannah Beth Kittleson Ratke Grimflesh Vanderweel no no Vanderweel aye Bursi no Bauer no Dekker yes sir ten ayes six noes okay the motion fails on suspension it requires a three quarter vote to suspend the rules so we do not have suspension of the rules on 6-67 so at this point President Kisha I would like to make a motion to send this back to salary and grievance second we have a motion in a second okay to send this back to salary and grievance that's a question on that Alderman Redfleisch may we have a parliamentary comment no just actually a question does it also refer to 651 being referred back as well so it's both documents both documents thank you we have a motion in the second to send both 651 and 667 back to S and G salary and grievances Alderman Boren thank you I'm happy with that motion and I'll support it to send it back and for two specific reasons number one I want salary and grievance to take a look at the educational requirements as they would compare to a private sector position in the community and I also want them to take a look at the pay range I very much appreciate the job Mr. Rice has done since he's been our acting HR director I support the salary level and I want them to take another look at the educational requirements thank you thank you Alderman Boren under discussion on sending back to committee anybody Vice President Kittleson comment on that well I was just going to say we're also going to be expecting a lot out of the people the person that takes this job not only are they going to be doing the benefits but we're also trying to implement this program to bring down insurance costs I think we're going to spend some money here to try and save some money and it seems our efforts have been futile up to now we need to really focus on this and go forward and make some things happen in order to see some reduction in costs I couldn't agree more thank you Alderman Boren did you have any more comments? No thank you on sending this back to committee all in favor say aye opposed back to committee it goes thank you Tom okay moving on okay we have 652 we also have along with that 643 643 by the purchasing agent submitting a report relative to the attempts to sell a 1986 Pierce Arrow pumper truck and 6-52 by Alderpersons Gisha Boren Hammond and Radke authorizing the purchasing agent to enter into agreement for the sale of the 1986 Pierce Arrow pumper truck to fire unlimited LLC of Appleton, Wisconsin President Gisha thank you your honor I moved at the report of officer be placed accepted and placed on file and the document is submitted upon its passage second yes we have more information on 6-52 we will also have to according to this have a suspension of the rules on the sale okay your honor I'll rescind both of those and just deal with the first hurdle first and that is ask for suspension and I will explain on 652 the sale of an old truck very good under discussion on suspension of the rules do we have a second on suspension of the rules under discussion on suspension of the rules President Gisha thank you this is kind of one of those strike why the iron is hot for the reason for the swiftness or the need for suspension we have somebody with cash in their hand willing to buy it this shouldn't be confused with a different truck that we have sold for a larger amount this was almost exactly the amount that we were expecting to get to this vehicle if we can move on it because somebody wants it great any further discussion on the suspension of the rules if there is nobody is anybody opposed to suspending the rules there is not rules are suspended President Gisha thank you now I would like to move that the report of officer be accepted and placed on file and that the resolution be put upon its passage we have a motion and a second on 643 and 652 under discussion if there is none roll call please Hannah Bill kithilson I Ratke windflesh Bersie Wongerman Foreign Foucale Decker Gisha Hammond 16 I's 653 and 654 lie over 655 and 656 to be referred report of committee 5 657 by public works making no recommendations to council regarding the communication from Stevie B's landscaping requesting that the city move forward with the proposed free tree removal program Alderman Boran thank you mayor Ryan I moved to accept the report of committee and move to approve the hiring of Stevie B's landscaping regarding their proposal to be cutting down trees and also removing doing stump grinding we have a motion and a second under discussion under discussion mayor I was unable to attend the public works committee meeting last Tuesday night so if I could defer to Alderman Heidemann who is the vice chairman of public works who can fill the council in on the discussion and why they reached a recommendation of no recommendation thank you thank you Alderman Boran Alderman Heidemann please thank you mayor there's only three of us there so two of us voted in favor to send it back to the council to get a vote so if there would have been one more person and we but I would have considered it more of a favorable recommendation but again it was just one all just one alderman sided with me and again it's important to recognize here that at that committee level when we talked to director Bittner about this he saw this as an opportunity but to get a job done in the community that needs to be done and allows the rest of his department to do more work that's on a little higher priority and that's important for us to look at thank you thank you next we have Alderman Heidemann thank you it's my understanding that Stevie B's proposal which would include stump grinding was a cost to the city and I didn't see the fight form with this I was just looking for these stump grinding had had a cost involved needs to have a fight form thank you Heidemann at that committee meeting we was up the director Bittner director Bittner's only in only indicated us that he would be doing the tree cutting which was at no cost at all then the stump grinding was not going to be that he wasn't going to do the stump grinding thank you Alderman Heidemann Alderman Hammond I believe you have a direct comment on this I do please information well the conversation was about I believe about doing it all but one of the things we were looking at is he put together a bit him I'm hoping everybody had a chance to look at this but you know Stevie B's was definitely much higher in cost on the stump grinding and I asked deputy director Bebo to go back and find out if those two are mutually exclusive in other words for some of these vendors that offered lower cost to the stump grinding if they would do that without getting the trees and I haven't heard an answer back on that one so I just wanted to clarify that so at this point we don't have a clarification if stump grinding was a separate bid if they were mutually exclusive correct Alderman Hannah actually we have Alderman Rinfleischer please I guess I should have a separate question if Alderman Hannah wants to respond to the first question the RC we have if we're asking to be approved the RC it's going to be to we approve not taking recommendation is the way I read the RC right now we're not wait because we have a recommendation to approve or deny when I vote to when I vote to say yes to the RC it's gonna say I agree with that there should be no recommendation so look if he was down this is the C I think Alderman Warren's motion covered that saying that we go ahead and do the agreements initially in our packets when we received this we had an agreement with that we don't have an agreement right now if that agreement's been modified or not all I have is this RC I would ask that if we move forward that we can get an agreement signed that can come back to council that we can approve or at least something that Stevie's willing to sign but I can take a look at it sounds to me that unless somebody has an explanation of what we're actually dealing with here are we dealing with free removal and no stump grinding if we are dealing with stump grinding we obviously have to have a fight form involved I think at this point somebody should probably make a motion to send it back to committee Alderman Hannah I would like to make a motion that it gets sent back to committee second have a motion in a second to send this back to committee for clarification President Kisha and I agree with that motion because we really don't have an actionable item exactly come in the form of a resolution to accept the contract and that would make it a binding contract between the city and maybe that contract then would be able to spell out one or the other I'm in support of of taking the zero feed tree trimming but I would like to have clarification on the cost if we're stump grinding thank you on discussion on sending it back to committee President Alderman Boren please I just wanted to I just wanted to make a point I don't think it's out of order I checked with Mr. Beeble and the $12 the $12 I wish 12,000 $12,000 is is a budgeted item for the I can't remember the name of the account but it's the account that they use for like testing the water at the quarry and that type of thing and it was Mr. Beeble's opinion when I talked to him that there is money in the budget for the $12,000 if the council sees fit to approve this after we send it back to committee there is money there for it. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Boren Alderperson Kittleson. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I guess we've been through this before. Our last committee at Public Works had this communication we dealt with Stevie B we've been through it there were there were some difficulties at the end of the year we decided no that we were not going to go this route again so I guess I don't know what's changed and and then also if this is going to be sent back to committee what are the rules and regulations. Right now we don't have an actionable item. We don't have an actionable item. And we don't have a clarification if we did have an actionable item on what it exactly is being voted on. Okay so I don't think we have any choice right now but send it back to committee. Okay thank you. Any other comments on sending this back to committee I have Alderman Hammond's light lit. None? Anybody else? Alderman Hannah? I'll be the Hammond over here then. Okay Alderman Heidemann you are next in line. And again I saw this at the committee of the whole meeting I watched it on the DVD it's hilarious where the buttons don't match up.  Here's the thing at the committee meeting director Bettner told us if he didn't want to give one tree to Stevie B he doesn't have to give them one tree he could sign a contract to give him have all the stump removal in the in the entire city and if he did not want to give them that stump removal he doesn't have to do it. So what's going to come back to our committee is we're going to be voting on removing the stump removal and giving him the trees for he'll do the trees for nothing which I don't know what the I don't know what the change is and this is actually a benefit to our public works department because it gets something done in the city that really needs to be done and at no cost I don't know what the confusion is other than the fact that so many wants to do something for the community at no at no cost and it's a job that needs to be done in our city. I agree Alderman Heidemann but right now we don't have an actionable item all we have is a communication so I you know I don't think we have a choice at this point but to send it back that would be my opinion and maybe Alderman Rindfleisch would like to comment on that. My initial concern was that the recommendations that make no recommendation on the report committee and we're asking to the report committee be accepted and adopted so yes vote would adopt a no recommendation I understand that we were trying to go forward help public works out but I don't see how accepting a no recommendation gets us forward plus I think the issues that we have faced do we have some crying do we not have some crying I agree that we just need to send it back clarify for the council so we know we're voting the next time. Thank you. Your Honor make a motion to file and then it can all just be recreated correctly out of committee to satisfy everyone's wishes. Second. Motion to file in a second any discussion on that and clean the whole thing up start from scratch. Obviously the committee has some some good background knowledge and it can come back in a clean manner. Any discussion on that all in favor of filing say aye. Opposed? Opposed. Okay let's take a roll call vote on filing. Yes vote will file. Kath? No. Kittleson? No. Montemayor? Aye. Ratke? Aye. Rindflash? Aye. Vandereel? Aye. Percy? Aye. Wangeman? Aye. Boren? No. Falk? Aye. Bowers? No. Decker? Aye. Gisha? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Kanna? Aye. 11-5. 11 yeses. Okay. The document is filed. Moving on. Okay we are looking at a report of committee 6, 6-58 by law and licensing recommending that taxi cab driver's license number 8562 be denied based on the applicant's failure to include all relevant convictions on her application and failure to cooperate with committee. Alderman Rindflash. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I ask that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Second. We have a motion to second under discussion. Alderman Rindflash. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Your honor. Is Lisa Edmark present? She's not present your honor. Please continue. Okay. Ms. Edmark did reveal some convictions. She did fail to list operating after revocation conviction. Keep in mind this is a taxi cab operator's license. So it's something that happened four years ago. You would think that the applicant would recall. She also did not appear in either times when we asked her to call in. So based on her failure to cooperate with the committee and for failing to reveal all violations we ask that we deny. Thank you. Any further discussion? Roll call please. Kath? Aye. Kilsen? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Radke? Aye. Rindflash? Aye. Vanderweal? Aye. Bursey? Aye. Langeman? Aye. Warren? Aye. Falk? Aye. Bowers? Yes. Decker? Aye. Guesha? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Hanna? Aye. Heidemann? Aye. 16 ayes. Motion carries. 6-59 to be referred. 6-60, which is reports of committees 7 by law on licensing recommending denying beverage operators license number 7442 based on the applicant's failure to include all relevant convictions and pending charges on the application and the record of violations related to the licensed activity. Alderman Rindflash, please. Thank you, Your Honor. I ask that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Second. We have a motion to second under discussion. Is Blanca Plyo here? She's not here, Your Honor. Please continue. I did receive a phone call from Blanca Plyo's mother this afternoon saying that she would not be able to make the meeting for medical reasons today. Even with this we do ask that we deny the license or support the recommendation of the committee deny the license. There are two pending convictions misdemeanors for battery and disorderly conduct. We asked about the issue and we were told that she does not remember the incidences that occurred this year. There was also passed obstructions and disorderly conduct misdemeanors that in her past that we have felt that showed that as a safety concern to the community that we felt it was best to deny her license. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Rindflash. Any further discussion? If there is no roll call, please. Kittleson. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Radke. Aye. Rindflash. Aye. Sanderweal. Aye. Marcy. Aye. Wangeman. Aye. Boren. Aye. Falk. Aye. Bowers. Yes. Decker. Aye. Fischer. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Hanna. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kiff. Aye. 15 ayes. 15 ayes one yes. 6-61 by law and licensing recommending denying beverage operators license number 6096 based on the applicant's failure to include all relevant convictions on the application and the record of violations related to the licensed activity Alderman Rindflash. Thank you, Your Honor. I ask the report committee be accepted and adopted. Second. Moe Shearne is second. Please continue. Is Michael Miller here? He is here, Your Honor. Go ahead. The committee had felt after discussing the issue with Michael Miller that it was best for the safety of the community to deny the license. On the application, Mr. Miller did list a disorderly conduct in the theft in 2007-2008. He did not list convictions from 2001 including two obstructing officer and one for disorderly conduct 2005 and 2007 a resisting arrest. When asked, Michael Miller told the committee basically that all of the, all the convictions 2001-2008 were basically the faults of another person that he was in a relationship with at that time. Felt that not taking ownership and not taking of the problems and not seeking to make change poses safety hazards to the community. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Rindflash. Mr. Miller, would you like to speak regarding this? Yes, I would. I did look up my record and the stuff that was omitted does not show on my record, but I was involved in it and unfortunately it was in my past and I'm trying to move on from that. I'm going back to school to try to better myself. And like I said before, I didn't purposely omit those things on my application. I just did not recall them. And when I looked up my Wisconsin court system document, they're not even listed on here. So I did my best to list all the information that I could when I first submitted my application for the beverage license. Are there any questions from the council? Alderman Bourne. Thank you, Mayor. Sir, where are you going to be working with your bartender's license? Cumart. Cumart? Yes. Okay. And where are you going to school and what are you studying? I'm going to school currently at LTC for marketing. Okay. Alderman Rindflash on your report there. What was the last, what was the last defense or last couple and what were they? Thank you. Alderman Rindflash. Thank you, Your Honor. The last event took place in 2008. I have to clarify a little bit. Well, the applicants would not be working at a tavern situation and would be a cumart. One of the concerns was the theft and use of a stolen credit card. One was that apparently was found and was used with the help of assistance of a friend. That posed a concern for us as well. So while the theft was a deep concern to us because it was use of a credit card that would be used in a convenience store situation. Thank you. Alderman Rindflash. Alderman Bowers. Yes. Is your current employer aware of your theft violation? Yes, she's actually here. She was my employer before at the other mini-mart where this took place and she is still my current employer. Okay. Now you're currently going to school LTC and taking marketing. Yes. Is your first year, second year? I'm going on my second year. Second year. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Bowers. Are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Miller. Thank you. Okay. If there are no further questions, a roll call vote, please. Come on to me, Your Honor. This is a tough one. No. Ratke. No. Rindflash. Aye. Vanderweal. No. Versi. No. Langeman. Aye. Boren. No. Bauke. Aye. Bowers. No. Decker. No. Gisha. No. Hammond. No. Hanna. No. Heidemann. Aye. Keth. Aye. Giddelson. No. Levin knows five, yes. Motion fails. 6-62. Alderman Rindflash. Your Honor, if it's the will of the council to grant the license, I think a motion needs to be made to grant the license. I am unwilling to do so, so I'm deferred to someone else. Would anybody like to make a motion to grant the license to Mr. Miller? Motion to grant the license. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second to grant the license under discussion on granting the license. If there is none, roll call, please, on granting the license. Ratke. Aye. Rindflash. No. Vanderweal. Aye. Versi. Aye. Langeman. No. Boren. Aye. Bowk. No. Bowers. Yes. Decker. Aye. Gisha. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Hanna. Aye. Heidemann. No. Keth. No. Giddelson. Aye. Montamior. Aye. Levin. Yes. Five. No. Motion carries. The license is granted. 6-62 by law in licensing recommending denying taxi cab driver's license number 8546 based on the applicant's record of violations related to the licensed activity in failure to cooperate fully with the committee. Alderman Rindflash. Thank you, Your Honor. I ask that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Second. Motion and a second under discussion. Is Doris M. Frye here? She's here, Your Honor. Go ahead, Alderman Rindflash. Thank you. Ms. Frye came for us after her fourth invitation to appear. She finally did. Our previous recommendation was to deny based off of non-cooperation. That recommendation still stands for non- cooperation. In addition, now that we've have interviewed Ms. Frye, we discovered that prior to getting and gaining a taxi cab driver's license previously, she did not actually have a driver's license that she has three convictions for operating while suspended. And since they were applying for a taxi cab license, the district guard of the laws of the state to actually get a license, we again felt the safety of the community is at risk by granting a license to someone such as Ms. Frye. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Rindflash. Ms. Frye, would you like to be heard? I've had my license now for almost a year or a little over a year and I have not had any conviction, no driving. I haven't gotten pulled over for nothing, not speeding, nothing. And I have my license and I think I mean I'm doing good. I'd like to, I'm a dispatcher and I'd like to become a part-time driver when they need a driver. You're a dispatcher at the cab company, no? Right. Any questions from the council, Alderman Rindflash? Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Frye, excuse me, Ms. Frye, was there a particular reason you did not get a license previously while you when you were arrested the first time for operating without a license? I was just scared. I didn't, I was just scared to go and get them and it wasn't, when I did go it wasn't as hard as I thought it was gonna be. Any further questions from the council? Alderman Bowers? Yes. Is this your sole occupation with the taxi cab company? Right. You've been there how many years? August there will be a year. Be a year and you're the sole support of yourself? Of me and my child. And your child? How old is your child? She's 15. 15. And does she work at all? No. She goes to school. So this is your sole support of you and your child? Right. Thank you, Alderman Bowers. Are there any further questions from the council? Alderman Rindflash. Thank you, Your Honor. Seeing a pattern occurring here within the committee's recommendations, we do not set out to be hard on the applicants. We do not set out to be unfair. But also the questions of sole support, of income, of other opportunities really don't come up. That's not the purview I feel of the Law and Licensing. Law and Licensing Committee is to see if the person qualifies for a license as per our standards and what kind of standards we wish to set for licensing people in our community. And vote with your conscience. I'm not going to try to convince anybody else of that. But I do see that questions that don't really have anything to do with the safety of the public. And the licensee's willingness to obey the rules has anything to do with the ability to have and support themselves in that job. It's not my responsibility for them to find applications. It's my responsibility to make sure that those apply for licenses are qualified. Thank you. As chairman of the committee, thank you for your input. Alderman Versi. Thank you. Just one real quick question. Do you need to have this license to stay as a dispatcher for your job? Not to stay as a dispatcher, but to be able to drive. Okay. Thank you. And Alderman Versi, are there any further questions for Ms. Fry? Thank you, Ms. Fry. Okay, roll call vote please on six dash. Okay, a yes vote will deny the license. Six dash 62. Roll call please. Rin Flesch. Aye. Vandereel. Aye. Versi. Aye. Langeman. Aye. Born. Aye. Falk. Aye. Flowers. No. Decker. Aye. Yisha. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Hanna. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kat. Aye. Kittleson. No. Montemayor. No. Ratty. Aye. Thirteen Ayes. Three Noes. Motion carries. Reports of committees eight. Six dash 63 by finance authorizing a transfer of appropriations in the 2010 budget established revenue and appropriations for general obligation taxable refunding bonds for state trust fund loans and for general obligation notes for capital improvement projects. President Gisha. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Second. We have a motion and a second under discussion. If there is none, roll call please. Vandereel. Aye. Versi. Aye. Langeman. Aye. Born. Aye. Falk. Aye. Flowers. Yes. Decker. Aye. Yisha. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Hanna. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kat. Aye. Kittleson. Montemayor. Aye. Ratty. Aye. Greenflash. Aye. Sixteen Ayes. Motion carries. Six dash 64 by finance authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into an intergovernmental cooperative agreement with Sheboygan County for joint purchase of a computer aided dispatch records management system also known as CAD RMS President Gisha. Thank you, Your Honor. We reviewed this item in finance at length. There was a little issue in one of the paragraphs. It was clarified with me from from the city purchasing agent. However, the county we got kind of an old version of the of the transaction. The county I believe acted on it last end of last week. I prefer to look at their document and come back. So I'm asking this referred back to council or pardon me back to the finance committee just so we can bring a clean document in without amending. Second. Motion to refer back to we have a second. Second. We have a motion and a second under discussion on referring back to finance. If there is none all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Six dash 65 through six dash 68 lies over matters laid over 11. Five dash 56 resolution number 27 dash 10 dash 11 by Alderman Hannah lifting the hiring freeze in order to hire for firefighter paramedics. Alderman Hannah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would move that the resolution be put upon its passage. Second. We have a motion and a second under discussion. Alderman Bowers. I don't know if this is the time and place to do it. But anyway, I'd like to amend the resolution. Can they do that now? You can make an amendment. The friend amendment to the resolution. Resolution 27 dash 10 dash 11. Amend to do not lift hiring freeze reopen fire station number five and eliminate the ambulance service. Second. We have a motion and a second to go from lifting the hiring freeze to do not lifting the hiring freeze. And opening up station number five. Alderman Rindfleisch. And getting out of the ambulance business. Okay. Do we have a second on that amendment? We have a motion and a second. Seconded that amendment. Discussion on the amendment only. Only on the amendment. Alderman Rindfleisch. Thank you, Your Honor. I would defer to the city attorney, but the Robert's rules and our and our as adopted by this council allows amendments that do not change the nature of the resolution. Is that correct? Yes, I guess the issue is germane this. And I think I don't see that the proposed amendment is totally opposite of what the proposed resolution is. And my opinion, it would not be germane, but that's a call by the chair of the council by the. So then I would do a point of order to disregard the motion as being non germane to the resolution. Um, in my in my years on this council, I have never seen anybody totally try to amend something to change the original intent of the resolution. So I would agree. I'll withdraw my second. We have a withdrawal of the second. Do you withdraw your motion? Alderman Bowers. No, would anybody else like to second Alderman Bowers motion? Would anybody else like to second Alderman Bowers motion? Motion fails by failure of a second. Okay, we have a motion and a second on five dash 56 under discussion on the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion? Alderman ball, please. We've been talking about this for a while, so I'll be brief. Um, former chief sire did a great job tonight. Very impassioned plea, giving us a sense of history of what happened. Um, he mentioned a potential attack on represented employees and I hope and I don't know if he was referring to anything that I've said or written, but I hope he doesn't see it that way. That isn't the intent of what I've written at all. Um, what I have what I'm speaking out about is and it was very evident at the committee of the whole meeting a week or so ago that every department had we called up when asked, why can't you do the services? Why do we have to cut services? The answer was virtually the same from every single one. Well, I can't afford as many people so I can't get as much work done. Why can't you afford as many people? Well, the the per employee costs have skyrocketed and I just can't afford that many people without my budget going up. So the reason why we have to have these hard conversations about cutting policemen, cutting firemen, cutting PW, wherever we're going to cut people is because that the cost of people is what is driving this unsustainable condition. Um, I appreciate the local 43 offering that 2%, but it's just not enough. It's not enough for me anyway. Um, our contribution just to remind everyone, our city employees paying nothing into their own retirement fund. And that isn't even statutorily required. The reason they don't pay anything of their own retirement, the reason they don't invest a penny in their own future is because they've negotiated that out through the contract process. And it's my contention that the reason that is, the reason the taxpayers of Sheboygan have sort of tolerated that is because it happens behind closed doors. And so in a recent article that I penned, I call for them to be leaders and to begin to conduct our negotiations in the open where everybody can participate and understand. It was really interesting to hear someone ask, hey, those numbers about quoted, he must have fudged the numbers because that's always what they do in those negotiations. You're playing funny with the numbers. But they're from the US Department of Labor and Statistics. And someone says, well, it's hard to find, you know, a good analogy or a good comparable for a fireman and a policeman because what they do is so special, you can't find that. It's so dangerous and all those things. Well, if the US Department of Labor and Statistics, I'm pretty sure they got some smart people. And what they found out is that when you put wages and benefits together, a local state or city employee earns 44% more, 44% more with wages and benefits than a typical private sector employee from that region. So those are the numbers. That's not all I'm about. That's the US government speaking. And I'll close with just one last thing that again drives home why this conversation has got to change. It's got to change. And I quote from the Wall Street Journal last week, it's an article about investors looking past all the red flags in the muni market. I probably should have mentioned this when we voted on the bonds we just voted to bond for. But the bond market, the muni bond market is a $2.8 trillion market, $2.8 trillion America has invested in it. Market specialists say gaps between muni revenue and expenditures are unsustainable. The day of reckoning is here. This chief investment officer of Brown Brothers-Hareman, but municipal investors continue to act as if there's no default risk in municipal bonds. So what that means in regular talk is the same thing that's happened in the housing market and that's caused this economic recession is about to happen in the foreseeable future in the muni bond market. And so no person different than Warren Buffett, who is arguably the greatest investor of our generation, says that why has he liquidated 20% of his holdings in muni bonds? He has $4 billion invested in cities in this country. He's pulled 20% of that out. Why? Because he's worried about how municipalities will pay for retirement and health benefits for public workers and that the federal government is ultimately going to have to bail out the states and he doesn't want any part of that market. One last bit, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate it. Mr. Buffett, he's trimmed his municipal, I don't know how I would rate them myself. He has no idea. And that's something we talked about in the finance committee, how the bond rating systems have changed. And he says it's all black magic.  So you put all that together, Mr. Mayor. And again, I can't support hiring four more city employees that will earn so much more that they'll contribute nothing to their their future and yet they will double dip and take seconds when they're retired and continue to draw on that very lovely luxury retirement program. So until the bargaining units come to the table and talk about how they're going to change that paradigm, I can't support this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Alderman Boke. I take that as a compliment that will be at least bonded for the city at the right time. So right before the crash. Yes, sir. Thank you for that. If I may, I would like to stress, we will invoke Robert's rules of order on this issue that everybody can speak no more than twice. I think we've discussed this once or twice in the past, just so we're not here until midnight if at all possible. Next we have Alderman Boke from the University. Thank you, your honor. Obviously, I'm not going to support this. I mean, all of our other departments are taking hits. Our DPW is taking hits are everyone's taking hits. But we're going to hire and add more back to our fire department. It's not fair to them unless we can amend what we have on here to say that four new hires are going to cut the grass, the city parks. Then we're not going to have cut any longer. If someone can make that amendment, that would be great added to their duties on top of this cut grass, then we'd be okay hiring these four. But besides not that happening, you can't keep doing what our city is. DPW keeps the city pretty, trying to bring people here. Businesses here when they come to visit, that's what they're going to see. They don't see the firefighters in the station. They don't see them running down the street. They don't see that. That's not something that brings businesses here. So you have to look at long term for the city, which is what's going to bring us business. How are we going to keep the city looking decent? So I don't support it just because we can't afford it. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Versey. Next we have President Gisha. Thank you, and I'll be very brief on this. I just don't want the public, I think that always just bothers me the most, especially in this topic, is information the public receives that isn't accurate or is couched in a certain way. I don't want anybody to think per accuracy's sake that the fire department has special rules for it. For instance, the grass cutters Alderman Versey mentioned actually make more than firemen and make more than their starting wage, I believe, than firemen. Even if it was equal, they all have the same benefits. They've all got the same Wisconsin retirement system. They've all got the same healthcare thing. They've all got it. I sat there. I fulfilled the obligation and did it, and I learned a lot. And you cannot expect, nor will it ever happen, on this planet to have one municipality change that paradigm that has been the responsibility, and it happened because of Tommy Thompson in the state of Wisconsin. There's only one represented union in the entire state of Wisconsin that pays into the Wisconsin retirement system, and that is the state patrol, who pay one half of one percent negotiated down from one and a half percent. So what we have to deal with was what we have to deal with. I don't like it. I think it stinks. I think it's horrible for the taxpayer, but I think the impression that's somewhat left, I assume un-purposely, and I believe that, is that these darn firemen have a special rule, and it just isn't the case. You can talk about tree cutters. You can talk about grass cutters. It's all the same deal. I do believe that the 44 percent figure is going to go down. I think it has to go down. There's movements across the country for it to go down, and now is the time for it to go down. There's some figures coming out regarding the cleaning of city hall that actually will make that number small. So I am in full support of that. Now, attention was paid to the HR pay thing. I agree with Alderman Bauch on that. That's a non-rep position. We have the flexibility to send it back to the committee and massage it and do all sorts of things. That flexibility under the state of Wisconsin system of mediation arbitration. Not a rule that says that employees can't pay for this or they can't pay for that. Under mediation arbitration, which is the king of making all this happen, it is the key that you put in the ignition to make our whole system set up. Based on that system, it is what it is. Interesting article in the journal Sentinel, I think Alderman Hanna sent it into council recently from a gubernatorial candidate talking about just this. It needs to happen in Madison. We need to put all pressure. We have a budget resolution that even notes that coming up next. It will kill every municipality in the state, not just the city of Sheboygan. So is it a matter of grass cutters versus firemen or whatever? It's all the same. They all get the same package. And that goes for elected officials in certain elected officials. I'll throw you in there, Mayor. You get Wisconsin Retirement System, City Attorney McLean, all of them. And I'm not saying they're bad people because of it. It is the system and it has to be changed in Madison so it can be uniformed across. It will not break with the City of Sheboygan. I wish it did would. I spent 150 hours of my life trying to make it break and it's just not the case. Thank you. Thank you President Gisha. Alderman Boren. Thank you Mayor Ryan. I've got a couple specific questions that either Nancy Busk could answer or the Chief on these documents that are attached to document number 556. My first question is brought to my attention by a constituent that the on the on the first document that the hiring date of that starts out hiring date of 7 6 10 down a ways about halfway it says 12 figure of 12,768 dollars and 11 cents 5 6 10 retirement savings. My question is chief how are we going to get retirement savings if we're replacing that person and we're going to be paying into the retirement fund for the new employee. Am I missing something? I'm not understanding that or what what what's your comment on that? That line on that document is a position that is funded in the 2010 budget that is a person that retired on 5 6 of this year that number that $12,000 number is the savings between 5 6 and 7 6 of not having him here of a budgeted amount and we're not paying it. Okay thank you and my second question is on the back where it where it starts out 2011 down on the bottom where the Asterix Asterix is it says these these estimated expenses and savings based on a 2011 fire department budget funded to the 2010 fire department level now I know we have maintenance of effort for for fire and police as far as maintaining the budget but my question is how can we possibly make the assumption that you're going to be funded in 2011 that the same as you are in 2010 irregardless of maintenance of effort when we've got you know when we're asking the library to give up 250 DPW 200,000 and perhaps cut as Mr. Bittner set up the four employees and of course the the the fire the police department is going to have to be part of this equation of how we're going to balance the budget I just don't see how you can make the assumption with our budget situation that you're going to be funded in 2011 as you were in 2010 based on the scenario we're facing that sentence had nothing to do with maintenance of effort I had to give you a baseline right that you were able to figure out what the cost was going to be next year right compared to this year's budget obviously none of us have health insurance rates so I based those on this year's rates but I think you're really a that's a huge assumption it's a huge assumption for and that relates back to an email that alderman balk and I got from director Hanson in the morning at 6 21 a.m. in the morning when he's when he before he started working for the county when he brought to our attention that we have to be very very cautious about lifting this high-ring freeze there may be dollars here you know with what you with what you produce to get us through this year but to paraphrase what former finance director Hanson said he's very concerned that you'd have to lay these people off in six months if we hire him now because of the assumption you're making on this budget that you're going to be funded at the same level in 2011 I mean if you're asked to if you're asked to do your part at the end of the day and come up with two hundred thousand dollars in savings I don't see that as any different than DPW you're going to have to lay people off there's no way to get around it so I have a I have a problem hiring four people now that we may have to lay off in January it just doesn't make any sense to me unless and the other thing I'm disappointed on we had a three-hour discussion or almost three hours the other night at the committee the whole and I voted for that document that came out of the committee of the whole I was looking for that document in tonight's agenda and part of that agenda or part of that resolution or recommendation to the council that came out a committee of the whole uh... there were two two amendments made one was going to be a letter that the union was was going to come up with with some long-term concessions uh... what they were going to do and I want to stress long term not for a year or even eighteen months for years down the road and what's got possibly wisconsin retirement and the health insurance and possibly some wage concessions uh... I wanted I was looking forward to seeing that in advance of this meeting tonight uh... so I don't have information that I need as far as those concessions that we're going to come forward it's a shame that that document wasn't on the agenda tonight so we can we could it's could have discussed the recommendation that came out of the committee of the whole to keep all fire fire stations open and keep the ambulance business and I said I voted I voted for that the last time to move that forward because it was anxious to see what our union partners were going to come up with for this solution that we are facing in two thousand and eleven and I also appreciated the uh... the amendment that alderman hamman made that by the end of the year we do have to come up with a scenario of how we're going to move forward but uh... I'm just again I I'm not prepared to vote for this tonight because I don't have that letter from the union on what they're willing to do for two thousand and eleven and I think that's very important they have to be a partner if we're going to ask again if we're going to ask you to give up two hundred thousand dollars hypothetically next year and I don't like to deal in hypotheticals but I'm going what we're asking the other departments how are we going to hire these people and then have to lay them off in in six months thank you if you'd like to comment that letter has been submitted came through my office to human resources it is a three percent concession for next year you will note that I did not figure those savings into my calculations and I believe that invitation has been put out there by local 483 to sit at the table and work on long-term savings continue alderman board if I could just follow up that doesn't do me any good tonight chief herman and the other thing is the three the three percent concession is wonderful for next year but they're also going to be paying two percent less for their health insurance next year we're at 12 percent right now for your for your department next year it's going back to 10 percent so that's still a raise of I don't know what the dollar the dollar difference would be but it's it's it's still a it's still a percent raise for next year and again I was looking forward to having first of all if if the document is somewhere it would have been nice for the council to be able to take a look at it so that it's on black and white and it's signed by somebody perhaps the union had signed it what they were willing to do we don't have that and I'm asking being asked to hire four people and again I don't want to hire these people and have to lay them off first of all it's not fair it's not fair to those four individuals if we hire them and have to lay them off and I just don't see any other scenario that your department is not going to be asked to to make to come up with a couple hundred thousand dollars and that needs people next year and I I just don't see any possible scenario that that not in addition to the library and DPW and the police department and your in your department are going to have to be part of the solution and it's either going to be concessions or it's you know where are we going to come up with that money it's impossible and I guess Alderman born I would go back to the last year star resolution to ask for three percent from each department and I would tell you that I believe the fire department was a year ahead of time by giving up eight percent of our budget and the baseline that I figured the budget on the only variables are the health insurance premium and as you said if the council decides that each department needs to cut an additional amount of money I had no way of figuring that into next year's allotment of how we're going to pay for these firefighters so I used what I had and we are covered in 2011 without using the three percent that the firefighters have offered in their letter of concession chief I may ask this three percent is that is three percent of what on the the letter of concession three percent of their wages three percent of wages across the board and the on the are represented firefighters I guess I would ask Mr. Rice to come up and address that he I believe has the letter or was the last person that had it they have a motion to open the floor so moved all in favor of opening the floor to Tom Rice I opposed floors open I did not bring the letter with me as I recall the proposal was that the the firefighters would give up the one and a half percent raised on January 1st and the one and a half percent raised to them on July 1st and basically do the same thing that they did in 2010 a two percent additional contribution and and the health insurance premium Alderman Hanna I think I do have the correct data and you were very close effective January 1st 2011 through June 30th 2011 one and a half percent of each employee's regular base pay will be deducted and applied as an employee contribution to the health insurance premium in addition to the 10 percent premium effective July 1st through December 31st three percent of each employee's regular base pay will be deducted and applied to the employee contribution to the health insurance premium this is in addition to the 10 percent in the year 2011 only employees receive only receive two days off to be taken in accordance with the department's leave of absence policy is that correct the value of that proposal is approximately $95,000 thank you second time Alderman Bauch Alderman Bauchers are you buzzed in no just checking thank you Alderman Bauch thanks and very brief this time Mr. Mayor just to be mathematically correct that's not three percent that's 2.25 percent it's correct so let's just get that out there for our friends in the press don't be using three percent they're giving back 2.25 and then secondly my friend and colleague mentioned that you know how this is an institutional problem and he's exactly right but that institutional problem hasn't been around beyond memory our own good friend and colleague Alderman Wongerman who's been retired for a while but not more than what probably 20-22 years he remembers paying half of his he can we can look Bill in the eye he has his dignity intact because he contributed to his own future he contributed to his own retirement he paid half of his own retirement contribution the Wisconsin Retirement Fund he paid 40 percent of his health care he paid 40 percent of his health care premium whereas today we're down in those single digits and it's just not enough and that's only been 20 years so the time to change it is now President Gish is right the time is now and Sheboygan is the place to begin that paradigm shift thank you Mr. Mayor thank you again Alderman Bauch Alderman Wrenfleisch thank you Mr. Mayor I don't think it's a surprise how people people know how I feel about this issue and I agree with Alderman Bauch the time is now to change it but today in the next six months it's not going to change how that works so I agree we need to do it not just the fire department but around the world we have some kind of change right now offered by by a concessionary letter but it's not enough it's not a long-term solution to our problem I've been saying that forever I've also been saying to people that I don't care who has standalone service as long as it's provided to our residents at a successful level at a secure level at a level of great response time and that's done fairly so that both sides of the city get equal response times and does it in a way that doesn't raise my taxes right now the only one way does that and that's to have the fire department have the ambulance service the reason for that is as we discussed there is revenue as I go to the city am I saying the word profit I'm not saying the word marginal cost I'm not saying any of that the reality is is that if we don't have the fire department do the ambulance service we still have to pay for the fire department we still have to pay 100% of the fire staff to be there at some level we don't know what level it's open for discussion but that doesn't go away we're not going to contract Orange Cross or some other ambulance service to do a fire protection service perhaps long-term there's other blended solution that we need to look at and we discussed in the community of the whole of our solutions and you are making a trip to look at some possible solutions and that's the information that we need that's solutions that we can begin to make changes for for long-term changes real change to the city of Chicago but we have a vote tonight and all the solutions don't change what's going to happen tomorrow what will happen tomorrow though is we have a budget problem we have overtime for our departments that isn't going to be solved by sticking our head in the sand and voting no by saying nope we're going to go for long-term solutions that's great how are you going to pay for overtime in the short term and you're right there is only one way and that's layoffs so how are you going to provide fire protection service how are you going to provide ambulance service to your constituents if you go ahead vote no now and force the layoffs or force the overtime or force the budget process or force the layoff in other departments so we have to pay overtime in this department it's very easy to vote no my first few years here I made a lot of enemies because I voted no a lot because I stuck with my guts it's very difficult to vote yes at times and it's very difficult to vote yes because sometimes the right thing to do even though it's something you just but the reality is forced our hands we have a budget problem to some degree is self created and in many ways it's state created but we have a problem we have to deal with right now and that budget problem has consequences to the safety of the public so I know how I'm going to vote I'm going to vote with a clean conscience to lift hiring freeze and hire the four right now we don't know what the future holds will there be retirements will there be in fire departments I agreed and voted with the amendments to only approve with concessions with accessory letter and with some kind of long-term plan in place so we don't have to face this year by year by year as Alderman Warren said so we don't hire people to lay them off in six months it's not what I'm in the business here to do but there's consequences to have to face and I guess the question that I would have for the fire chief when I'm finished is what happens if this doesn't pass today what are the result the consequences of voting no today thank you chief the consequences are that we continue to run as we are on September 1st the north side station will close station five will reopen and on December 1st the downtown station will close and station four will reopen and I think if I could address a subject that came up previously here I think everybody agrees that this is a problem that's bigger than the city of Sheboygan and it would be wonderful if it was solved on the state level unfortunately state government tends to move even slower than local government and you have a union here that has offered to sit down and discuss the issue now I gotta believe that they're a little bit skittish from the last labor negotiations when they were given promises with a concession and it didn't follow through got a group that's willing to sit down at the table if you maybe even ask them to reopen the contract and sit down and talk about certain issues in that contract it's going to be solved first at the local level before it's solved at the state level I believe that and Sheboygan could be the leader but you gotta ask them thank you chief Alderman Hammond very heated obviously very contentious but a couple facts let's think about first off there's only four firefighters on the entire south side of Sheboygan fact Mead street station second busiest station in the city of Sheboygan the chief's got those numbers somebody was asking about earlier about the call volume in each of those stations at stations the second busiest 60 percent I forget what the numbers but it's a second busiest station fact 13 to 15 firefighters were retiring in the next four years four to five years this conversation is going to come up again ladies and gentlemen it is going to come up again okay what's not fair talking about fairness what's not fair is that an entire south side of the city and I live about as far south as you can get in the city of Sheboygan the south side of the city has four firefighters protecting it where the north side has 16 17 I don't even know the number it's just not proportionate what's not fair is to the taxpayers of the city of Sheboygan on the south side that aren't getting the protection they deserve I understand the budgetary constraints I play with numbers every single day for a living but the fact is that there are people that need the protection that may or may not get it because one fire station is protecting that entire south side this is not the most attractive solution I fully admit that okay this is a short-term solution to what is a long-term problem and yes we didn't create this whole mess okay but this is the hand we've been dealt we're gonna come back to the table by December 31st and put together a long-range solution for what this what fire protection should look like in the city of Sheboygan the people the south side deserve to have fire protection okay so I'm voting yes thank you Alderman Hammond Alderman Bowers well there's been much discussion tonight and of course both sides have expressed it what we're faced with is draconian results if we don't take action tonight because come January 1st next year the budget I think the budget has to be on November 30th that's what it is okay between now and then there's going to be a lot of information passed back and forth we certainly would like to see something in writing from the fire department and two weeks or a week ago the community of the whole I thought we were going to have something what we have to do now is take the bull by the horns we're faced with a decision today there's a long-term decision so we either have to vote for it or against it let's be leaders thank you Alderman Bowers next we have Alderman Boren for the second time third time now the first time he was asking questions of the chief thank you Alderman Montemire thank you uh maren thank you Alderman Montemire if I remember correctly back in December when chief lastoski was still here he invited all the older persons up for a meeting to discuss what his projections were if he had to close a fire station and I know Alderman Heiderman and I from the fourth district attended together and it was chief lastoski's opinion about two weeks before he retired that if he had to close a fire station he would recommend closing the downtown station then what he did is he made the case for that decision and what he did is he showed Alderman Heiderman and I and I think probably the other Alderman that took the time to go up and visit with him and I appreciated the invitation he showed us the downtown station and he showed us the he showed us the three surrounding stations the one over on the one on the south side the 25th street station and the one up on the north side and at least to me and I think I can't speak for Alderman Heiderman but I believe at the time we thought that was the most logical station to change based on response times granted it's the oldest part of the city and there may be more incidents but from a coverage standpoint if you had to close a station it seemed to make sense to me and he made a pretty good case for that then all of a sudden it's Alderman Heiderman and I and Rindfleisch and Hammond that's the station that ends up being closed and then the rolling blackouts and I just you know I I appreciated the meeting with Chief Listusky and what he said made a lot of sense as far as response times these response times now I agree with Alderman Hammond on the south side are really crappy it makes a lot more sense to me following up on what Chief Listusky said to close this downtown station in Mothballet and keep the two stations open on the south side and the two on the north side and I think problem solved but it was very logical when I looked at those maps and he imposed that over the downtown area for those three stations converging down here even though it was the oldest part of the city it made a lot of sense what changed in two weeks after you became chief to change what he was recommending thank you when you factor in the number of calls and the increased response times this area showed the greatest risk when closing a station with that information in hand I analyzed them all and decided that we need time to look at this we need to brown out the stations and analyze what all the consequences are to those three stations and then make a decision after a year and that's why the decision was made to go to the Brown Oaks thank you chief second time Alderman Versey thank you it's actually kind of two part to care for you the first part is is we're trying to hire the four which now with that we want four to an engine for your NFPA standards is what we're trying to get to or what you're trying to get to is that's not correct we don't want four to an engine we are not increasing the number of people on engines at all okay if we did wouldn't that just spell out the numbers because on your contract right now you're able to have four off per shift correct yes okay so you'd actually have to have for 24 on duty that's actually 72 firefighters alone then you gotta add the three shift commanders two deputy chiefs you know CHEU and then the fire inspector so it's actually a total of 79 so not counting any secretaries that's what the number would actually end up being because if we hire four now you have any kind of retirees coming up the seven retirees coming up you would be needing more firefighters again correct we're at 69 right now if we hire four that gets to 73 yes but trying to get to the four an engine not trying to get to 400 engine okay no one has approached that subject okay a number of years ago when we changed the way that we operate we went from having three and four on an engine to now we have two on an engine but two of those same people are on the ambulance sure okay which would bring me to my second part what I'd actually like to add an amendment lift the hiring freeze I would be supporting lifting the hiring freeze but you'd also have to if you would be able to get out of ambulance business use those same firefighters keep all five fire stations open you wouldn't have to touch anything else wouldn't have to do any more brownouts all five fire stations with the four new hires and potential retirees coming soon would we be able to man that a lot better than keeping ambulance service five stations and asking for more thank you all to the university make that an amendment that is an amendment to lift the hiring freeze lift the hiring freeze and eliminate the ambulance services there a second second there's a motion and a second this discussion now shifts to the amendment only under discussion Alderman Bowers on the amendment only I guess I'm a little confused what's the difference between what Alderman Bursey said and what I what you said is don't lift the hiring freeze which was the gist of this okay okay he is he is working with the with the resolution to lift the hiring freeze okay which is the gist of the resolution right um but he is saying on top of that he would like to be out of the ambulance business so everything is the same except with me with you you wanted to not lift the hiring freeze which at this resolution reads to lift the hiring freeze in order to hire for firefighter paramedics all right so that was out of order my my resolution you were you were changing the meaning of the resolution this is an amendment to the resolution the resolution reads to it was it was changing the meaning where I was out of order you did not have a second to your amendment it was withdrawn and therefore your amendment failed due to the lack of a second all right thank you we have President Gisha this is on the amendment only yeah sure why not chief question time based on the fact the ambulance service brings in revenue in excess of expense of about 800,000 dollars which funds for firemen which then leaves about 200 and some odd thousand dollars which would come out of your hide by the way of your department for the full 800,000 is there any way possible to do what alderman versi has has recommended on the amendment based on the manpower suggested and the amount of people you'll lose because of it not under my financial scenario to pay for this absolutely not your couple hundred thousand dollars short of that proposal thank you president gisha on the amendment alderman renflesh thank you your honor the amendment does not change the resolution because if you have to look at the now therefore be resolved however there are budget consequences I think more for that to happen we would need to have a five form because you know the revenues that are wouldn't be billed or collected go to the general fund that's something that's a a budgetary item now I'm correct so we would need to before we get passes have five form to show what those consequences are I think it can be pretty much determined what the consequences are that anything that the ambulance brings in as revenue now when you get rid of the ambulance the way I look at it is it takes there's basically four firefighters in a unit that unit has two firefighters on a truck and two firefighters on an ambulance that's four firefighters in a unit if you take the overhead cost of the ambulance service we're not talking garages because we have those where we have fire stations for for firefighting apparatus we're talking the the cost of the ambulance the cost of supplies the cost of fuel and maintenance on those ambulances if you take that out of the mix if you get rid of the ambulance service you still need those four firefighters on a firefighting rig so all you're taking out is the the lease on the ambulances the fuel the supplies and basically anything after that if you're going in this scenario with hiring four firefighters everything after that when you deduct those expenses would be known as revenue that disappears because you're still going to have to pay the firefighters to be there so if you add it all up that's simple man's math and I used to copy off of Susie Lipko starting in the third grade in St. Stanislaus School in Chicago so that's pretty much what I use that's basically the gist of it the way I see it if you eliminate the ambulance service so I mean and that's that's that's kind of dumbing it down but it's the easiest way to understand it in my opinion Your Honor if I could put it in simple numbers the revenue project that is around 900,000 this year the marginal cost other than employees is roughly 220 for the lease fuel additional overtime so you're short 600,000 600,000 to 700,000 so that's that would be called more deficit in my opinion at this point if we're going to lift the hiring freeze and get out of the ambulance service President Kisha if I can just follow up I think one of the questions or the cons why things like this come up is I think people think you have people sitting around that are just ambulance drivers they're called fireman paramedics maybe you could describe what they do on a daily basis when the fire bell rings you're correct and I think that's one of the they're the same people they're the same people the people that the two paramedics that are on the ambulance on the 18th street station and the two paramedics that are on the ambulance on the north 15th and north Amno station those are the the hosemen on that engine that's also in that station that engine goes out with two people the fire that we had the other night on south 10th street it was the ladder truck with two people and med two from that station with two people those paramedics were the the two firefighters on the hose and the same with the apartment fire on Calumet Drive the firefighter paramedics that attacked that fire and put it out were on med four so you're right they do a multiple of jobs they the paramedics when they're not answering a medical call they're doing the same things that the firefighters do they are the educators in the schools they are our fire investigators they are cutting the grass at the fire stations and they're doing everything else that firefighters do thank you chief we are still speaking of the amendment the amendment being to to lift the hiring freeze and get out of the ambulance business questions or comments on the amendment only Alderman Heideman thank you mayor wouldn't by eliminating the again the the ambulance service they would we'd lose the requirement for our firefighters to be paramedics they would they go back right back to fire you know one of the reasons you know I voted to lift lift the hiring freeze the first time I voted in favor of the ambulance service because I thought we were going to get better firemen okay and I guess I'm I'll support the ambulance service I'm not so crazy about expanding the service but again I thought it was a good idea to get into that business that's it but I don't want to go backwards with our qualified individuals to go back just firefighters because these are highly trained people that we you know to work for our city and again we're not looking to expand the service we're just looking to keep it going at the same level that it was going and I think it's important to note that in the last two and a half years our fire protection has not suffered because of taking on this additional service to the citizens in fact I think it's improved in the way that we operate but our fire protection has not suffered because of this thank you chief and if I'm not mistaken I believe that basically all candidates coming out of school now are certified firefighter paramedics correct it would be very hard to hire just a simple firefighter they don't train people at that level anymore it's a fire medic program and I believe I did send that information around to all the alderman thank you chief on the amendment only again under discussion the amendment is to keep all five stations open and get out of the ambulance business on the amendment alderman rindflush thank you your honor as I previously said I don't care who has the ambulance service as long as we can able to provide protection for health and property protection at a reasonable cost to tax payers with reasonable response times Carter Paulus once said as he spoke here that it's a moral issue that we should be out of the ambulance service because we should not do anything that private enterprise can do because private enterprise can do it well that's fantastic I appreciate that I'm all for probably enterprise and capitalism it's just the way that my country operates always has been and always will be I'm proud of that but now here we have a very real math private enterprise can go ahead and have it but there's really two things one we found out that we're going to have a 700,000 approximately shortfall for this year if we get rid of it immediately or next year depending on how we change that I mean there's revenues being generated that go to the city right now and two based on the discussion we had and can be the whole that no business is going to get into it for free we're going to have to subsidize an ambulance service we're going to have to pay them to do the service so on hand we're still going to have to pay the firefighters to be in existence and on the other hand we're going to have to pay we're going to have to subsidize private industry which doesn't sound like very private industry to me to take on our service so add that subsidy on top of our budget shortfall now and you get a very real picture of what's going on this isn't fuzzy math I'm also going to rely on Susie from Chicago because I don't have the numbers in front of me Susie Litko Susie Litko thank you Susie but the reality is is the revenues that we have not had to raise taxes because that revenue provided by the ambulance service without that revenue we're going to have to replace it by the raising taxes or cutting additionally and those cuts are going to be on top of what we're going to ask departments to do next year if we do this and two we're going to subsidize some kind of private industry that they can make profits for the shareholders they can make profits for the owners on the back of our taxpayers and yes I do use the word props even though the non-profit companies are the ones that currently are operating our A system in Sheboyin County that previously operated the system but to me subsidizing them on the backs of taxpayers makes absolutely no sense when I still have to pay for the firefighters to be here and pay for firefighters who are willing to sit down with us as the chief had said and look at the future and look at making long-term changes to this if we if we pass this amendment right this right now we're not going to have a partners with the fire department we are going to have to sit down in a very nasty negotiation and try to get some of things and we've given absolutely no incentive to do so to give us anything because we've already taken duties away and we're already showing that we're willing to forego our public protection and safety to do it so what incentive would they have to partner with us to fix the problem in the long-term so I ask the committee to the council to vote no on this amendment okay on the amendment only thank you Alderman Rindflesh Alderman Hanna I'd like to call the question on the amendment second calling the question second on calling the question on the amendment all in favor say aye aye opposed no Alderman Boran is opposed to calling the question on the amendment motion carries we will do a roll call vote on the amendment please would amend the resolution to read that we will lift the hiring freeze and exit the ambulance business roll call Bercy aye Boran aye Vangaman aye we got you Bauch no Bowers aye Decker no Gisha no Hammond no Hanna no Heidemann no Kath no Hillson no Montemayor no Ratke no Rimflesh no Vanderwheel no 12 noes four yeses a motion to amend fails okay we are back under discussion on passing or not passing the original original resolution for the second time President Gisha yes your honor this is my second time and I'll be brief all I'm asking for is I thought we were making some good progress at the end of the committee the whole meeting so maybe I could ask I guess this involves both you and Alderman Hannah a recap of the short-term and long-term plan and community visits for us to move toward a long-term plan could I bother the two of you to recap the ending of the roll the tape back if I recall Alderman Hannah took something I had just mentioned to him and said by the way would you like to expound on there or can I tell the people the story again I'm just looking for a recap to what we given me the opportunity to share a secret I'll do that we're very much looking at every alternative and whether that be alternatives like Eden Prairie Minnesota where they have a full-time firefighters subsidized by paid-on-call firefighters we don't know whether that's going to work for our city whether it works for a city that has a configuration the population the way ours does but everything's on the table and really just summarize it from everything I've heard from the Union leadership of the fire department they're willing to talk about everything they've been quite candid that they're not taking anything off their plate that's not saying they're going to agree to everything but we've got a group that led the way last year is step forward with some give-backs this year and next year and the mayor's going to explore some opportunities and bring those back to us and I spilled the beans and sorry yeah um thank you Alderman Hannah no if I can I am leaving Wednesday at noon time I will be driving to Minnesota visiting two cities of Minnesota one Thursday morning one Thursday afternoon and then Friday morning on the way back I'm visiting the city in Wisconsin with similar demographics to Sheboygan two Minnesota cities are suburbs of Minneapolis which have about the same populations but they do rely on the major metro area for fire support obviously the city in in Wisconsin is more of a more of an island similar to Sheboygan where they are the biggest fish in the pond so to speak these cities do have a combination of full time and paid on call firefighters truthfully that's what I would hope we can get to in the future this will take time it's not going to be something that takes a year or two years it's a transitional period which I've decided to go there myself to get the facts rather than having somebody else go and get me the facts as they want me to know them I thought it would be a the best way to do it at least I know what I'm hearing are facts I will be meeting with mayors city administrators managers fire chiefs who are more than willing to give us their history their 10 year financials and exactly how they do things my goal would be to transition over time through attrition from where we are today to something closer to that model paid on call does not mean volunteer because they are better trained and bit better paid than straight volunteers however you do not have to pay them as full time employees the way I see this is you know and I have not sat down I've mentioned it to the chief briefly I want to get the facts before we come up with the plan and we also need a plan that is agreeable obviously to the common council but also agreeable to our citizens and to our fire department a plan that we can transition into and hopefully we can come up with a plan that can be done over time not that we get people that go go get over zealous and say oh that's a great plan let's enact it tomorrow that's why if this passes this evening with some concessions from the fire department carry us through 11 the way I see it is that gives us 18 months to come up with a genuine because we will be hopefully before then but a maximum of 18 months to come up with a genuine long-term plan that can be done through attrition and not through layoffs it would be great in order to transition into this and see the guy the young guy that's on the bubble right now at the fire department 15 years from now or actually it would be the fourth guy hired I guess under the lifting the hiring freeze it would be great to see him be the junior man in the fire department 15 years from now if that would happen we would have succeeded because right now we have a plan if we can get some minor concessions that we are not opening up the gap of the of the deficit straightening out to a straight line in the idea would be to have those lines cross where we actually recognize savings but we can't get there by rhetoric we can't get there by waving the flag it's going to take a lot of cooperation it's going to take a heck of a lot of cooperation on both sides on both sides the reason I'm saying this tonight is because I have said that by December 31st I will have a plan I guarantee you it'll be long before then but I'm still keeping that December 31st date out there and I would like to like us to move forward on this as a as a common counsel you folks have been you know kicking this ball around a long time it's getting pretty worn out I'd like to see a decision made tonight and I guarantee you that I will put everything that I have into solving this problem and coming up with something that is a long-term economic solution for the citizens of the city and that will provide these services they are now accustomed to so that is my plan any further discuss