I'd like to call the 17th regular meeting of the 2016-2017 Common Council to Order. Will the clerk please read the quote for the day? Thank you, Mayor.  Tonight we have a special guest, Eagle-Skull Brandon. Similar is from Troop 801, which is affiliated with Grace Episcopal Church, is here with us to lead us in the pledge. His Eagle project was to beautify, restore, and aid in the maintenance of the grounds at the share in Richardson Hospice. He and his group restored three and stained three trellises, planted following vines, installed paving stones around each of the trellises, and cleaned and refurbished 100-plus pieces of teak wood furniture that were in the grounds. So, Brandon, please come forward and please stand to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. This is 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 very much, Brandon. Next, we'll go on to approval of the minutes from our... Did you get the roll call? Are we good? The roll call, we have 14 present. Okay, and the Alderperson Jose Holschew and Donahue are all excused. Next, we'll move on to the minutes from our last meeting. Alderperson Wolfe. Make a motion to approve. Second. Make a motion to support. Is there any discussion on those minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. There are no resignation or Mayor's appointments tonight, but under confirmation of Mayor's appointments, City Attorney. Yes, from the Mayor, submitting the following appointments for your confirmation to the Sheboygan-Squared Bidboard, Rick Scroggins, Amy Horst, Jane Davis-Wood, Eileen Simmons, William Holbrook, Paul Rudnick, Chad Paleshek, and Sarah Spicer, all for terms expiring 1231-18. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to confirm. Second. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Those are before us. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Next, we'll move on to a presentation of City Hall Alternatives by Chad Paleshek, the Director of Planning and Development. In the past, we've talked about the state and City Hall, or possibly building a new City Hall, and there's a new alternative that hasn't been presented to the public before, and thank you to Chad for putting this PowerPoint together and presenting this option. Thank you, Mayor. As soon as you guys will get these. So you can go to the next slide, Super. So what we, you can go to the next slide. So what we wanted to do today is talk about seven potential options for the County Council to consider on what to do with City Hall. The first option is to renovate City Hall for the original price, so the $11.2 million is what Bray Architects had come in with at the first stage of this project. At that time, there was a recommendation to set a budget, and the option number two, which is the $8.5 million came to fruition. So the option two is a revised option of option number one. So those are the two options that are currently stand as to renovate City Hall with the original option and the revised option. Option number three is the new option that this would be to purchase the Wisconsin Bank and Trust property, which I'll talk about shortly. Option number four is to build a new building on the north 10th and Wisconsin Avenue parcel. Option five is to build a new building on the parking lot west of Meath Public Library. Option six is to build a new building on the parking lot on South Ninth Street, and the last option is to build a new building on a parking lot east of the Pennsylvania Avenue pub on Pennsylvania Avenue. So if you go to the next slide, option number one, as you recall, this was a complete renovation of City Hall. This added that glass enclosure and a number of major updates to the building on the north side of the property for roughly $11.2 million. Next slide. So under this option, this option completely reconstructs the basement, the first, second, third, and fourth floors. It adds a new glass lobby entrance on the north side of the building, adds new stairwells and elevator, completely relocates and updates the restrooms, includes a new front driveway entrance to service the building. And one last thing, the option has minimal cost in there and we'll talk shortly about that on relocation during construction and how that would work, but we'll get into that in a little bit of detail shortly. Next slide. So option number two was the $8,464 million. This is the revised option that the committee of strategic fiscal planning asked to come back with. A revised option, they set the budget about $8 million. Bray architects at the time went back to the drawing board and looked at what could be done to do a project within that scope of service of about the $8 million to $8.3 million. So if you go to the next slide, this project involves renovation of only the first, second, and third floors. It does not include the basement and doesn't include anything on the fourth floor. It would add new stair towers on the north side of the building as well as a new elevator. However, under this plan, the elevator does not go to the fourth floor and will not service the fourth floor. The plan does not include renovating the basement and the fourth floors, and it also has minimal costs in there for relocation of the city operations during construction. So the next slide is the new option. This is option number three, which is to purchase three properties of, three parcels of property owned by Wisconsin Bank and Trust for $7,911,000. So as you can see on the map, the parcels that would be included in this purchase would be the purchase of the existing building and the parking lot to the west of the building and the parking lot to the north of the building. So it would include all the parcels Wisconsin Bank and Trust owns except for the historic properties that they own in the buildings on the corner of 8th and New York. We're like the New York on 8th Cafe used to be. If you go to the next slide. This is just showing that from the air. So you can see the build the current Wisconsin Bank and Trust building and the entire parking lots. This would be the parcel that we would purchase under this plan. This plan fulfills two identified needs. The first need is to relocate City Hall. If that option is chosen to build new and the second one is to build a downtown parking structure that would also provide some additional parking in the downtown as well as infill development opportunities in the future. Next slide. So how would this work? Under the plan, the tentative agreement with Wisconsin Bank and Trust, the bank would occupy the first floor and City Hall operations, a city department would operate also on the first floor. So the way it would be a shared space, the first floor of the building would be condoed out and it would include the Wisconsin Bank and Trust portion of about 4,000 square feet and then the remaining first floor would be a City Hall operations which would be probably an entrance, a lobby and some city department that could be the first point of contact. That would occupy about 2,600 square feet. Then city operations would operate under the second, third and possibly the fourth floor of the building. The new parking structure would be located to the west of the building and it would provide some parking for businesses that we've heard of that are interested in spanning downtown but have expressed concerns about future parking needs. It would also provide us with infill development opportunities of five adjacent parking lots that are currently surface lots and underutilized to some extent. It's also a central location for the parking structure and it's within walking distance of most of the daytime users. So if we go to the next slide, this is an artist rendering of what that building would look like. The building in blue with the first floor being green and the logo on the top would be the new City Hall shared building with Wisconsin Bank and Trust. So the green portion, the first floor of this would be the shared Wisconsin Bank and Trust operations as well as city operations and then the upper three floors would be City Hall operations. You can also see the parking structure to the west of the building. That would be between the new building and the current City Hall. That would allow for up to three floors, maybe more if needed, but three floors of additional parking in the downtown. So if you go to the next slide. This is the proposed first floor floor plan and that's why I gave you copies of this. I know it's difficult to see, but what I want to point out is you can see on the 8th Street side of this, there is the building outlined and the bank would take the northern portion under this plan of about 4,000 square feet. The City Hall would take the southern portion. There would be a shared staircase and elevator on the southeast corner of the building. You can see there are some arrows pointing there. That would be the entrance to the City Hall operations as well as an entrance from the parking structure. The bank building would be serviced off of A Street as it currently is today. Under this plan, the parking structure would have two aisles for operations for the bank in the first floor. So the ATM machine and the drive-through window would still be serviced as it is today. Just be on the first floor of the parking structure. Then there would be 30 stalls on the rest of the structure on that first floor with a number of handicapped accessibility stalls. And that would service both the bank and the City Hall operations. People that would be parking in these stalls then would enter on the entrance to the west. Enter into that southern kind of the southwest entrance where that arrow is. And then come either to the first floor and talk with whoever is, whatever department is there, probably the City Clerk's Office. Or go up to the upper floors for service of other departments. If you go to the next slide, this is the proposed second story floor plan. The City Hall would occupy that entire floor plan of about 7,600 gross square feet. There is 44 parking stalls in this floor with the up and down ramps as shown. Next slide. Is that it? Is that it? Third and fourth? Yep. Okay. So this is the third and fourth floors. This would be the same as the second floor. There would be, except more parking, 52 stalls on these floors. And the same would be City Hall floors three through four. There would be about 7,600 square feet of space. Next slide. So under this plan, the City is currently obtaining consultants to commission a parking study to confirm the location and the size of the parking garage. This information will be available mid to late January. So under the previous floor plans, it's about 184 parking stalls on that, in those floors. The parking study and the results of that recommendation by the consultant will determine if that's sufficient or if there would need to be additional stalls considered. And there could be another deck put on the top of it. As I stated before, the entrance to City Hall would occur in the southeast corner of the proposed building. The total square foot of the new building would be around 25,400 square feet. Each floor is approximately 7,600 gross feet. So under the plan, the revised plan that Bray put together, the renovation of the first, second, and third floors of this building are about 25,368 square feet. So this is very comparable and similar in size to what was planned under the revised plan with the Bray architects. The building could be developed with a fifth floor for future operations, or it could be designed to allow for additional floor to be added in the future. So this is another option that could be considered if we're worried about future expansion and expansion of the City Hall and the next City Hall operations in the next 30 years or so. We could design this building such similar to the library construction where at the library a fourth floor could be added. This could be a fifth floor or we could bid it out to see what the price would be to build it as is needed now and not necessarily utilize it until a later date. And the school district has done some of this stuff with their previous building additions where they build it now and then they occupy it at a later time. This also allows the City Hall operations to stay in the current building until the new building is complete with no relocation costs. The real issue that is yet to be determined and there's been a lot of discussion about is where does City Hall operations go for a year when this building is being reconstructed. There's been talk about staying in the building and trying to do half of the building and keeping operations here while that happens. There was talk about moving out and going into some other locations, other city-owned buildings. We've had internal discussion about that. I think other than building out the garage at public works and maybe a little bit at engineering, there's not a lot of available space to go in. So the relocation costs could range from anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000. And that's based on if we have to go out and find office space and lease office space. If we were going to look at a downtown office building to lease office space, the average rate of office space downtown is about $13 a square foot. We might be able to negotiate something down to maybe $10 a square foot, but for our square footage needs, it's $250,000 a month in rent to rent. And we still have to set it up for a whole year for operations with IT and phone and the operations that we use here, how to City Hall moving the server, all of that kind of stuff for one year. So it could get very costly if we can't find an operation, a place to go within existing buildings, as well as even if we do stay in existing buildings and we go into some of the City Hall, other city operation buildings, we still have to deal with the technology needs and trying to get that set up in a different location. So the range is roughly between $100,000 and $500,000 and that may be on the low end. If you go to the next slide. So what we did is we looked at the downtown parking structure at the Wisconsin Bank and Trust site and said, what would it look like if we did a 500 foot buffer around this property? So the orange or red bubble on here shows what a block and a half walking distance would be. And the block and a half walking distance came from talking to a couple of the major employers in the downtown that have expressed interest in expanding and how far they would allow their employees to walk under second and third shift operations in the winter. That's about 500 feet. So when you look at citing this at the Wisconsin Bank and Trust site, you can see that it includes the northern part of it is the library. The eastern part of it is 7th Street up to about the Art Center. And then down to Penn Avenue and west, it includes the post office, which has had numerous parking needs for a while, as well as the redevelopment of the Social Security Building that's currently empty at 606 North 9th Street or directly west of City Hall. They are potentially putting that building up at an auction and so there will probably be some redevelopment happening at that site. So when you look at this, this is the 500 foot buffer. You can see the spots where there's potentially infill development that could occur and bring in additional tax space by centralizing the parking and getting it into a structure and redeveloping in those lots. One property that's not shown on this map is the property directly north of the Wisconsin Bank and Trust building. So as part of the purchase of the bank building and the demolition for the new building, it would open up an opportunity for development on that parking lot between the current Wisconsin Bank building and the building on the corner of 8th of New York, of which we've had some discussion with potential development inquiries related to that. So next slide. I know this is difficult to read, but this really lays out the costs as we see options one through seven today. So option one is the original renovation project and that was a prop project that was about 11.1 million if you add around 250,000 for temporary relocation. You're looking at about 11.3 million. Option number two is the revised renovation plan of City Hall. That was estimated with the relocation of about 250,000 at about 8.6 million. Option three, the difference with option three is it brings in some opportunities to gain some revenues. So under the plan, the sale of excess land, which would be parcels, the parcel to the north of the Wisconsin Bank and Trust, the assumption was made that that could maybe be sold for 125,000. The sale of the land under the parking structure to the parking utility is around 100,000. And the sale of City Hall because we'll be in a new building and this can become potentially market rate. Housing is about 300,000. So the revenues generated from that is about 525,000. If we compare that to the construction of the new project at about 8.4 million, the net project cost estimate is about $7.98 million. One other note is the leverage annual property taxes line that's shown on here at about 620,000 includes the parcels that could be redeveloped and put on the tax roll that are currently parking lots and some assumptions on what those development costs may be. So the 620,000 is the upper end of what could be generated in additional property taxes under that option. Option number four, the 10th in Wisconsin site, there would be a revenue of the sale of City Hall at $300,000. There would be the construction at about 8.3 million and really the two numbers here is unknowns are the environmental remediation at $500,000. We had a development planned for that about three years ago and the remediation at that time was 1.1 million. That was under residential housing. We'd have to have some dialogue with the DNR to see if the cost for environmental remediation would be less given the fact that this is a government commercial building and there's not the same requirements as there is for residential. However, we put a number of $500,000 in there. We also put a number of $250,000 added to the renovation construction budget because the original plan that Bray did did not include a parking lot and we estimated that at about $250,000. So all in with that project and the revenues expenses is about $8 million. It would generate around $259,000 in taxes and that would be based on City Hall coming onto the tax rolls as a redeveloped adaptive reuse building. The Mead public library option is the same thing. It's $7,054,000 in that project expense with the same of about $260,000 in taxes. Option six, the Ninth Street parking lot. That is the parking lot. I'll show you shortly. South Ninth Street on the Swing Street. That project has a net project cost of about $7 million. And building the new City Hall between the former, the current Jimmy John's Strip Center and the Pennsylvania Avenue Pub Building would be a project cost of about $6.9 million. So if you go to the next slide, this is kind of a bubble diagram of what the Bray architects had put together. This is the North 10th Street and Wisconsin Avenue project at $8 million. And this at one time had proposed a location for a future fire station if that decision was ever made that a new station was made. But it would occupy an administration building that would be three stories as well as a public area that would serve the public and the model that Bray architects was trying to get to where you kind of segregated out the public from normal administration operations. And then have a parking lot to the north. Next slide. This one would be the parking lot west of the Meade Public Library. So this would be basically continuing this kind of lining up around the fountain, if you will. The building would sit on the northwest corner of the property. It would have a public area in the front, administration in the back. It would be two stories. The challenge under this option is that if this one moves forward, there's going to be very limited parking at the library. And we're really going to have to look at a parking structure or some sort of parking maximizing at that property to make up the loss of the stalls that are going to be taken as part of the development. So a parking structure would have to be considered at that location as well. Option number six is the parking lot north of South Ninth Street. So this is the one-way street going south if you came from right over here at Pennsylvania and Ninth. This is kind of an awkward, this is a city-owned parking lot and it was considered because it's city-owned, but it's kind of an awkward operation because the front entrance would be only on a one-way street. And it would really primarily be served by the alleys that go through the parking lot. And it really doesn't give any kind of real feel for the front of the building and where the front of the area is. So there's some challenges with that, but the administration building would be three stories. The public area would be one story. And then it would use the existing parking lot that's to the north between the multi-tenant strip center where Jimmy John's is in the Penn Avenue pub. Next slide. Under this plan, so this would be putting a building into the area that I just talked about. The parking lot right off of Pennsylvania Avenue between the Penn Avenue pub and the Jimmy John's building for lack of better words. This would be a one-story public area, two-story administration area. This building poses some challenges too. There's not a lot of room to work with in this area. Parking close by is very limited. It would utilize the parking lot where the previous option had been laid out as the main parking and be serviced. It would have some visibility on Penn Avenue. Pennsylvania Avenue is part of the plan, but it's really as in the building uses committee squished in here and probably makes more sense for a commercial development than it does for a governmental development. So that was a comment that came out of building use. This is the last and final option that's on the table as part of the seven options. So if you go to the next slide. Questions. If you've got questions. Before we start questions, I'd just like to let you know that I reviewed the operational rules that you approved at the beginning of the year. I found that I've been much too liberal in allowing people to speak to a question. Those rules called for you to address the chair twice and ask two questions under one item. So tonight we're going to start doing that. So I just wanted to give you a little heads up. And when the council turns over, if that's working okay, you can approve those rules that way, or you could change them and allow for more questions per older person. So with that, anyone have any questions before you go to questions. Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that later on the agenda, there's a document and RO from the city administrator and myself. And that's being referred to the building use committee that outlines these options in more detail. And that will be the document that can go to the committees. The thought at the discussion last week at building use was that this document would come in and they would come out with either a recommendation or some pros and cons and send it back to the common council. And then it could be referred to the committee the whole of the council. So chose before the final decision is made. So there's been interest in public dialogue on this. This presentation will be available on the city's website tomorrow morning for the public to see as well. Thank you, Jed. City administrator. Just for clarification, you identified a dollar amount of $13 a square foot with the amount of square feet that the city is considering that $13 is an annualized rate. Not a monthly rate. So it's roughly $330,000 a year. Okay. The city would incur lease costs. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no questions, we'll move on. Thank you very much, Jed. Is there any public forum? Under Mayor's announcements, a couple of items I'd like to remind the public of number one, winter overnight parking rules are in effect. And we want to remind people to park for tomorrow. So whatever the day is, even or odd, that'll guide which side of the street you park on. And then we have a few holiday things. Shoreline Metro is running their jingle bus tour of the lights. So that will leave the drop off area here in front of city hall every night between one bus will leave at six and next will leave at seven. And those are going to be available every Thursday and Tuesday till Christmas. And you're also asked to bring a food item along. When you go through the lights display at the Rotary Lights project and making spirits bright is also available and getting great interest by the public. One night I've heard they've had over a thousand cars that have gone through. So that's looking very good. And that, again, is going to be every night from five o'clock to nine o'clock. They will be closed December 24th and they will end on New Year's Eve. And then we also have the city holiday lights display at the water feature next to the Meade library. And when you view that, if you want to tune into 87.7 FM, you can listen to the music that's in sync with the lights. Okay, next we'll go on to the consent agenda that will include items 2.3 through 2.17. Alderman Bellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I'd request a poll 2.11 for a separate vote. Okay, we'll take care of that division of the question then first item 2.11 is an RC by finance who was referred resolution number 128 of 1617 by Alderman person Wolf authorizing the appropriate city official to enter into an intergovernmental cooperative agreement with Sheboygan County for the sales tax revenue sharing for transportation infrastructure and maintenance and recommends that the resolution be passed. Need a motion to approve? Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. I would move to pass the resolution. Second. Thank you for that motion and support under discussion. All those, are you going to speak to that? Alderperson Bellinger. Thank you, Mayor. This is the agreement that's been handed down to us from the county, imposing their will on us saying that we have to abide by their rules in order for us to get our meager $412,000 as part of the county sales tax that they passed and imposed upon the residents of the city, Again, 49% of the county population resides in the city. The county's gonna generate roughly $10 million from this. Basically half of that or more is gonna be generated from businesses or residents from the city, yet we're only getting $412,000 from this. We've got 200 miles of our own streets and roads that have the most heavily traveled volume within the county. And again, with the wisdom of the county administrator and the county board supervisors, we're only getting $412,000. So I would just like to voice my disgust with this agreement and the equalized value calculation that has nothing to do with sales tax revenue generation and how they came up with this figure and implore the or request the mayor and the city administrator to continue dialogue with the county administrator and see if he will eventually see the light and find it in his heart to see that the condition of the city does reflect on the county in the streets and the roads and it would be in their best interest to have something that would be more beneficial and positive towards the city, seeing as the majority of the revenue is coming out of the city. It's a gross redistribution of tax dollars and it's completely, it's unfair to the residents of the city who are bearing the burden of this. So thank you. And I'm sorry. And with that, reluctantly, I'm gonna vote in favor of it because if we don't pass it, we don't get anything. And it is what it is, but I just want to go on the record and voice my disgust and displeasure with it, hopefully that we can get it amended in some fashion so it's more equitable to the residents of the city. Thank you. Alderperson Donahue. And I just want to emphasize what Alder Bellinger just said that if we don't vote in favor of this, I assume we will not get the money. So it would be in our best interest at this point for everyone to cast an aye vote. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on 2.12 or 2.11 rather. So I just lost my screen, I vote aye. And Scott, I don't have you either. I'll vote aye. 13 ayes, one no, and one abstention. Motion passes. Next we'll go on to the remainder of the consent agenda, 2.2 through 2.7 minus 2.11. Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, Mayor, with that omission, I move to accept and file all reports of officers, accept and adopt all reports of committees and pass all resolutions and ordinances. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on other items on the consent agenda? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll. 14 ayes, one no. Motion passes. Next we'll move on to reports of officers, items 3.1 through 3.3 will be referred to various committees. Under resolutions, 4.1 is a resolution by Alderperson Donahue, Bellinger, Thiel, and Wolf authorizing changes in the committee structure effective April of 2017 and April of 2018. Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, Mayor, I move to put the resolution upon its passage. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll. 15 ayes. Motion passes. Item 4.2 is a resolution by Alderperson Wolf authorizing entering into an agreement with advanced disposal related to tipping costs for contaminated fill from the Portscape apartment project. Alderperson Wolf. Thank you, Mayor. Make a motion to suspend. Second. Thank you for that motion to suspend. Is there any objections to suspension? Would you please explain why Alderperson Wolf? Yes, I would like to ask Chad to come up and explain. Thank you. When we negotiated the agreement with South Pier Sheboygan LLC, the developer of the apartments that are under construction at South Pier, we were under the assumption that the entire South Pier district was properly capped as part of an environmental remediation site. That was not the case when they dug into the area between Fisherman's Row and Illinois Avenue, this long strip. There was no cap in that area. We've done extensive research to understand what happened 17 years ago, of why that maybe hadn't been kept and we haven't come up with any real decisions. So in meetings with Attorney Adams and myself and the city administrator, it was decided that these are costs that the city is probably responsible for in the fact that the developer was under the assumption that there was properly a clay cap in that area and they wouldn't have any environmental fill to deal with. When they started scraping the piles off and found this fill, they immediately contacted us and provided us with information on what they believed the cost to be. So this really is allowing, they need this work to happen this week because the otherwise construction is gonna stop on the half completed row of 20 unit properties. This under the next document would be a TIF eligible expense under TIF six. We're assuming the price, the cost to be about 75,000. We negotiated a deal with the advanced disposal landfill to use it as daily cover at $33 a ton versus waste management's estimate of about $60 a ton. So we've got the best deal we can and to keep construction moving forward, we're asking for a suspension of the rules of both this document and the transfer of appropriations, which is the next document. Thank you very much with that. Is there any objection to suspension? Seeing none, please proceed with a motion. Alderperson Wolff. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to pass the resolution. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Under discussion, Alderperson Bellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Maybe Chad, if you wanna come back up here, I just have a question as to what the extent of the rest of the properties on South Pier that are uncapped for future development, are we gonna run into this again or do we know what we're working with or what's limited, what's capped and what's not? If you could just explain that. So they started on construction on the first group of buildings was on the 1.72 acre parcel, which is the parcel to the north of this. They ran into a little bit of contamination, not a ton. And it really was when they dug underneath the cap. So that area was properly capped. When we've developed all along the river, that area was properly capped. They have done soil borings on the other two parcels phase two of next year. So it's our assumption at this stage that that area should be properly capped. We're not sure why this area wasn't, but when we developed this in 2000, Panterre was standing. And if there was some thought at that time that maybe this area would never develop and that's why there wasn't done. I don't know, we can't find any information. We even went to a previous public works director to ask him what he thought and he didn't really have any recollection, but going forward we believe that the other properties will not have a problem. Go ahead. Do we have any legal recourse to go after whoever did the original work to? Potentially we do. The problem is we have to determine what the problem is and who we would go after. At this point we don't have sufficient information to even do that. There's nobody to sue. Now I'm, we can continue to investigate and if something, you know, if we have additional information and it turns out that there's a contractor who didn't properly cap it, didn't follow the contract, potentially we could take action because it's a newly discovered matter. Is that what's going to be the direction that's gonna take, that we're gonna continue to look into it? I guess I would hope we would. Yeah, I mean, I can't speak to that because I don't know the answer to that. I know that there are some real, there are going to be some real difficulties proving, you know, if we are able to find somebody, there may be some difficulties in proof. At this point we have no evidence that we can link it to anybody in particular. In fact, if, you know, and unless we can determine that there was somebody who actually acted negligently or didn't follow the contract, there's not much we can do. That doesn't mean the story's over, but... And that will be determined and looked into? That'll be determined and looked into as far as I'm aware. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll for passage? 12 ayes, three noes. Motion passes. Item 4.3 is a resolution by elder person Wolf, authorizing a transfer of appropriation and 2016 budget to establish appropriation for a vinyl mental remediation cost related to the Portscape Apartment Project. Alder person Wolf. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to suspend. Second. Is there any objection to suspension? Seeing none, please proceed. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to pass the resolution. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? 13 ayes, two noes. Motion passes. Items 4 through 4.9 will be referred to various committees under reports of committees. 5.1 is an RC by law and licensing to whom is referred our own number 140 of 1617 by the city clerk submitting various license applications. Recommends that denying the beverage operator's license number 1525 based upon her failure to accurate reveal of relevant convictions on her application, her record of violations related to the licensed activity, and her record as a repeat law offender and her failure to cooperate with the committee.  Thank you, Mayor. We wanted to ask if Chante and Harris is here tonight by chance. We did ask Ms. Harris to join us twice. We gave her two opportunities and we did not receive commitment back from her. So as a committee, we'd like to move that the report be accepted and adopted. Thank you for that motion and support. That's before us. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? 15 ayes. Motion passes. Item 5.2 will be referred to the committee of the whole. Under ordinances, 6.1 will be referred to public protection and safety. Next we'll move on to other matters, city attorney. 7.1 is an RO by the city administrator and the director of planning and development. Submitting a summary of options regarding renovating the current city hall or constructing a new city hall. That'll be referred to the building use committee. 7.2 is a resolution by Alder person Wolf, determining a maximum bid on a property auction for 606 North 9th Street. That'll be referred to the finance committee. 7.3 is an RO by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending December 31, 2017. June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018. That'll be referred to the law and licensing committee. Next we'll move on to adjournments. Alder person Donahue. I move to adjourn. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you for your time tonight. Wow.


This study found that vaccination rates were lower in municipalities with higher shares of first-generation immigrants and those with more votes for the anti-establishment political party Sweden Democrats. The authors suggest that these results may be due to lower levels of trust in institutions and language barriers. This article was authored by Ellis Carlberg Larsson, Emanuel Whitberg and Suzanne Wallman-Lundeson.


Hello.  Good morning. My name is Michael Coyle. I'm the Global Container Lead for Accenture's AWS Business Group. Pleasure to be here with you guys today to talk a little bit about designing the multi-tenancy strategy for your organization. With me, I have Naveen from Reface Systems, my colleague and esteemed partner. So today we're going to get into a little bit about what multi-tenancy is and what it means for your enterprise organization. As the Global Container Lead, I work with numerous large enterprises, Fortune 100 companies, a lot in the financial services industry, a lot in the insurance industry. And these organizations are looking for specific things. They're looking to save money. They're looking to manage their resources effectively. They're also looking to reduce complexity. So where are we on the slide here? Okay. So use cases for multi-tenancy. Let's get into that a little bit. What are the things that we consider when we're looking at it from an organization that trusts its neighbors? It has applications that are running in a dedicated cluster that has numerous components. It could be shared services. It could be APIs. It could be a front-end component. So you trust your neighbors. That's one of the reasons we see our enterprise customers using multi-tenancy clusters. What are your data requirements? I can't see that. Your data is extorted externally, so you're using RDS. You're not keeping stable sets in there. That makes your data privacy concerns reduced inside the tenants, right? These are teams small. Reducing complexity helps development teams, operational teams keep their complexity at a minimum, right? There's not a bunch of different clusters that need to be upgraded. There's not a bunch of different DevOps pipelines matching all these different clusters. Our cost is a significant factor, right? How many clusters do you need to manage? How many different types of nodes do you have? How many different applications are being deployed to these clusters? Is there a need for effective resource utilization, right? Maximizing your available resources in a multi-tenant cluster allows better cost management. What about regulatory or audit compliances? Do you have concerns about data privacy? If you have a consumer-facing application, right? Is it public-facing on the Internet? There's a security concern right there. What do you require minimal customization? Do you need to have different kernel aspects? Do you need to talk to the cluster API? Do you need to do other internal cluster operations? Let's get into a little bit about hard versus soft cluster security concerns, right? A soft cluster, soft multi-tenancy. This is typically what we see in our enterprise customers. They trust their neighbors. They have applications that way. They don't have to worry about people trying to probe and attack their application layer. They can focus more on uptime and preventing issues, outages, then you have hard multi-tenancy where you have public-facing application. This is good for service providers offering service to public consumers or adversarial tenants with no different types of users, no relation to each other. They could be trying to sign up your service and probe around, see what's going on inside the cluster, see if your tenants have any vulnerabilities. They're consistently exposed to many bad actors trying to exploit their systems, and they focus on securing systems that isolate each tenant from threat vectors. But these terms are a little vague and they could be a broad spectrum of different things, right? So there's no real sure definition for hard versus soft multi-tenancy. Some of the patterns we have, right? Namespace is not shared clusters. They're created on demand for applications or platform teams. Application or platform teams may own singular multiple applications or microservices. Share services is a typical pattern we see as well. They're consumed by individual application owners and are typically seen on multi-tenant clusters, workspaces on shared clusters. Self-service experience for application teams, the ability to create namespaces within specific constraints, and dedicated node pools with shared cluster for guaranteed resource allocations. State-of-the-laps potentially noisy neighbors, isolated platform stacks, and then we have the virtual cluster. Virtual clusters are kind of neat, right? Applications need cluster-wide privileges for development and validation. They have separate APIs and data stores for isolation of all objects within the virtual cluster. And you can have a shared platform stack for certifications, policy enforcement, ICOs, secrets management and monitoring. And then you can also do simulations. Simulations for testing new tools, ingress, or alpha k8s distributions. With that, I'm going to hand this over to Naveen and he's going to take over. Thanks, Michael. What I'm going to do is cover some of the architectural slash operational considerations when you're implementing multi-tenancy. I'm going to be talking more about the concepts, not going to get into the solution. And I'm also going to call out some of the common tools that are available to solve each of the challenges, implementation challenges when you're looking at multi-tenancy. Okay, the first one is the host cluster. So cluster could be running on-premise, cluster could be running in the cloud. So you'll have to build the multi-tenance stack in such a manner that the solution works across any cluster type. Because the last thing you want to do is build something custom to a particular environment and realize that you have to migrate clusters to another environment and you have to rebuild the stack all over again. So this is an important consideration to keep in mind when looking at some of the concepts around multi-tenancy. The second thing is self-service. A couple of speakers already mentioned about this. An important aspect to think about is what kind of self-service do you want to implement? Do you want to implement self-service at all? And if yes, what shape and form should it be? As an example, you have to think about the self-service interface. Is this going to be backstage? Is it going to be a CMDB? So you have to think about all of those aspects as well. And if you're going to be providing namespace as a service, how are your users going to create namespace? How are you going to make sure that they don't have cluster-wide privileges? So those are the aspects that you need to think about when implementing multi-tenancy and also enable a self-service model. Next one is control access. When you think about control access at a very high level, you can distill it into three pieces. The first piece is how do you wire up your identity provider? Because your identity provider is a source of truth. Depending on the group associations that a particular user has, you want to make sure that the user has associated permissions access to the cluster. So this is a critical piece. So you have to think about how you're going to integrate your identity provider. And the second piece is managing the Kubernetes RBAC itself. So what kind of privileges do you want these users to have? As an example, for a developer, you may want to provide full access to a test cluster, but then for production environments, maybe you want to allow them to only spawn spots, get list, watch, delete parts, but not do anything else. So how do you do it at scale? How do you do it across many different clusters that you have? And also the life cycle associated with it, right? As in when user changes group membership or user is no longer part of the company. So you don't want, you want to make sure that there's nothing stale on, on those clusters. And the third piece is the access piece itself. How do you enable your users to securely access your cluster? They could be working from home. They could be working out of a cafe. How do you make sure that they can access clusters across your on-prem environments and running in the cloud in a consistent manner? So very high level three things, right? So identity provider, wiring it up with your access. Second is managing the Kubernetes RBAC itself at scale. And the third is enabling secure access. A CNCF project that helps you do this is called Palace. So it makes it easy to kind of manage RBAC at scale across many clusters and also enable the secure model for access to clusters. The next thing to think about is tenant isolation. I feel that this topic has been beaten to death already. Namespaces by default are not isolated in Kubernetes environments. So as and when you create namespaces, you have to figure out how do you kind of attach the required network policies. And if a particular team or application shares or has multiple namespaces, so you want to make sure that those namespaces can communicate with each other. A general problem that we see is so every cluster has a bunch of what I call a system namespaces where your security tooling may be running, maybe observity tooling, etc. And you want these user namespaces where the applications are running to communicate with them, but then the user namespaces themselves need to be isolated. So you'll have to think about it in conjunction with all the other policies that you want to implement for the cluster itself and arrive at a standard mechanism for doing it. Some of you may also have the need to make sure that when auditors ask for information on whether the necessary controls are in place across your clusters, so you're able to provide evidence. So the other important thing to consider is how do you make sure that you have those mechanisms in place. And the last thing is resource quotas. Absolutely important so that the application teams don't step on each other and you don't have a problem where one rogue team or application ends up disturbing or bothering the other applications that are sharing the cluster. Net-net, make sure that you have the necessary network policies in place to make sure that you have the right evidence, etc. capturing that the necessary controls are in place. And third thing is always remember to enforce resource quotas because these are going to be critical when you implement a multi-tenant model for your application teams. The next one is policy enforcement. Of course, there are certain policies that you want to enforce from a security and operational efficiency standpoint, but for multi-tenancy clusters, you also have to think about the ecosystem. An example is, let's say you have a security tool, right? And the security tool flags a container as vulnerable. So one of the things that a security team may want to do is find out which team or which application this belongs to. And usually they look at namespace and if you have the necessary namespace labels configured in an appropriate manner, it's easy for them to close the loop. It's easy for them to figure out who do I need to reach out to in order to remediate the vulnerability. Another use case is chargebacks. Doing it on the basis of namespace labels becomes a lot more easier, especially if applications have namespaces across multiple clusters or you have a paradigm where you want to figure out the cost for both your test environments and your production environments and they're all over the place and you want a consistent way of figuring out how much does a particular application cost. So another example is there are other tools that could rely on namespace labels to enable role-based access. You could have like an observatory tool that looks at the namespace labels that the user has access to and accordingly grants access to logs. So these are some of the ecosystem considerations that you have to think about because in a dedicated cluster model, you can basically say, hey, yeah, as a user you have access to everything on the cluster, but in a multi-tenant model, you have to think about every single ecosystem solution that's going to impact how users operate. The next thing is in terms of violations, policy violations, you could be using OPA gatekeeper or Kaivano, how do you make sure that they centralize visibility and how do you make sure that your end users, developers have access to those violations but only for violations that are against their namespaces because if they don't have access, they have no clue what's going on and some of you, part of the platform team, you need to be following up with them to kind of remediate those violations against resources that are already on the cluster or if some of the actions are getting blocked, you have to handhold them and tell them what they need to be doing. So it's very important to think about how we're going to expose information on violations to your end users when you're implementing policies. And the last thing is you want to shift things to the left as much as possible because you don't want to like find out issues at the time of deployment. Next thing is chargeback, showback, and cost optimization. This is very critical because the primary driver for implementing multi-tency is cost reduction, right? And if you don't double down and then further ensure that the applications are running in a cost efficient manner, then all the work that you've done, all the other necessary controls that you had to actually put in place, it isn't really worth it. So from a chargeback, showback standpoint, of course a prerequisite for this is to make sure that you have Prometheus stack or something along those lines to collect granular utilization metrics from the cluster. But once you have that, you have to think about how you're going to construct your chargeback models. Is it going to be based on namespaces? Is it going to be based on a combination of namespace and cluster labels? So that's the first thing that you'll have to figure out because you have to do this at the beginning, even before implementing multi-tency. Otherwise, you're going to be force fitting solutions later on. The second piece is unallocated resources, right? Obviously, there are costs that someone has to pay. Ultimately, the numbers need to add up. So how do you share the cost for unallocated resources in your clusters across many teams, many applications that are sharing the cluster? There's another thing to think about. And also, you're going to have common services. I mentioned about security tooling, observatory tooling. There's cost for running some of those tools, right? And you have to figure out a model for sharing the costs for those as well. And the last thing is you can consolidate non-cubinitis costs and personal costs, et cetera. So from a chargeback, showback standpoint, there are multiple steps involved. So you need to kind of understand and appreciate all of these nuances as you're kind of implementing your chargeback slash showbacks. And in terms of optimization, there are two different parameters or vectors that you need to consider. One is cluster efficiency. And the second is the namespace slash application efficiency. Let's take the first one, cluster efficiency. What does it really mean? So you're basically looking at how much unallocated capacity you have in the cluster. The more the unallocated capacity, it means the cluster is less efficient. And you have to figure out what are the tools. So what is it that you need to do? The answer could be reducing the number of nodes, switching to a different node instance, implementing tooling such as carpenters. So it could be anything, right? But as a starting point, you need a good appreciation of metrics for your clusters, the utilization metrics, so that you can figure out what you need to be doing. The second thing is, so once you've taken care of cluster efficiency piece, you have a process in place. The second thing to think about is your namespace and application efficiencies. So here you have a different way of measuring it. So how much are you allocating or based on resource requests? What is the utilization? So if the utilization as a percentage of requests is a low number, then it means that you have a problem. And this is a very common problem that we've seen in customer environments where application teams, they arrive at a number and usually that's a very suboptimal number. So how do you kind of have a process in place where maybe the application teams have access to their utilization metrics and you expect them to go course correct? Or you need to think about other solutions, whether it's HPA, VPA, anything else. And one of the other major considerations is, how do you make sure that you go back in time? Because you don't want to make resizing versions based on data for the last five minutes or an hour, even a day. So you'd want to go back a couple of weeks and look at the metrics over a period of time before arriving at a sensible number for resource requests and limits. So these are some of the aspects that you have to think about. And it has to be a recurring ongoing process. Of course, the first time you do it, you're probably going to see more of a benefit. But then, subsequent times, it's important to keep the process going because you don't want to kind of get to a point where everything is working efficiently and then things break down. So you'll have to think about how you kind of make sure that there are systems in place, there are processes in place to ensure that your systems are running efficiently. That was it. Any questions we are open to questions now? You mentioned a tool for RBAC management across multiple clusters. What was the name of that tool for the access control? Yeah, it's a parallelist, P-A-R-A-L-U-S. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? No, thank you so much.