I'll call the order of the November 5th council meeting to read the course, please. Thank you, Mayor. The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter and if I may, I'd just like to read a couple of things on our agenda. Reminding everybody, tomorrow is election day. Our polls open at 7 in the morning, close at 8 at night. And one thing, if you have a chance, take a moment to say thanks to the poll workers for all they do for the city of Sheboygan. They would appreciate it greatly. Thank you. Thank you very much. Will the clerk call the roll, please? Maybe a little slower tonight because things aren't working exactly as they should, so. It's modern technology. Modern technology and our bosses in Michigan, Nebraska or somewhere. Okay, like I said, it's not working well. Okay. Let's do it the old fashioned way. Hey. Melanger. Here. Corum. Here. Carlson. Here. Decker. Here. Sorry. Here. Donahue. Here. Hammond. Here. Heidemann. Here. Koth. Here. Ossard. Here. Lewandowski. Here. Madicek. Here. Brasler. Here. Heidemann. Heidemann. Leadis. The pledge. Pleasure. A deal for the 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. Alderman Hammond, approval of the minutes. Thank you. I move to approve the minutes of the previous council meeting. Second. I've been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the previous council meeting. Is there any changes or discussion. Discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion carried Appointments there's none confirmation of the mayor's appointment Members of the council hereby submit the following appointment for your consideration Amy Horst to be considered for appointment to the redevelopment Authority to fill the unexpired term of Mark Miller whose term expires for 28 2014 signed by the mayor Lemon Hammond move to confirm second it's been moving seconded to confirm the appointments Is there any discussion? Clerk will call the roll Bellinger. Hi, Warren. Hi, Carlson. Hi, Decker. Hi, Donahue. Hi, Hammond. Hi, Heidemann. Hi, Codd. Hi, Wissard. Hi Lewandowski. Hi, Maddachak. Hi, Racler. Hi, Van Akron. Hi, Vanderwheel. Hi, Bursey. Hi, Wongamon. Hi 16. Motion carried public forum tonight. None. Moving on. Mayor's now Announcements again just reminding everybody to get out and vote tomorrow very important To one a hearing amending the zoning map to a change of property proposed lot one South of Washington Avenue Frontage Road Any persons wishing to be heard Any persons wishing to be heard and any persons wishing to be heard Alderman Hammond Thank You. Mr. Mayor. I move to close the hearing It's been moved and seconded to close the hearing all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye opposed motion carries 3 1 through 3 13 the consent agenda Alderman Hammond Thank You. Mr. Mayor. I move to accept and file all our O's accept and adopt all our C's and pass all resolutions I can it's been moved and seconded to accept and file our all our O's Accept all our C's and pass all resolutions. Is there any discussion on one Three one through three thirteen Hearing none the clerk will call the roll. Warren. Hi Carlson. Hi, Decker. Hi, Donahue. Hi, Hammond. Hi, Heidemann. Hi Cot. Hi, Lissard. Hi, Lewandowski. Hi, Nadecek. Hi, Racler. Hi, Van Akron. Hi, Vanderweal. Hi, Hersey. Hi, Wongamon. Hi, Bellinger. Hi, 16 The other way is so much easier For one a communication from Mary Burkart requesting that she be able to Present a unique issue regarding her seniority Alderman Racler. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. I move that we accept and file second. It's been moved seconded communication be accepted and filed Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye Opposed Motion carries reports of officers 5 1 submitting a From the city clerk in the LTC tax levy report will lie over five two lies over Five threes through five thirteen Will be referred Six one we will hold for eight one Eight six two six three and six four all will lie over six Five through six seven will be referred Seven one report from law and licensing Recommending denying taxi license numbers seven nine seven one seven alderman Vanderweal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Move the RC be accepted and adopted second It's been moved and seconded that the RC be accepted and adopted under discussion Alderman Vanderweal. Is Reina Flores here tonight? She's not here we invited her to our meeting twice and neither time to show up Is there any other discussion? Clerk will call the roll Carlson. Hi, Decker. Hi Hammond. Hi, DeMond. Hi, Scott. Hi, Lassard. Hi, Lewandowski. Hi, Maticek Racler. Hi, Ben Akron. Hi, Vanderweal. Hi, Bursi. Hi, Wongamon. Hi, Bellinger. Hi, and Boren. Hi, 16 Motion carries seven to a report of long from law and licensing recommending denying taxi owners license 9719 Alderman Vanderweal. I move with the RC be accepted and adopted It's been moved and seconded that the RC be accepted and adopted under discussion Alderman Vanderweal. Is Marcus Newton here this evening He's not here. The committee voted five to zero to deny his license based on the His lengthy record as well as the police recommendation Is there any other discussion? Hearing none the clerk will call the roll. Decker. Hi Donahue. Hi, Hammond. Hi, DeMond. Hi, Scott. Hi, Lassard. Hi, Lewandowski. Hi, Maticek. Hi, Racler. Hi, Van Van Akron. Hi, Vanderweal. Hi, Bursi. Hi, Wongamon. Hi, Bellinger. Hi, Boren. Hi, and Carlson. Hi 16 Motion carries seven through from report of from long law licensing recommending denying taxi drivers license 9707 The RC be accepted and adopted It's been moved and seconded that the RC be accepted and adopted under discussion Alderman Vanderweal. Is Paul Phil here this evening He's not here. We didn't invite him to our meeting twice and he did not appear Is there any other discussion? Hearing none the clerk will call the roll. Donahue. Hi, Hammond. Hi, DeMond. Hi, Scott. Hi, Lassard. Hi, Lewandowski. Hi, Maticek. Hi, Racler. Hi, Van Akron. Hi, Hi Vanderweal. Hi, Bursi. Hi, Wongamon. Hi, Bellinger. Hi, Boren. Hi, Carlson. Hi, and Decker. Hi, 16 Motion carried seven for report from law and licensing recommending denying beverage opera Raiders license 9756 Alderman Vanderweal. I think I moved the RC be accepted and adopted It's been moved and seconded that the RC be accepted and adopted under discussion. Is Brittany Henry here this evening She is here. The committee had voted three to two to deny her license She had a 2009 disorderly conduct and a pending 2012 serving a minor It was her first night actually carting someone and also her third night on the job I guess we hear from her for the rest Thank you Would the applicant like to speak please? Can you please give us your name and address for the record, please? Okay, Brittany Henry my address is 1532 Alabama Avenue. Thank you. Okay I've been rocking my brain since last time I was in here and it was a three to two vote and I've been doing everything possible to make myself a better bartender I've been carting every person that walks through the door. I don't care if they look like they're 80 years old or not I still ask for their ID. I've Learned to use the machine. I've learned how to swipe. I've learned how to do all that. I've been studying things online Also Tommy is putting us through the tips course as soon as that is available. I Can't correct my mistake. The only thing I can do is learn from it It's This is my means of Income I'm going through divorce. I've just found a new apartment and This is how I'm able to support my son and myself and without this I'm little lost right now and So I just really appreciate a second chance. I do and I Can guarantee it's not gonna happen again because I will not allow it to happen again Thank you Any questions of the applicant all of them and born Thank you, ma'am and Akron Ma'am, where are you working with this license? I'm working at Vibes At where Vibes where is that located on South A? Okay, are you have any other employment besides bartender? Yes, I do I work my 40 hours a week if Labor allows it at mobile one. I do oil changes that kind of stuff. Okay. Thank you Any other questions of the applicant Alderman Hammond The circumstances surrounding the underage Was a friend was it just misread the card? What what was the circumstances around that basically nervous first night as an actual I was so excited to have my license and I misread it. I completely Any other questions of the applicant Alderman van Akron? Thank you, mr. Mayor It was indicated that the the charge for the underage is pending has have you gone to court on that no not yet Okay, so are you contesting that to charge in any way? Not really. I'm just gonna accept the fine because I did it. Okay. Thank you Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much Back to the committee report then the committee's recommendation is to Deny the license any other discussion We'll call the roll. Hammond. No Hi to men. Nope. I'm sorry. Nope. Thank you. Scott. Hi Lissard Lou and dusky Was that a no, yes Thank you, Scott, how do you answer that one man a check All right Racler no van Akron. No Vander wheel. No Percy. No Wongman Bellinger. No foreign. No Carlson. No, Decker. No, Donahue. No Three eyes 13 nose So the motion loses so the need to grant we need a motion to grant the license All of them in Vanda Motion to grant the license second sorry So moving seconded to grant the license. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none clerk will call the roll Ha ha no Lissard. No, Lou and dusky. Yes Maddichak. No racer Yes, Ben Akron. Hi And Vander wheel. Hi Percy. Hi Wongman Bellinger. Hi foreign. Hi Carlson. Hi Decker. Hi, Donahue. Hi and Hammond. Hi 13 eyes three nose Motion carried and The license is granted 75 To me to report from law and licensing recommending amending section 130-59 of the ministeral code So as to create additional regulations relating to taxi cabs in the city Alderman They can make a motion to accept and adopt and pass the substitute resolution or substitute ordinance It's been moved and seconded to adopt Except the committee report and adopted ordinance under discussion Alderman van der Weer. I do make me excuse me I do need to make an amendment And that is on section 2 the last very last sentence All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such Conflict and this ordinance shall be in effect from and afterwards passage and publication beginning January 1st 2013 You've given that to the city or the city clerk has a copy of that Steve Steve we want to explain why please city attorney Yes, so it was my suggestion there's a provision in here for Taxis to be equipped with meters that have to have to install them and they have to have them tested and certified They also have to put lights on top of the vehicle that tie into the meters And as it was worded this ordinance be effective upon passage and publication which would be later on this week likely and Technically somebody be in violation if they didn't have their meter installed in the taxi Upon passage and publication. There's wasn't any Any leeway or time allowed for coming into compliance so the Organs being effective January 1 will give taxis an opportunity to get their meters and get them tested and Get their rates approved and all that A lot of time before they would be in violation Okay Alderman Anacron Thank You mr. Mayor. I guess just a couple questions on this On the amendment so we got a vote on the amendment first go ahead Any questions or discussion on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye Opposed Motion carried Alderman van Ackeren. Thank you. I'm the amendment on the amended I didn't hear a second Couple questions on this if I don't know if the committee could answer Is there a specific problem that we're addressing this with this that? We're having in the city as far as the taxi cabs that this would be covering Is there any state laws or something that we need to come in regulation with and also do we know a cost as to What we're making these people and in these small business owners put these devices in their taxi cabs What is the cost of that? Do we have any idea as to you know what burden we're putting on them? Alderman van willy. Thank you The reason we brought this forward was there are Quite a few taxi cab companies now in Sheboygan and we've we've had many complaints about stickers being changed Rates going up and down people aren't sure what their rates going to be from one day to the next so we are Addressing the things that we've in law and licensing have had to deal with in the last few months And the cost was a relative cost it ranges, but about $200 Okay Panda will you made it? Are you have you made a motion to pass the substitute ordinance as amended? So moved and then we need a second All right, it's been moved and seconded to Pass the substitute or past the resolution as amended Any further discussion? Thank you mayor Sue is the taxi cab license is a $25 per company or is it 25 bucks per cab? It's $25 for the company and they get one free vehicle with that and anything additional to that is 10 It's 10 and so then To follow up on Alderman vernacorn then to put a meter in a cab is going to be about $200 per cab then we understand Alright, thank you. Any other discussion I am and and Heidemann I 14 eyes to know motion carried seven six I'm sorry seven five Sorry seven six report from strategic planning making no more recommendation to the council regarding Documents submitted by Alderman Bellinger requesting the council to solicit RFPs for an independent third-party study of the city's fire and ambulance service Alderman Thank you. I move that we accept and adopt the report of committee second Under discussion for it's been moved seconded under discussion Alderman Bellinger Thank You mr. Mayor I'd like to have the common council solicit RFPs for independent third-party study of the fire and ambulance service There has been a can this has been a contentious issue for the residents of the cities for years And it is my intent by soliciting an outside organization To provide this study the politics emotions and biases will be removed This is in no way a criticism of the current fire chief on the contrary I believe that he's doing a good job and is a good steward of the tax dollars that he's responsible for No one in no one on the common council has the time or expertise to conduct a comprehensive study of the fire and ambulance services There's also several alderman who are very passionate about this issues and their motives could be questioned The chief if he were to present a comprehensive study would be viewed as biased because he's too close to the subject matter in with Lose his objectivity by having a qualified outside vendor to perform this we would remove these concerns. I Have no preconceived goals or outcomes for this study I only hope to get some direction for future action and cost savings that we can realize as a city And I also want the public to know that we have worked with the cooperation of the fire department to provide the best service at the most economical cost I want the issue to be addressed in a way that is transparent to the residents of the city as well as the fire and ambulance personnel It is my belief that the only way to accomplish this is through an independent third-party report and recommendation and as a side note I've had emails back and forth in conversation with the chief The fire chief and he has mentioned that the previous two fire chiefs as well as himself have requested independent third-party studies in the past and the reason it has been Kind of shot down is because of the cost that was involved with it So the the dollars that are associated with the fire department are significant enough I think to warrant us to at least go as far as put out an RFP look at see what the costs come in and Then we can go from there and make a decision if we want to move forward or not. Thank you Thank you Alamon Hammond the motion is to accept and adopt the Strategic fiscal planning Report of committee report a committee do are we filing the document? We're just my motion was to accept and adopt if we want to do another motion to Approve his request No accepting adopting the committee report is Committee reports making no recommendation to accept an adopt the committee report is to say you're making no recommendation which Doesn't really say anything to me Decide what you want to do with it, but accepting and adopting the committee report is just saying You're not making any recommendation, but then you need to do something with the underlying doc Alamon Hammond, thank you, then I will move to accept and adopt and Recommend soliciting an RFP for an independent third-party study second and move then seconded to accept and adopt and And That's the list of RFPs for third party. That's what I meant all the men list are Thank You mayor. I won't be voting to approve this There's several reasons if we're going to be singling out one department We if you want to do these RFPs It needs to be inclusive of all the departments within the city not just one specific department And I won't be approving this. We have had a referendum the taxpayers have spoken and We need to listen to the taxpayers I am Annoyed I would say I don't think it was an intentional Anything against the fire department first of all we don't have all these funds to be doing all these studies to begin with and And there it seems to be that there's some type of a group of people that are always Pointing their fingers at the fire department or And trying to get What our taxpayers have said in the referendum and the outcry of the citizens and the Constituents that I've spoken to are quite happy with how things are going. I understand trying to save money within the city and If all the departments were inclusive of this particular Type of study, then I would be all for this but singling out one group I don't feel as fair and I will not be supporting this. Thank you Thank You all the men this are all the men born Thank You mayor van Akron. I'm gonna support Going out for the IRF P It's going to depend on what the cost is whether I'll support going forward with the with with the Study of the fire department. I guess I have a question for Alderman Bellinger And I don't mean to put you on the spot Alderman Bellinger But when we go out for this RFP, I would imagine the cost is going to have something to do with how extensive We want the study to be and is that going to be public protection and safety's? Purview to decide what's in what we're asking these companies to do You know for example that we want just a study of the fire department itself as far as providing fire protection Do we want a study of of the ambulance service both service-wise and how we're accounting for it? Who's whose purview is that going to be to set up the ground rules for the RFP because I imagine that's going to have quite a Effect on what the ultimate cost is is exactly what we're looking for. Thank you Well, I'm a Billinger Thank you, Alderman Bourne what what I would envision happening is working together with Chief Administrator Imodio and putting together a specification that would go out for bid now if that needs to come through a Committee I would be open to having it come through a committee If it could be done You know with a couple alderman in the in the chief administrator in the Purchasing director, you know, I'd be happy with that too, but I guess I'm not sure you know what the correct procedure or Way to go, but you know, I would be happy either way Thank You Alderman Donahue Thank You mayor My initial question is What would we be studying Thank You Alderman Donahue the My goal on this is to see if there are some efficiencies in some action plans that we can have moving forward to see if there's any different Efficiencies that we can gain economics that is a closing one station is a closing two station is it You know, there's all sorts of different things out there. I've got several Not several, you know, quite a few constituents that have approached me at different times And said how come you guys don't look at the fire department? What's going on with the fire department? This and that I personally don't have an axe to grind with the chief or the fire department like I mentioned before I think the chief's doing a good job. I think he's a great steward of his tax dollars It is a significant budget item And the reason I would like to look at it is because I'm tired of the chief having to defend himself all the time and I'm tired of getting all these questions whether or not the The level of service that we're getting from the fire department is the most economical way to be doing it for the city so that's why I want to be as transparent as possible and and to look at this and to Include every department is frankly ridiculous Because what you would be doing is driving the cost up so high. Nobody would ever approve that You know that kind of a study so the studies aren't cheap to begin with and to target one department or thing, you know, it's because of the volume of questions and concerns from constituents and I just want to make it transparent and Again, I don't have a pre-determined outcome on what should happen with this and I think it would finally put everything to rest And allow the fire chief to go on about his business and give us an action plan moving forward So that's that's the reason for this whole thing Limandani who's Thank you that that starts to get a little bit clearer for me So as I understand it would be a basic in Right from the beginning zero planning zero based Analysis of how the city of Sheboygan receives its fire and ambulance services now That may be Something that we might want to study. We might want to study how we provide our police services from a zero based Perspective starting right from the bottom up and I would assume this study would look at other departments and so forth I will say as I analyze that I have a couple of issues We've had lots and lots and lots and lots of information about fire services We've had information from similarly sized cities about how they provide services How far the response time is how many stations there are and so forth And it really doesn't seem to help us move the ball forward what I think the issue is and I am not suggesting it But someday somehow somewhere there must be some study that could be done that would take a look at The actual costs of the ambulance service Factor it in we could hire some super accountant who once and for all could put to rest for us Whether the ambulance service costs us money or saves us money whether we are better able to I I hear excellent things about the the paramedics and the fire service from hospital personnel We want to factor that in as well, but just the numbers is there an accountant out there somewhere Can we get an Allen Greenspan? You know is has been Bernanke Bernanke going to be looking for a job, you know in a couple of months Is there just somebody that we could get who could answer that basic question for us? And I think that would resolve a lot of what we were talking about. I am going to vote against this Alderman Bellinger I really appreciate the number one the amount of work that you put into this because it's clear it was substantial And it did give me a lot to think about but I just think it is a lot of money We're searching for somebody else to provide us with the answers for the hard decisions We need to make and I just don't think that this is going to move the ball forward for us So but I do appreciate your your consideration Alderman van Ackren Thank You, mr. Mayor. I guess I'd like to hear from the fire chief in reference to this obviously was indicated that He would possibly be in favor of this study if he could give his opinion on this as well as discuss the multitude of Opportunities that the fire department has been requested to provide information in reference to your operations cost Ambulance cost and so on. I know we had a very lengthy discussion at the strategic fiscal planning meeting Reference to this to which we came to really no recommendation But if I'd like to ask the fire chief to come up and just I guess explain his opinion on this and again If you can give a I don't know if that'll be really brief I synopsis over the last several years on how many times your department has been requested for information in reference to your operations and so on Chief Thank You your honor. I wish I could answer that question of how many times I've been up here truthfully. I lost count I'm sure that you're as tired of seeing me up here as I am of being up here talking about this subject for that I think all Alderman Bellinger for bringing this forward and hopefully Putting this to rest one way or another As I said in the committee meeting Last week. I'm not opposed to having this study done If for no other reason that we finally have an end to this and we can move on I can run a fire department It's been very difficult to run a department on a day-to-day basis with this hanging over our head And this hasn't just been While I've been chief it's been the past two fire chiefs That have had this uncertainty. So it's been 10 or 12 years that this has been going on I'm certainly I'm not opposed to a study if it's a legitimate study I think we can get good answers from that and I'm not afraid of a study like that a lot of what I do is Spending time looking at studies of other departments What I do is take those studies and put in what we do here in Sheboygan and see how we measure up For that reason, I think that a study is going to show that we're doing a good job here with the money that we're That it's costing the taxpayer to provide fire protection I Am opposed to spending money on a study Where the outcome is predictable? Or even worse yet where the people asking for that study are driving the results of that? I think it needs to be a legitimate study as I said a lot of the studies that I look at and read I can almost tell you what the outcome is going to be just by reading who did that study? It's that predictable and if you read those a lot of the Outcomes that they they say for the departments are the same for each and every city and that's a little concerning to me when you're spending $50,000 $60,000 on a study and a couple of cities come to mind Benton Harbor, Michigan and Lake Havasu, I believe it's in Nevada They had studies done that their cities were not happy with in fact I think the Benton Harbor one they found that The company that did the study all they did is cut and pasted a different city's name and place theirs in there And really didn't do a whole lot of work on their study And the same thing happened in Nevada where when they got their study back the numbers were all wrong So I think if you're gonna go ahead and spend this amount of money We need to make sure that we're getting the right firm to do this study As I said, I've looked at probably Close to 20 of fire department studies in the last couple of weeks You're looking at a cost probably in the 50 to $60,000 range to do a decent study of a fire department I looked at a number of other ones that have done The entire city. I think you're looking at $200,000 roughly. I know Fond du Lac just had one done recently by I Think Baker Tilly which used to be virtual crows. I think the county has used that that company I think it's a very good one. But again, you get what you what you pay for I think some of the common themes that you'll see come out that I've seen come out of these studies is that We should implement a compressed air foam system of putting out fires I've read that in Probably close to half of those studies. It's an expensive method It's new technology all of our fire trucks right now are equipped with foam systems for putting out fires the compressed air I Don't know that fire chiefs accept it as a way of extinguishing fires. It's basically charging an entire house With foam Instead of doing interior firefighting as we do now Yes, you can get by with that system with less people. But again, it's very expensive to implement and Water still is the most plentiful and cheapest method of extinguishing fires They also recommend that you upgrade your department's equipment, which is very costly They recommend going to quints, which is a combination of an engine and a ladder truck City Sheboygan purchased one of those in 2005 What we found out what other fire departments that have found out that bought quints is they do a lot of things for you They pump water They're a ladder truck, but they don't do anything really well And what we've experienced with our 75 foot quint is we can't even reach the peak of a second-story house on here in Avenue Which if you're familiar with that area town the homes are not that far back from the road So that's one thing that they recommend quite a bit That I and a lot of other fire chiefs just don't agree with The last vehicle we purchased was a rescue pumper was a combination of our rescue squad and a pumper It allowed us to combine two vehicles into one and eliminate three positions and still operate in an efficient manner So we have taken on some of these things that Are recommended They also recommend that you change your responses to more of a non-emergency response Roughly five years ago chief Lestoskey implemented that in our department Where we used to send everybody code three with lights and sirens on a fire call We now usually only send one or two vehicles and all the rest go code to through the city. It's safer for our department It's safer for the citizens. So we've already implemented that a Lot of the recommendations they have are to change your 24-hour schedules That's not been something that's been effective across the nation There's only one department that I know of that works on less than 24-hour schedules I believe it's a part of Boston That is very busy and runs on a 12-hour schedule. We have and I have implemented that this year with some of our command staff I believe it's a very innovative schedule where I have them working shifts and eight-hour days We've been doing it a few months and it's been working very well So we have implemented some of that I don't know of any other department that is running their staff on that schedule and it is working well as I said I'm one of the other Recommendations you see in nearly every study is that we should have public safety officers And I believe if you ask Chief Domigalski, he'll tell you that his officers barely have enough time to fight crime much less Come and train to be firefighters as well as police officers. So I don't think that that's a very good recommendation So what can you expect a study to say about the Sheboygan fire department? I expect the study would come back and say that we need a dedicated training officer That's a position that was eliminated Through budget cuts three years ago from our department. We should have an organized fire prevention and investigation division again That's an area in our department. That's been eliminated through budget cuts prior to this. We had three people in that division We now just cover those duties with the rest of our on-duty staff It's probably going to say that we're deficient in the area of gathering useful information For putting together fire prevention strategies, and that's something that we're constantly working on The move to the spillman computer program definitely But again, it takes people to put those those programs together and I think it's something that'll show up as a deficiency in a study So I ask what are we doing that? We're very efficient at We currently do the budget cuts again our cross-staffing vehicles What that means is when we're short staffed in a fire station We'll have three people and when a fire call comes in those three people get on the fire apparatus When a medical call comes in they get on an ambulance Other stations are other cities are running seven people's fire stations and not cross staffing So I think we're very Efficient in that manner We're running two-man engine companies where the norm Cross the nation is three and four man engine companies As I said before I developed a very innovative schedule for our command staff That's allowed us to make up for our deficiencies in the fire prevention Bureau and in the training and still get all of our work done I found it very interesting to read in the paper last week that Orange Cross responds to roughly 3,600 calls a year for service. That's the same Number that we respond to in a year They utilize 33 employees and six ambulances to respond to those calls We're doing that with roughly 19 employees and four ambulances. So I ask you who's efficient Our per capita cost is one of the lowest in the state and it's decreasing not increasing Earlier this year. I submitted a budget With that budget I put in a three-year projection of what the fire department budget is going to do each of those year I projected it to decrease. I don't know that you're seeing that from any other department in the city We have much less staff Staff personnel than other cities we have four less the average across the state is 11. We're running with seven That's 33% less Staff officers than other cities We added the ambulance revenue that in 2012 after we pay expenses will be paying for roughly 11 to 12 salaries and benefits of 11 to 12 firefighters We've reduced the size of the department by 22 firefighters and three pieces of Fire apparatus we open a new station and yet we still continue to provide excellent fire protection. I Think one of the the common misconceptions that I hear about the Shiboyan fire department is your staff for the worst possible scenario and That really couldn't be further from the truth When I came in The department 32 years ago. We had 27 or 28 people on duty and When a house fire came in came in we usually left behind one engine and one ladder company With eight firefighters in case another call came in We don't have that luxury anymore We now respond with between 15 and 20 firefighters and when a house fire comes in it's everybody in the city is there And I think you're all familiar with the term five alarm fire. It's something that's used Very frequently if you're listening to Milwaukee TV stations What a five alarm fire roughly means is they're sending about 20 pieces of fire apparatus and 80 to 100 firefighters We don't have that luxury we can call one alarm. That's it from there. We're calling back Off-duty firefighters, which is basically paid on call and we're summoning the volunteer fire departments to help us out So if we're forced to take another piece of fire apparatus out of service We'll be changing the method of fire protection in the city To where we're going to be going to a clear paid on call department Simply because we just will not have enough to respond to every call that we do in its present form Now if that's the type of fire protection the council desires for the citizens of the community I guess the next step is up to you and maybe we need to have the study done and see what it says But before you proceed with that study, I think we need to ask ourselves these questions Are you ready to increase the size of the fire department if that is what the study recommends? Are you ready to reduce the size of the fire department if recommended knowing the outcry we heard when we closed station five only? temporarily Are you willing to spend the money only to find out what we already know that we have a very efficient and excellent run fire department as A taxpayer as a fire chief if you can't answer yes to all three of those questions I would proceed carefully I'm aware of our strengths, and I'm painfully aware of our Deficiencies in the fire department. I compare ourselves to all the other cities in the state regularly and to other state Cities in the nation if we decide to spend a substantial amount of money for a study as a taxpayer I certainly hope that we're committed to move on the recommendations that we receive as Fire chief with over 32 years of experience. I'm fairly certain a study will tell you that you have a fire department That is both efficient and excellent in what they do Thank You chief all the men vernacrine any other questions of the chief? No, but I'm sure there'll be more okay All the men lasard All of them in Hammond Thank You first off I would like to thank Alderman bellinger You know in these tough budget times we're coming into I appreciate the fact that you're being proactive and looking for for Opportunities and I'm going to echo something that chief Herman made And I will wrote this down before you said it, but I'm going to say it anyways, you know again You if we're not willing to take a look at what the study Both sides good and bad If we're not if we're not going to accept and implement those recommendations You know then again, we're just throwing 40 to 50 grand out the window It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend this money If the recommendation comes back and says you're three firefighters down you should hire three firefighters and we say no Again, we just threw 40 or 50 grand out the window just a point I can't remember now because But the accounting method we could bring in accountants and Gatsby versus FASB Gap versus not and get all these types of accounting methods I Don't think you get five people lined up in a room or accountants at least it'd be an awfully interesting party But you couldn't get five accountants probably to agree on what the final number would look like and that's part of the challenge Because there's not a right and wrong, you know If you look at it from a marginal Accounting standpoint versus a true cost accounting all those types of things. They're all right It's just the different method of getting there. So again, I would encourage you to think about this I Personally don't have a problem with the study But the council in this body has to be willing to accept its recommendations and in the three years I've been here that hasn't been the case we get the recommendations But if not the outcome we like then we say well, there's something wrong with the study So give that some thought as you're contemplating this Before question of the yeah, it's a question Thanks mayor Chief and some of the studies that you were talking about that you reviewed Did they make any comments in any of those studies about other departments like yours that runs an ambulance service? Any any recommendations in that regard and then also what are it whether any of those studies? Where the departments had ambulance services, but they also had a private provider in that community. Was there any did you find anything? Having to do with the ambulance service in that regard in those reports I did not see any that went to as deep as having a private there at the same time although there are a number That's not an uncommon System to be in place There are a number of articles out there. In fact, I think just in the last week or two Cleveland, Ohio just merged their EMS and fire departments together And there's a rather lengthy report out on The reasons that that makes sense and why it's a perfect fit Any other questions of the chief thanks chief any other discussion all the men Carlson Thank You mayor, I'd I'd like the idea of this study, however I don't think I'm gonna support it mainly because it's kind of been said a couple times tonight already We've had studies done before and we haven't followed them It's really hard to justify spending any money for this with that being said We do have a fire chief that has proposed many different plans when it comes down to it this body needs to pick one of those plans and whether if it's a plan that Sticks with what we have right now Then that's what we're gonna stick with otherwise somebody proposed one of the plans that he has projected He has proposed in the past because he is the subject matter Expert here in the city and we constantly talk about how we pay our directors and chiefs a lot of money to do their jobs And then not follow what they say so once again, he's come up with a long-range plan He's proposed different options whether it be paid on call cutting a station cutting two stations I think we already have this it's just this body needs to decide what they want to do and I don't think a study is gonna help that Are you withdrawing your second or you're Thank You mr. Mayor As I said, we had very lengthy discussions at strategic fiscal planning in reference to this and I too I'm not gonna support this measure For several reasons one of the points that hasn't been discussed is the public input The public has had the opportunity over the last several years to weigh in on the fire department In in form of a referendum in which they indicated they they wanted the ambulance service as part of the fire department as form as part of the Whitewater survey that we spent approximately $40,000 on last year in which the results of that Indicated that they were pleased with the services they were getting from the fire department And they felt that the services of the fire department was one of the highest priority services that the the city provides again, the people have indicated that they Appreciate what the fire department does and they have indicated that they want the fire department to have an ambulance service I agree with Alderman Carlson that we have An operational plan that was supplied by the chief last year Which gives operational plans for several different versions of the fire department moving forward and and we did act upon that We simply said at this point in time that we felt continuing with the current level of service with the current staff fire Houses was the appropriate way to go for all the reasons that we went over I believe approximately a year ago again response times being involved cost of new fire departments and so on or new stations and so on Again, it was it was decided by this by this body to put this to bed and to continue at the level that we are operating at As the chief stated we have made or he has made and his department has made many changes over the last several years to become more and more efficient and to make the Per capita cost for our citizens less and less And I applaud his efforts and I fully expect that he's going to continue in the fire department as well as other Departments are going to try to find ways to make the the cost of running services less But at the same time keep the high level of service, so I can't support this because again, I think we've received all the information I think this body has acted upon the recommendations and the possible Outcomes of an operational plan and we've decided to keep the fire department as we are operating currently as he stated that when he brought the Budget proposal to public protection and safety He's the only city department or the the fire department is the only city department that actually decreased their budget requests from last year I think they're doing a good job to cut their costs and at the same time providing a very high level of service to our city And I don't think that if this study comes back and says we should close Two fire stations that this body would be willing to do that I certainly wouldn't I don't think the people here would be in favor of that And if this study comes back and says we need to hire five more fire department or five more firefighters and increase Apparatus, I don't think we have the funds to do that. So as the chief stated if we're not able to To follow through on what the possible recommendations of this study would be We're really just wasting our money and wasting our time and the cost estimates that we've heard for this are fifty to sixty thousand dollars We've all talked over the several last several months that we have Financial and budgetary concerns going forward. I just can't see spending the money when we have those information The body has acted the people have had the opportunity to give their input I guess I just really don't know why we're spinning our wheels and continually coming back to this Alderman Bellinger Thank you, Mayor first. I'd like to thank the fire chief for his comments and I would like to say that the the comments made by several aldermen that They don't understand why we would do a study because we never act on anything anyway Is really a sad commentary on this body if you're going to spend money You're going to get a professional opinion from somebody that is a an expert on the subject matter And you're not going to follow the recommendations.  Are you going to have to increase personnel by new equipment?  You know, nobody knows what that outcome is going to be I don't know what it's going to be. I don't have a predetermined Expectation of what it should be. I just know that there's a lot of people out there that question this it's politically and emotionally charged subject matter and You know, I would like to have it finally put to bed and put to rest let the chief continue to do the job that he's charged to do and again, I get I don't have any Bias or You know, I think the chief's doing a great job and with what he's got in the it's a good steward of the tax dollars I will say that over and over again. I'm not here to attack The fire department his leadership or anything like that. It's just an issue That's you know, since I've lived in Sheboygan been one that's always been brought to the forefront And now that I'm a member of this body I thought it should be brought forward and see if we could look at you know a Better way of doing things possibly Thank you I'm in verse Thank you, mr. Mayor And to a shock to a lot of you I wasn't the proponent behind this one But I do echo a lot of what alderman belgium did have to say it is kind of a double-edged sword the way you look at it Are you gonna spend the money to have the survey done and then not do it the survey size and like alderman Belanger said those comments that doesn't reflect on us that that's not a good comment to say Yeah, we've had surveys done that we don't follow through that's Neither here nor there I'm back to the whitewater survey that we paid $18,000 for not $40,000, but yeah, there were some of the stuff in there We didn't follow others we did some stuff. We already knew but that's what you do You also get what you pay for we paid $18,000 when we probably should have paid 40 You know I get a good study done But and I keep hearing a couple we'll throw out the referendum that we had that was less than a 500 boat swing Which I had many phone calls after that saying that they relied to they voted one way and they relied to and they felt bad And they should have voted the other way And it wasn't in favor of it that they relied to They relied to the opposite way so that 500 votes swing was kind of a big thing Basing my my voting on a select handful of our taxpayers is tough You can't go off of a group small group of people the people will see silent majority or the vocal minority Well, some of the vocal minority you're trying to base your opinion on you're voting. No, we have to do what's right What's physically responsible for the city too? So don't I mean you can't keep throwing a referendum back out there back to what he actually wants to have done here Is having this survey done it does put a lot of things to rest if it says we need 15 more firefighters Well, I guess we have to hire 15 more firefighters way to find the money But if it says we have to cut I don't think the body has the gumption to do the cut hiring I have a feeling they have a compsion to hire, but I don't have that in me to go out Spend the money have it done and not follow what they have to say either good or bad or ugly so You have to put that in perspective like a lemon Hammond said, you know Think about what your outcome is going to be if we actually do this Think about it now before you vote on it if you're going to follow through with it. Thank you Lerman Hammond as for the Motion the motion was to Accept and speaking with the city attorney and clerk. We would need a motion to draft the resolution to authorize the City administrator and city purchasing agent to To go out for bids put together a bid proposal or go off of bids is that what you meant by your sure That's what they believe second. So we're going to be drafting a resolution authorizing the city administrator in the city purchasing agent to Go out for proposals for bids Any discussion? Who was quicker on the gun here Alderman born? Thank you I again, I'm going to support going on and getting the RFP that does not mean that I'm going to support Actually doing the survey, but I don't think there's any harm in getting the RFP. We're doing this with our with our Paid professionals. We're not paying anybody. I mean other than the salary that we pay our Professional staff in the city to get the RFP. So I will support getting our going on and getting the bid But I reserve judgment on whether I'm going to support the survey Thank you All of them in Bellinger before we start remind all the council You're supposed to talk only twice on each thing But I'll allow you to do that being the author and in many times you were asked the question not So all of them in Belanger. Thank you mayor. I was just going to echo the same things that it was just a Request for proposal. It's not a actual You know, whether we're going to go forward with it or not. Thank you all of them in verse Just in the point of what Alderman Bourne said earlier on what the parameters are and what we're asking for Who's saying who's gonna set up the parameters on what we're gonna ask these people to come in and do the study on? that's what Director Modio and who else is gonna have input on what they're looking for the chief obviously has read study So he needs to have the input on what they're gonna dig into but who else outside is gonna ask for what we need Is that a question I think the motion is to allow Mr. Immodio and the Purchasing agent to come up with that RFP and to add on it to present that to the council So that the council is comfortable with what the scope of the study is because really the scope can be you know as wide or as focused as as the council wants it But at least that would Set a framework so the staff could work on drafting something presented to the council if the council says yeah Go with that then we've got a framework if you want to tweak things. We want to look study certain aspects So that was your motion to have them bring back a RFP Second mr. Modio Sure come on up. I believe if we're gonna do this We need a scope of work and it shouldn't be up to a city administrator nor a purchasing agent to set the scope of work I think it should come from the governing committee That identifies the scope of work that we go out and request the court for Alderman Donahue Which goes back to my original comment, and I'm not sure I have an answer to it is what it is That we are studying are we looking at a zero based From the bottom up review. Are we looking at the ambulance service? What it is what is it that we are looking for and then what is the context for? city budget issues and How we do business in all of our departments In terms of what our citizens are looking for so again, I'm just uncomfortable with the process It's like a little flying saucer that's coming in and you know the beans on the saucer may be friendly Or they may not be but we really don't know so Again, I just at this point at least without a better context It seems to me to be ill-considered to even start struggling with what is it that we're looking at? Which obviously would impact cost as well Any other discussion hearing none the clerk will call the roll We are voting on the giving the city administrator in the purchasing agent the ability to come back when our RFP approval to the council on looking at The fire department efficiencies or fire department How it was put in his resolution is communication correct Yes No Manichek no racelor. Yes, Ben Akron. No No Bursi I Walkman, I'm sorry. Hi Bellenshire I foreign. Hi, Carlson. Hi, Decker. No Donahue. No, I I I Motion carries 77 for strategic making no recommendation on Common cultural regarding resolutions will approve private contracting of garbage collecting Alderman Hammond All right. Here we go again. Yeah for discussion purposes, I will move to accept and adopt and also move to approve the Contracting of garbage collection for discussion purposes second for discussion purpose and approve. What did what was the last? Because we need to follow on to that so it's been moved and seconded to accept and adopt the non-recommendation of nothing from the strategic and And adopt the private collection of garbage Correct Private contracting of garbage Under discussion Alderman Hammond Alderman Bellenshire Thank You mayor Sue could you put up that first slide the budget impact? Yes, that is that is the correct one Again at strategic fiscal planning this came out with no recommendation So I feel like I'm sort of swimming upstream again, but what I would like to do is Look at the possibility of the city contracting out its garbage collection We wouldn't be a true privatization where we would just get out of the business of collecting garbage It would be that we would contract with a Independent contractor and we put it out for bid would be a three or five year contract And we would manage that contract and it would be billed to the citizens on Their water bill currently like the garbage fee is being done right now Why do I want to do this? Well the reason I want to do this is If you can scroll down a little bit on there so the people at home can see this as well we are looking at if you look at 2014 and 2015 significant budget deficits that are projected and How are we going to address those? in the strategic fiscal planning meeting one of the committee members Mentioned that we put the garbage fee in place to buy us three years so we could deal with this issue and My comment to him was well, we've got a year already under our belt basically We're into November beginning of November and nothing has been done to address the you know the upcoming years and the projected deficits so my solution is to have a Private contractor and we've gotten a preliminary preliminary bids from them and it's going to come in at a cost of roughly nine dollars and fifty cents Currently the city pays $8.58 cents as part of the tax levy for garbage collection or $1.6 million a year annually is what that comes to there's approximately 16,088 households or residences that are assessed that tax so The city can do it more efficiently than a private contractor, so why are we looking at this? Well, the city does not is a not-for-profit organization Private contractor is for profit hence the dollar more per resident fee for collecting the garbage and the economic impact that you will see if we were able to do this would be in 2013 you would see a surplus of 786,000 in 2014 390,000 and in 2015 this initiative would completely wipe away the $1.7 million projected deficit And one of the things is brought to my attention is well, how soon could we get this accomplished? We're not going to be able to do it effective January 1st in I by no means have that expectation What I would like to see and I think would be reasonable if we were to move forward with this initiative is To have a target date of April 1st So it's the beginning of second quarter We could have this in place and we could you know move forward and go on from there If you just scroll up to back up to the top a little bit more sue The benefits of doing this You avoid a 1.5 million dollar purchase of new trucks You sell the existing fleet to the private contractor The potential to hire our employees based on them passing their predetermined employment screening and There would be a freeze in the tax levy for three years. We wouldn't have to worry about increasing the taxes so For a relatively nominal cost it is going to cost Right right now. We're being charged seven hundred or seven dollars and sixteen cents For the garbage fee for this year My proposal is to have it become nine fifty That's an increase of two dollars and thirty four cents or an increase of twenty eight dollars per year and for that we get A surplus in 2013 a surplus in 2014 and We fill our hole in two thousand fifteen of one point seven million dollars So that's the The basis and the thought behind doing this when I became an alderman I wanted to become part of the solution and Not to be part of the problem. I see a big problem up there I haven't seen any solutions come forward on how we're going to deal with it I want to be proactive and I want to look at it and before My fellow alderman take a vote on this I would just like them to think for the The minimal increase in fees $2 and 34 cents a month Additional in twenty eight dollars a year per residence You know look at the benefits that you're going to achieve from that and I know director Bevel has Scheduled first capital improvements the next three years approximately five hundred thousand dollars of Replacement for garbage trucks each year. So that's where the next three years We're going to be spending one point five million dollars and I want to be preemptive and see if we can't Hold off on that and see if you know doing this would make more sense you know in the long run so that's that's kind of Where I'm at with that and if you don't do anything You can see at the bottom of the page You're going to be looking at a four hundred twenty thousand dollar deficit in 2014 1.7 million in 2015 and 1.5 million of new garbage expense trucks that you'll be looking at in the next three years So you're looking about three point six million dollar whole That you're going to have to figure out some way to deal with and you know how we deal with that You know, I think this is I think this is a tremendous solution and You know, I just think it's it's it's the way to go so thank you So basically what the taxpayers would see is January 1st their water bill For the garbage fee is going down to five dollars per month Then beginning April 1st it would go up to nine fifty per month that number would never go down It would probably continue to go up But the council would no longer have budget problems for the next three years. So that's all good for us But I'm not I think my taxpayers aren't gonna be real happy with that. Thank you all the man down here Mine is just a point of order. I think our Motion is contradictory The no the motion for no recommendation would be I think the same as accepted file would be my sense and So we have a motion that is no recommendation plus a motion to approve So I would either split it or ask for a revision. I Would certainly defer to your opinion on that but it if we vote yes or no We're voting in contradictory ways within the context of the same motion Unless I misunderstood and I may have misunderstood the motion, but I don't think you misunderstood I think this is the same issue we had on the prior document where which got very messy And I think there's just a way to do one or the other council is a recommendation from the strategic physical plant commission committee To make no recommendation to the council. So that's what that's the committee report before you so you can accept and adopt that but That does nothing that leaves you at square one. You've made no recommendation. So you need to in addition or part of that decide Whether you're gonna do something with the underlying resolution to See look at private alternatives or you're just gonna file that so that that has to be part of this accept and adopt because You could do it as two different votes. You can accept and adopt and then you're sitting there at square one But at some point you need to deal with the underlying resolution Now the actual document that was at strategic was a communication Not a resolution. So you either got to accept and file communication or adopt And draw a resolution to ask what you're doing So I guess clear. I believe I'm looking at there's resolution eighty two twelve thirty. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay That was attached to the committee That answer your question Sadly, no Well So we can simultaneously within the same motion Vote vote to accept the no recommendation and vote to Accept the recommendation. I think it's just cleaner. I Would move that we split the question Second I I think we'll do that. We'll vote on the recommendation of the committee, which is no recommendation And if that passes or fails, we'll move forward from there So first we're going to vote on the recommendation of the strategic Not to do anything which would basically kill it No, it's just making no recommendation This is the council They would be accepting It's been moved in seconded or to Accept and adopt the committee report all those in favor signify by saying I So, let's do a roll. I need an explanation. All right The You have before you the committee report by strategic physical plan The report is it recommends sending it to the council with no recommendation. So if you want to accept that report then you pass that and you've got Got the underlying document with no recommendation coming from a committee then as a secondary Matter you need to do something with the underlying document either pass it file it Refer it to a committee or do whatever So an aye vote is You're accepting it and then you can still discuss the underlying document later. I know vote would kill it Well, I vote is just to accept the committee's report Which is no recommendation to the council so Somewhat of a melody but at least it deals with the committee report then you've got So you've got the underlying Resolution there with no recommendation and the sky is the limit as to what you want to do with the underlying resolution Let's call the roll on the committee report Sorry I vote would be to accept the committee's report of to Have no recommendation to go forward I Hold them in Carlson Alderman van Ackeren, thank you. Mr. Mayor. I would then make a motion to file the underlying second It's been moved seconded to file the Resolution under discussion Alderman van Ackeren. Thank you, mr. Mayor to get to get back to the document itself I Won't be supporting the document for a variety of reasons that we discussed that strategic fiscal planning in length The main one being is again the current budget proposal going forward is set to reduce the garbage fee where from its current Rate of approximately $7 down to $5 this proposal would actually increase that almost double it up to 950 I understand and I and I agree that We have budget concerns and they're listed here and I agree with Alderman Bellinger that if we continue to do nothing as the current budget proposal that We're gonna be voting on I believe at the next meeting continues down that road We're gonna continue to to have these problems But I'm not in favor of our solution to our financial problems is to charge our citizens more and that essentially is what this is doing I Understand for the city in the city's financial situation That's beneficial to the city, but I'm not here to represent the city We we pave department heads. We have city employees that represent the city I represent my district and the people from my district and I don't think they are in favor And I'm certainly not in favor of solving our financial problems by making them pay nearly double the garbage fee that they're not happy with now It was stated and I certainly was the one that brought it up a strategic fiscal planning is that we had in put this in place to give us a three-year window to Deal with our financial problems. We have a budget proposal right now that would basically do away with one year of that Again, I agree if we continue to go down that road Nothing changes, but to to say that we're just gonna shift our costs of doing business to ours to our City taxpayers and our city residents and make them pay double for the services that we supply I just think that's a poor way of doing business We need to consider the ways to cut costs rather than just making them pay more and that's what this does It's considered it's just considerably increasing the cost and shifting the cost of doing business to our to our citizens And and as alderman vander Willy pointed out We have no control over the the service that we'll be getting or where that cost goes from there So I can't support this we've all received calls in reference to the garbage fee And people wanting to do away with the garbage fee and and not wanting the garbage fee This proposal almost doubles the garbage fee as it is set to be and I just I just can't support that Thank you Any other discussion? all of them born Thank You mayor van Akron When we talked about this last year, I got about 30 phone calls and emails about this and the bottom line with my constituents Was that they would possibly support outsourcing garbage? For 950 or the last year. I thought it was 850 whatever it was But they would not support it if the 1.6 million dollars didn't come off the tax levy So we're still going to be paying we're still going to be paying the Least my understanding. We're still going to be paying the 8 58 a month That's on the tax levy now. Plus we're going to charge our constituents another 950 to have a private hauler and on that basis Listening to what my constituents said loud and clear. I can't support outsourcing garbage at this time. Thank you Alderman Lewandowski Thank you, I also can't support this because I'm against raising the garbage fear But my concern also if we get rid of the garbage trucks, how do we plow snow in winter? Thank you Thank You mayor to Alderman Lewandowski's question there I've already asked that question to director Bevel and they are not related. We no longer use garbage trucks for snow plowing So that wouldn't have an effect on that service at all. So it's completely separate and then an unrelated to Alderman Bourne's concern Sue could you put the second? Document up that looks like that Okay Alderman Bourne here's the economic impact if we were to implement the 9 to prep the privatization of garbage and Reduce or take the eight dollars and fifty-eight cents per residence off the tax rolls. So immediately you would have a deficit of what eight hundred and sixty-nine thousand dollars the first year 1.2 million in 2014 and 3.4 million in 2015 so it is unrealistic to take That off the tax roll and you can tell your constituents that I mean That's the math. I've run it by director Amodio He agrees with the math and in it is what it is I would certainly like to be able to do that, but we can't do it without putting ourselves in in real jeopardy and to answer a to address Alderman Van Akron he mentioned that this was a one-year fix Actually, if you look at it the previous slide, it's a three-year fix. It's 13 14 and 15 And there's surpluses in 13 and 14 and you fill the hole in 15. So it's a three-year fix It's not a one-year fix Alderman Hammond Thank you Somewhat of a generic comment that I'm gonna throw out You know again, whether you support this or not These are the tough decisions. We're gonna have to make over the next several years ladies and gentlemen When we look at the budget and believe me been in and out of this budget probably more than most people in this room other than maybe director Amodio There's not a lot of whole low-hanging fruit It's going to come down to services bodies What do we want to get out of what do we want to stay in? You know, what is the structure of the services that we offer to our constituents and to the to the city taxpayers in general?  Okay, so again You know give that some consideration as you're making your making your choice Thank you Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I agree with Alderman Hammond Those are the tough decisions that we're gonna have to make I just I can't support the the solution being to increasing fees I think I just as a theory I can't support that maybe it's my conservative nature that I've known for but I just can't support our Solution being the increasing of fees rather than trying to find ways to cut our spending and reduce our spending And reducing that for our citizens the only solution and again, I agree with Alderman Bellinger And I'm glad that he's bringing these types of ideas forward I think we need to have continuous discussions as to how to solve our financial problems I just don't agree with the the solution being to increase the cost without trying to cut spending without trying to Look at and decide what services we need to be involved in or what services we need to decide whether or not we need to get Out of again, I'd much rather see us solve our problems going down that road by cutting spending and deciding what services We may or may not need or may not be able to afford anymore rather than just saying we're gonna make our citizens pay more All the diversity thank you, Mr. Mayor Great lot of talk about this Proposal here, and we haven't seen any proposals coming from no offense I'll remember acronym, but he has a proposal there to help you shoot down all the proposals that are there But don't come up with any recommendations to help.  That's one that's there that the math is right and it's there to help It's there to get us through it is three years But if you don't do anything or bring no proposals forward That's where we sit right now today. We're in a problem today because there's been no proposals in the past These are proposals that are coming in Thank you all of them Belger a couple other people that have brought in other proposals This is something we need to look at this is something we need to do because it does fix it Nobody wants to raise taxes. Nobody wants the taxpayers to pay more. This is reality It's not going to be paying more because after the five years or the three third year comes with the garbage fee We're in that big hole Great now you're in charge of them ten times more to make up for the last three years I don't agree with that. This is a smaller step to keep us going forward This is what has to be done to look at it this way not okay I want to cut all spending and I'm not gonna shoot down every proposal that comes there because it increases What my taxpayers have to pay well a small increase now beats a triple double triple quadruple increase in three years from today So this is a great proposal. Thank you all of them Belanger and I support this holy any other discussion Very non-clerk call the roll I vote would be to file the resolution Both the file would be to kill it. Yes Manichek Racelor, hi Ben Akron. Hi Vander wheel. Hi, Percy. No, Longman. Hi Bellinger, no, foreign. Hi, Carlson. Hi, Decker. Hi, Donahue Hi 14 eyes to nose Ocean carries 7 8 and 7 9 Will be referred Alderman Carlson. Thank you, mayor. I would actually like to in light of new information I would actually like to pull 7 9 for a vote tonight 7 8 will be referred 7 9 is from strategic Asking referral to salary and grievance. I need a motion There was no second It's been moved and seconded to Accept and adopt the strategic. What are you doing? Hey, man? I would actually like us to vote on this tonight in a strategic physical planning There was some information brought forward by Alderman Ben Akron in regards to a meeting that he had with the city attorney a few weeks ago and that information that he shared doesn't actually match up with the information that the city attorney presented with us and With this memo that is it should be on everybody's desk here Would you like to expand on that before I go further? Before we do that, we need a motion to accept and adopt the committee report as stated Moves and seconded to accept and adopt the committee report to file. I mean to refer Yeah, if I could clarify on on that motion to accept and adopt the committee report that Committee report is to recommend referring it to salary and grievance So if you are in support of referring it to salary and grievance, you'd want to vote aye on the motion If you don't want it to get referred to salary grievance, you would vote no on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor I'm kind of disappointed that it's that the motion was to pull it I feel kind of shanghite on that and and I don't appreciate that I Would like it to go to salaries and grievance so we could at least Vetted there with the information and have attorney McLean come at that point in time So that would be my recommendation and I would appreciate that. Thank you Alderman Hammond Thank You mr. Mayor. I too actually kind of feel shanghite we were given Very misleading information in the last meeting which I think swayed People's decision to send us the salaries and grievances. It's also come to my attention that there's a Little game that might be played with a three-man hole which at the next council meeting would re Make this not even eligible for discussion next council means not till after the 1st of December So this would really be the only opportunity to have this conversation Without the politics and game and ship so I too am very disappointed because It was not intentional to Shanghai you I think salaries and grievances would have did a fine job, but it's very clear that the city attorney's Conversation with Alderman van Ackeren and what he Expressed to us in that meeting Didn't match up. So, you know, I apologize if you feel shanghite, but that was certainly not the intention of Us at this point. We just want this to make sure it gets to a conversation and a vote Alumin, thank you. Thank you, mr. Mayor. I certainly I guess I would refer to City Attorney McLean to discuss I guess I will certainly first of all clarify my conversations and my My comments last night Simply that I had a meeting with City Attorney McLean to discuss this Proposal that was being forward and at that time I had Questions as to the legality or the possibility of that at that time he indicated that at that time Alderman Carlson had not consulted with him at all in reference to this He he did inform me that we do have a municipal code that requires the setting of a full-time mayor's salary To be 13 months ahead of time and I said I I feel that this would be in in contradiction to that law He indicated it would really depend on the intent Of the document the document itself in no way says Whether it's a full-time or a part-time position both Alderman Hammond and both Alderman Carlson Both indicated at the meeting on Thursday that in no way are they attempting to change the Classification or clarification of the mayor's position to a part-time or full-time position. It was the city attorney's Opinion in that meeting that unless you made the mayor's position a part-time position That we do not meet the legal standards of the municipal law or this resolution would not and that's what I brought forward to the committee On Thursday night unfortunately city attorney was not there to Discuss my legal concerns and that's what I brought forward is that we need to send us the salary and grievance So we had an opportunity to discuss this with Steve if any part of that conversation is incorrect Steve can certainly correct me here in a second, but that was the conversation. We had we have a municipal law that states that Again the alderman bringing this forward when asked by alderman Donahue if this was a backdoor attempt to Make the mayor's position a part-time position. They both indicated. No, that's not what the concern was It was simply to lower the salary and to add the second paragraph in reference to outside employment Again with that being the case if that's the intent The city attorney and I have spoken with him again today in reference to this He gave me his opinion that we do not meet the our own municipal code Legal standard and timelines so we would be again violating our own law by bringing this forward Certainly Steve you can give that opinion, but that's exactly what you told me in your office this morning And I'd like to hear you say that because they're sitting here I guess questioning whether or not that's the case and that's the information I gave on Thursday and that's the information I got from you Well, I did draft this opinion at the request of Alderman Carlson and you know the As it comes down to whether or not the proposal is to have the mayor's position as Either full-time or less than full-time if it's less than full-time, then it's my opinion that the Ordinance 29-106 that talks about the timing Establishing the salary for full-time elected officials wouldn't apply if it's if you're looking at not a full-time position if it if you're treating it as a full-time position at a salary of $25,000 Then it's my opinion that it's not timely because if it's a full-time position It should have been adopted and in fact there was a an ordinance adopted back in March that does comply with that full-time elected official Ordinance that set the salary for the next term So It's not clear on its face What it is at the ordinance I Read it as the intent is to make it a part-time position based on going from The existing proposal for next term as fifty thousand for the first year to going For the first year of the next term at twenty five thousand dollars so half of What the original or the current salary for the next term is and that coupled with the language in the second provision that Takes away the language and all the other elected official salary ordinances that say that The The full-time elected official can't engage in outside business activities during normal city office If you take that away in my view the intent of that is to say that the mayor could work Outside business activities during office hours. I get the intent being that creating a part-time position but It's not expressly stated in there, and I think it ought to be one way or the other That for that reason as well as the fact that the existing ordinance that was passed back in March for the next term Specifically states it's for a full-time mayor position So that's clear the the current proposal which would purport to repeal that March ordinance Doesn't say full-time part-time. It just says the office of mayor so you need to clarify that one way or the other I believe So that's the essence of my opinion is that if If the office of mayor for the next term is a full-time position The salary under city ordinance Needed to be set Back last March When in fact it was Established what last March and you notice that document is subs of subs of subs of general ordinance number That's Unprecedented in my experience. I've never seen a Document like that it shows that it went through a lot of different altered versions before it was finally active So if If you want to create for the next term Have the mayor be part-time set the salary at 25,000 as it's set forth in that Proposed ordinance, I guess I would suggest stating that it's part-time and If it is part-time then it's my opinion that it's proper to act on The salary change at this point up until December 1, which is the first day You can take out nomination papers for for the office of mayor aluminum Carlson Thank You mayor The primary intent and I spoke on this during strategic fiscal planning a Few months back and I actually I don't remember how many months now But we created the chief administrative officer who took over the day-to-day operations of this city Everything and we are voting on a resolution to streamline the Or an ordinance changed for the budgeting process which includes a chief administrative officer and reduces the role of the mayor Also in there We are paying a chief administrative officer six figures to run this city The mayor the mayor's position in effect has very little responsibilities going forward. That was a primary intent for this The only intent for this When we're talking part-time full-time, I think it's just a game of words We discussed this last time when we when this resolution came forward Because there's nothing stating except for in our own ordinance Just in regards of setting the salary if an elected official like myself Wanted to work in City Hall 40 hours a week There would be nothing stopping from doing that that my my pay would not increase or if I never showed up to a meeting My pay would not decrease full-time part-time is irrelevant. However My intent was I don't think we need to pay a mayor Regardless of who it is $50,000 a year To do a job that that That is no longer there the intent was the chief administrator has taken over the day-to-day operations And we're paying him over six figures a year in terms of the actual price I know there's a motion on the table. However, I would like the chance to To change that wording to make it fitting turn it into a part-time position. I have no problem doing that But like I said the original intent Was to reduce the salary and allow the person to work an outside job Because we have a full-time person getting paid a lot of money to make all of the decisions and date manage the day-to-day operations So is that your motion to change that or there's already a motion on the table No, but you're you would have to amend it to say a part-time mayor I would first need a motion on the table to approve the resolution The motion is to file the resolution now the motion is in the salaries and grievance. Yes Alderman Raceler thank you, Mr. Mayor I again feel deceived in all this as we had a specific meeting at strategic fiscal planning and both of you said This is not to be a part-time mayor. This was just to reduce the salary of the full-time mayor and allow them to work outside including several other aldermen that were there and Members of the public, but that's beside the point I guess I look at if we want to go to a part-time mayor I think we need to put it in the hands of a referendum for the citizens to decide and not make that decision for the 16 or 15 of Us that are here and the other thing is the whole reason I wanted to go to salaries and grievance So we can have all this discussion there instead of of having it here tonight and and I don't want to say wasting time But again that that's my whole reason I want to go to salaries and grievance so we can clean some of this up and come back with a recommendation next time to the council Of what we're looking for so I have no part in any Political three-man hold or any games that are going on. I'm the chairman of salaries and grievance We had a conversation prior to the meeting about it going there again That's why I feel deceived that you both lied to me and again. I just don't appreciate it Alderman Hammond Thank you Boy, you know, I wish Alderman Riesler You know, it's a little bit of a strong inference. I don't think anybody was lying to you I think again had the information From the council or from the meeting on last week Thursday been accurate The outcome of that may have been different and I was fully intending on going to salaries and grievances with this But again because of the gamemanship of some I don't think this would have gotten a fair vote next or even came up for vote the next council meeting my comment with respect to full-time and part-time mayor was that For some reason the city of Sheboygan Again talking with the League of Municipalities We're all full-time or part-time and I believe that was my comment that there's not a distinction between a full-time or a Part-time Alder person. There's not a distinction between a full-time or part-time mayor other than apparently in our municipal code It's just inferred based off of the level of pay that someone's getting So, you know, that was my comment to Alderman van Akeren's comments as well My comment was that was that again, it doesn't matter whether it's full-time or part-time Nobody recognizes it if it was mayor van Akeren. He's a mayor 24-7 Work all the person's 24-7 regardless of what the pay is the pay infers how much work goes into it But again, we never had the argument of full-time versus part-time I believe my comments were that the nature of the Position or the pay would dictate how much effort that goes into it But the Alderman Carlson's point can work 40 hours a week as an older person if you want Which is technically a full-time job. So again I'm very disappointed that this has to happen this way and I don't particularly have a problem with salaries grievance Because I know you'll give it an honorable vote up or down. I'm just not convinced that The the games at the next council meeting won't preclude this from coming to a to an actual vote. So But I am I would support it going to salaries and grievances For me personally, I don't care what the salary is My concern is I think that the council making a decision on who can run for Alderman or who can run for mayor And who can't run for mayor is ridiculous The voters should decide whether it's okay for their older or their mayor to have another full-time job That's my stance on it If that was the only portion that passed I'd be quite happy with that if I wanted to run for mayor The voters should decide whether Don can have his full-time job or not and still do a good job as mayor So that's the part of the resolution or ordinance that I'm supporting Because I think it opens up the pool of candidates And again, the voters may decide they don't want anybody that has a full-time job. We want them 100% dedicated to the city I'm okay with that too, but I think everybody should have that option to run for mayor if they so choose. Thank you Thank you Alderman Hammond, and I would put that in a form of a motion I think the City attorney was clear though There is a difference between a part-time mayor and both time because of our municipal code And if we don't change it or under the current circumstances and with both of you implying that you'd want to stay with full-time mayor then Our municipal code would say that you'd have to have it 13 months, correct? Yeah, that's that's the distinction in our municipal code. There there is a distinction between full-time and non-full-time if you will our ordinances which are adopted by the council the council can change those and and maybe should look at that and And revisit that provision on setting the salary for quote full-time elected officials, but it's there in effect And it needs to be on and because of that ordinance You do need to Categorize The position is full-time or part-time if you were having this discussion back last February it wouldn't make any difference because You would have met either the time requirement under the statute and and the city ordinance on setting the salary and I might remind you back in March The council had already created the chief administrative officer position back then There was a lot of discussion on what the salary was. I believe prior to it going to 50. It had been 76 somewhere 74 So I think that was taken into consideration at one time You know, I don't fault the council for looking at the salary for The mayoral position or any elected position Mine included For the next term But You've got the ordinance that's in effect. We've got to abide by that. I'm not going to Advise you to violate your own ordinance and if it's a full-time position Under our ordinances the time is up for setting the salary for the next term Attorney McLean just as a point of clarification under section 2 where the the Allow somebody to have a outside business activity That's not germane to whether it's a full-time or part-time salary Is that something we could act upon even if the position of the mayor is still full-time? Is that something we can act on and not be outside of that or not be in violation of that ordinance? Yes, if you're strictly just saying that The mayor could work outside activities during During city office hours that doesn't it's not affecting the compensation. Thank you so that that would Wouldn't violate our ordinance Alderman or Thanks, ma'am an Akron I've had I've had the experience now to serve under three mayor since I've been up here of Mayor Perez Mayor Ryan and now Mayor van Akron and I Think starting last fall was some of the some of the difficulties we had with our former mayor Thank God that we brought mr. Amoria Amoria on to be our chief administrative officer And it was very evident it was very evident to me late last year and early this year before the recall That's that's mr. Amoria took over There was a lot less for Mayor Ryan to do at that time and when we considered this back in March of 2012 with the $50,000 salary I believe I believe I brought in a document with alderman belt or alderman belt brought in the Document that we were going to consider doing a $24,000 salary at that time and in light of the fact that I noticed last year After mr. Amoria came on board that Mayor Ryan didn't didn't have nearly the things on his calendar that he did Previous to mr. Amoria coming on board and then seeing this year and recently amending that job description for mr. Amoria That's even going to reduce the mayor's role even more So I you know based on what I've seen since last fall with Mayor Ryan And whether it would be Mayor van Akron or some other mayor in the future I just don't think the the duties of the mayor as we go forward justify paying a $50,000 salary plus another 15 or $20,000 in benefits regardless who are who's going to be our new mayor starting in April So I would support I would support this $25,000 salary and giving our new mayor next year the option of having outside employment because I Guess you know I would hate to have a new mayor come in and have this schedule that our mayor has now in the new Mayor will have well frankly I think they might be bored bored to tears with this job because they're just not going to be enough for him to do From eight to five five days a week. They're just isn't now maybe before we had a chief administrative officer We had the full-time mayor. They had more of a full-time calendar. Yes, but going forward that's in my opinion That's not going to be the case for what I've observed And I've definitely observed more of that since we passed this document back in March. Thank you Thank you mayor I have several comments and the plain fact is is that if we State law says that for elective offices we have until December 1st this year to amend the salary The city has a more restrictive ordinance that really requires us to go out 13 months I certainly defer to attorney McClain, but the question of how far Municipality can go in terms of amending the intent or the scope of state law is is a is a complicated question This does not answer it for me what I do know at this point is That the only way under our municipal ordinance to go forward with what is in fact a part-time mayor position is The way that we go forward with that is to do it by December 1st and we say out loud That it is not a full-time position Because if we say out loud, it is a full-time position. We're out of luck. We can't go forward. Okay, all right Within the course of one to two weeks, we are considering taking what I consider to be Significant action to change the structure of city government Now the relationship between the mayor and the city the chief administrative officers positions that those offices At this point is a somewhat Confounded relationship it is not necessarily as I understand it a peaceful Relationship it is not necessarily as productive as it could be Because there are questions about who gets to do what? Within the course now of one week or perhaps two weeks But certainly by December 1st If we in fact consider this to be a part-time job We need to make the all of those changes and I just don't think that that's right This is this what the mayor does and what the chief administrative officer does those are complex questions We know speed kills and for us to go forward because we are under the deadline of this December 1st Cut-off time really is not good for the city now. I have because I have been Concerned about what I what appears to be a fair amount of conflict between the mayor's office and the chief administrative officers Office and I have seen that primarily through budget deliberations But there has been a struggle with the statutory language of what a mayor does how those powers get delegated And in fact as Alderman Warren said the chief administrative officer does a lot of what the mayor used to do So what does the mayor do? Well, I think we ought to talk about it. I drafted It's not a can't give a job description to an elected official But I drafted some job duties and responsibilities in my proposal Which I am not making formally at this point and I had intended without the speed With which this is going to speak with you all is that we meet as a committee of the whole with the mayor with the chief administrative officer and Discuss within the context of what's good for the city and How we move the city forward and and strategically where we want the city to be a year from now and three years from now And not only from a budget perspective But also as a place to live and what we offer our citizens to sit down all of us together in a round table And and talk about what we think the mayor ought to do now. I came up with 10 12 Duties that I think the mayor can reasonably perform and that can maybe be performed on a part-time basis And it can maybe be performed on a full-time basis. Maybe it's worth $25,000. Maybe it's worth $50,000 But those are things that we should take some time to talk about now There's this time crunch, but I'm going to suggest to you that making what I consider actually to be a fairly radical change And it is I mean in fact In fact if we proceed either tonight or with salary and grievances before December 1st to reduce the salary to $25,000 we have changed the structure of the mayor's office from full-time to part-time both from a legal perspective and from a from a Purely practical perspective, so I think what we need to do is Become just a little bit more friendly Not blindside not get mad not get lied to not lie but just sit down as Responsible elected officials which you know is a big deal. It's a big deal to be an elected official in my opinion Sit down and and discuss What it is we think that the mayor ought to do vis-a-vis what the chief administrative officer does vis-a-vis what we do as Alderman, you know, what is our role in all of this so I Will certainly support the motion as it stands now to refer this to salary and grievance But I would be Aggrieved if this council came to a decision to reduce the salary to $25,000 by December 1st speed kills Alderman Bellinger, thank you mayor. I'd like to Echo some of the things that Alderman Donahue said I too Have some concerns with the timing of this and the speed in which we would be enacting it I too contacted Dan Thompson at the league municipalities and had a lengthy discussion with him on this matter and he mentioned to me that No city the size of Sheboygan has a salary of In the state of Wisconsin has a salary of $25,000 and he said you would be hard-pressed to think of one That has one of 50,000. He says usually you go the other way I share the same concerns with Alderman Hammond that we would like to get the strongest and You know the most vibrant candidates to fill this position and you can argue Yes, or no the last few mayors whether we've had that and we've we've got the bang for the buck I'm not here to debate that one way or the other What I would like to do is Put you know Put a hold on this for the time being follow some of Alderman Donahue's suggestions And talk about it in some greater detail Because I think to move in such a swift manner There's a thing called the law of unintended consequences, and you don't know what's going to happen and the intent of increasing the pool of applicants that it just may backfire and the only people that you're going to be able to attract are you know people that are retired and Not that there's anything wrong of people that are retired, but You want you want to have a wider? So But you know that's my comments. Thank you Thank you Alderman versi No offense to Alderman Bellinger or older person Don't you this isn't rushed. This has been at length talked about before your time on console We have talked about this at length I mean to the point of beating a dead horse on it and we've come to the same conclusion than not and It hasn't been this isn't a rush decision by any means this has been talked about for a long time I've been here three years. It was talked about my very first year on console He was talked about not the same length that was in the last year year and a half, but it was talked to at length So to say that we're just jamming it through In my eyes really isn't happening because it's been discussed at length. It's giving it as Alderman Hammond said earlier more of a fair chance to be spoken to or spoken about at length because We don't want it to be shunned. We don't want to go away fast and on an ill intent either may or may not be there But the perception of it may be there, which is perception is everything. So this isn't being rushed We've been talking about it at length. So this is something that In my eyes, we actually came up with this last year the same almost the same salary Full-time part-time didn't matter that was our part-time salary and we set the full-time salary 50,000 So it was spoken to about both ways For very lengthy discussions at all mediums. So this isn't being rushed It's not being jammed through maybe it from what when you first saw it You may feel it's being rushed, but it really isn't so I mean This is something that has a great length of discussion to it. So it's not that scary of a thing. Thank you I Would just like to respond to you. Can you stand please just okay for the Thank you mayor. I'd just like to respond to Alderman versey We just went through this a few months ago and got it down. We went from seventy-some thousand down to fifty and You know to say that it's not rushed, you know, maybe during your tenure There's been discussions and going on in everything, but you know twice in one year We're gonna reduce the mayor's salary, but you know, I think that's I think that is rushed I mean, I think it's there's not a lot of foresight that was put on on the first vote then if you might you know You can look at it that way too. So You know, I want to think that there was some thought put into that first vote and You know, and if I don't know what the intent is if there's ill intent if there's not ill intent You know, there's an election coming up You can elect, you know Hopefully that there will have some good candidates and you know, whoever runs runs and you know May the best ban win or woman, but you know to do twice in one year. I think that would be Unprecedented for a body like this to do All the mccarrelson, thank you mayor. I guess I should first start off by saying as the author of this Ordinance there there is no ill intent my my intent was to Reduce the pay because of reduced responsibilities. That's my that's my only reason And I stand by that so I apologize to alderman racer in terms of it my my motion However, there there have been games played For quite a while now in this council for a long time No need to point out names or anything like that But there have been games playing and their their games have been played And I think games will be continued to play play through for the rest of this year and that is why I pulled it forward tonight We received a miss immense misinformation It's it's too bad the city attorney wasn't there last week when we met strategic fiscal planning That's that's why I wanted to have the discussion tonight. Once again, my intent was to lower the salary due to reduced responsibilities To me it doesn't matter who's sitting right there. I Don't care What matters to me is how much we're paying that person Alderman racer. Thank you, and I will not speak on this anymore, which will make everybody happy I do care who sits in that seat. I'm a voter my constituents are voters I want the best candidate to sit in there to work with the chief administrative officer to work with the council to To move the city forward to to be someone who solicits businesses and works with everyone and works with the chief administrator So I do care who's in that seat, and I want to make sure I pay them the right salary to get the right person there motion is to refer to salary and grievance all those in favor signify Okay, local Bursi? No Wongamun? Aye Bellinger? Aye Warren? No Carlson? No Decker? Aye Danahue? Aye Hammond? No Titanium? Nope Cut? Aye Lissard? No And Manichek? Aye Nine nine six dollars Motion carries eight one through eight three will be eight one and eight two alderman Half along with six one, I believe yep Thank you, mayor Ben Akron Um in reference to resolution six one. I move to suspend the rules Second I'm moving second to suspend the rules discussion under just suspending the rules All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye Opposed Motion carried I move that the resolution be put upon its passage Second it's been moved and seconded that the resolution be put upon its passage on six one Is there any discussion? Hearing none Call the roll No Bursi? Aye Wongamun? Aye Warren? Aye Carlson? Aye Decker? Aye Danahue? Aye Hammond? Aye Titanium? Aye Cut? Aye Lissard? Aye Manichek? Aye And Rayslard? Aye Working eyes one no Motion carried Eight one Alderman Cough? Thank you mayor Ben Akron Seconded to suspend the rules on both eight one and eight two Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye Opposed Motion carries to suspend Alderman Cough I move that the ordinance be put I move that both ordinances be put upon its passage Second It's been moved and seconded to pass both ordinances Is there any discussion? Hearing none clerk will call the roll Bursi? Aye Wongamun? Aye Bellinger? Aye Warren? Aye Carlson? Aye Decker? Aye Danahue? Aye Hammond? Aye Titanium? Aye Cough? Aye Lissard? Aye Manichek? Aye Rayslard? Aye Ben Akron? No Van Der Wiel? Aye Wieler matters From the City Planning Commission recommending amending the zoning map for property located to 3711 South Taylor Drive Alderman Cough Mayor Ben Akron I move to accept and file and pass the ordinance Second Move the second to accept and accept the committee report and pass the ordinance Pass the ordinance Is there any other discussion? Hearing none clerk will call the roll Wongamun? Aye Bellinger? Aye Warren? Aye Carlson? Aye Decker? Aye Danahue? Aye Hammond? Aye Titanium? Aye Cough? Aye Lissard? Aye Manichek? Aye Raysler? Aye Van Akron? Aye Van Der Wiel? Aye The second is a contract for sand computer storage Alderman Hammond Thank you Mr. Mayor if it's okay I'd like to also take nine four with this because we're both related to the same thing one's just a budget transfer Cough Cough For the funding and nine two is entering into the contract for said sand computer storage The only thing is that Alderman Hammond one needs a two thirds fold because it's a transfer Okay, fair enough then we'll go nine two We'll put the resolution upon its passage Second it's been moved seconded that the resolution be put upon its passage is there any discussion? Bellinger? Aye Warren? Aye Carlson? Aye Decker? Aye Danahue? Aye Hammond? Aye Titanium? Aye Cough? Aye Lissard? Aye Manichek? Aye 23 resolution by Alderman Hammond authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the 2012 budget Alderman Hammond Thank you I move we put the resolution upon its passage Second It's been moved and seconded to put the resolution upon its passage is there any discussion? Hearing none clerk will call the roll Warren? Aye Carlson? Aye Decker? Aye Danahue? Aye Hammond? Aye Cough? Aye Lissard? Aye Manichek? Aye Racler? Aye Ann Akron? Aye Vanderbilt? Aye Versey? Aye Longerman? Aye Bellinger? Aye 15 Motion carried 94 resolution by Alderman Hammond, Trent and rest are authorizing transfer of appropriations in the 2000 budget Alderman Hammond Thank you I move we put the resolution upon its passage Second It's been moved and seconded that the resolution be put upon its passage is there any discussion? Hearing none clerk will call the roll Decker? Aye Danahue? Aye Hammond? Aye Heidemann? Aye Cough? Aye Lissard? Aye Manichek? Aye Racler? Aye Ann Akron? Aye Vanderbilt? Aye Versey? Aye Longerman? Aye Bellinger? Aye Warren? Aye Carlson? Aye 15 Hearing none 95 general ordinance by Alderman Hammond, Carlson, Danahue and rest are amending various sections of the municipal cold relating to timetable for preparation and presentation of the proposed annual budget Alderman Hammond Thank you Mr. Mayor I move we put the ordinance upon its passage Second It's been moved and seconded that the ordinance be put upon its passage Is there any discussion? Hearing none clerk will call the roll Danahue? Aye I'm sorry Hammond? Aye Heidemann? Aye Cough? Aye Lissard? Aye I'm sorry? Aye Manichek? Aye Racler? Aye Van Akron? Aye Vanderbilt? Aye Versey? Aye Longerman? Aye Bellinger? Aye Warren? Aye Carlson? Aye And Decker? Aye 15 Motion carried under other matters all the city attorney 10.1 is RO by city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014 Long license 10.3 is an RO by the city clerk submitting communication from Daniel We'll be requesting a waiver from the sex offender residency restrictions in order to live at 925 A Michigan Avenue In fact we'll go to public protection and safety 10.2 is an RO by the city clerk submitting communications from Chicago Organary School District submitting their tax levy for the 2012-2013 school year That will lie over Again don't forget to vote tomorrow Alderman Hammond Before we adjourn Comment And thank you for indulging me a lot of spirited debate today But let's not forget what Sunday is It's Sunday, right? The 11th? Yeah Sunday the 11th That's Veterans Day The reason we're able to have a lot of this debate is because of what those great veterans did for us so I'd like to just take a moment and recognize those veterans and thank you very much for your service Thank you Motion to adjourn Second It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor signify by saying aye Aye