Gastroesophageal reflux disease is one of the most common disorders of the digestive tract. The two most typical symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation of stomach contents up into the back of the throat.  It causes millions of doctor visits every year, millions of hospitalizations, and the most feared complication is cancer. We start out with a normal esophagus, and if the acid keeps creeping up, it gets all inflamed, and you can get esophagitis, which can turn into barit's esophagus, which can turn into cancer, adenocarcinoma. To prevent all that, we just need to prevent the acid reflux in the first place. In the last three decades, the incidence of this cancer in the US has increased sixfold, an increase greater than that of melanoma breast or prostate cancer, and that's because acid reflux is on the rise. In the United States, we're up to like one in four people suffering, at least weekly heartburn and or acid regurgitation, compared to down around 5% in Asia, suggesting dietary factors may play a role. In general, high fat intake is associated with increased risk, whereas high fiber foods appear to be protective. The reasons fat intake may be associated with GERD symptoms and erosive esophagitis is because studies on volunteers have shown that when we eat fatty foods, the sphincter at the top of the stomach that's supposed to keep the food down and the acid down is relaxed in the presence of fat, and so more acid can creep up into the esophagus. For example, if you have volunteers eat a high-fat meal, a McDonald's sausage, an egg, McMuffin, and compare that to a low-fat meal, McDonald's hotcakes, there was significantly more acid squirted up in the esophagus after the high-fat meal. Then in terms of later stages, over the last 20 years, 45 studies have been published in the Association between Barris Esophagus, Esophageal Cancer, and Diet. In general, they found that meat and high-fat meals appears to increase cancer risk, though different meats were associated with cancers in different places. Red meat was more associated with cancer in the esophagus, but poultry was more associated with cancer at the top of the stomach. Whereas meat alternatives, quote-unquote, such as beans and nuts, were associated with a significantly decreased risk of cancer, consistent with previous data suggesting a protective effect of plant protein sources, as well as fruits, vegetables, and antioxidants in produce form, though not pill form. Those eating the most antioxidant-rich foods had half the odds of esophageal cancer, whereas practically no reduction in risk among those who used vitamin supplements, such as vitamin C or E pills. The most protective produce may be red-orange vegetables, dark green leafies, berry juice, apples, and citrus. But it may not just be the plants. Eating healthy foods crowds out less healthy foods, so it may be a combination of both. Based on a study of 3,000 people, the consumption of non-vegetarian foods was an independent predictor of GERD, which in this study in India presumably included eggs, which are considered non-vegetarian. Egg yolks appear to increase this hormone called cholecystokine, induces this increase, which may overly relax the sphincter that separates the esophagus from the stomach. The same hormone is increased by meat, which may help explain why vegetarianism appeared to be a protective factor for reflux esophagitis. Scientists found that those eating meat had twice the odds of reflux-induced esophageal inflammation. Therefore, vegetarian diets may offer protection, though it's uncertain again whether it's attributable to the absence of meat in the diet or the increased consumption of healthy foods. Vegetarian diets are characterized by greater consumption of fruits and vegetables, containing innumerable phytochemicals, dietary fiber, antioxidants, and omnivores. In addition to just restricting their consumption of the animal sources of food, which tend to be fattier and then can relax that sphincter and aggravate reflux. Bottom line, GERD is common, its burdens are enormous, it relapses frequency and can cause bleeding and strictures, not to mention a deadly cancer. The mainstay of treatment is the proton pump inhibitors, which rake in billions of dollars. We spend $4 billion on nexium, a loan of $3 billion on privacy, $2 billion on protonics, $1 billion on acid effects, but they can cause nutrient deficiencies, increase the risk of pneumonia, food poisoning, and bone fractures. Thus, it's important to find correctable risk factors and correct them. Known correctable risk factors are things like obesity, smoking, and alcohol consumption, but there hadn't been studies on eating meat versus not eating meat, but now we have another correctable factor to help prevent this disease.


Good evening everyone. Welcome to tonight's common council meeting. Before we start the meeting, we ask our city clerk to read the quote for the week. Thank you. Integrity is when what you say, what you do, what you think, and who you are all come from the same place. Thank you very much. And before I call the meeting to order, the public has asked through communications with several aldermen in my office to please wear your mic appropriately. A lot of people that are watching us now live are not able to hear the discussions and debate. Also this is the first meeting that is not on channel 8. It's 990 if you have digital and 95 if you don't. So this is the first meeting. If for some reason somebody asks you tomorrow why was it on channel 8, please let them know that. Hopefully Mike at the radio station will give them another reminder tomorrow morning. For the 13th regular meeting of the common council order, please call the roll. Boren. Here. Bauch. Here. Decker. Here. Gisha. Here. Hannah. Here. Heidemann. Here. Kittleson. Here. Clayunas. Here. Meyer. Here. Montemayor. Here. Rindfleisch. Here. Ryan. Here. Rindfleisch. Here. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you all. The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes. President Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move for the approval of the minutes. Second. Motion in second to approve minutes under discussion. There is none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Minutes stand approved. Resignations. Attorney McLean. First is Alderman Vicki Meyer advising that she's resigning from the Sustainable Sheboygan Task Force Committee because of conflicts with other committees. And that, I need a motion to accept and file. President Hanna. Mr. Mayor, regretfully I do move to accept and file. Second. Motion in second to accept resignation under discussion. There being none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Resignation is accepted. Next is an email from Rob Schrader advising that he's resigning effective August 29th and he's no longer with the lion energy and he was on the board of electrical contractors. And that lies over. I don't think so. Any motion to accept and file resignation? I'd make a motion to accept and file a resignation. Second. Motion in second to accept and file any discussion? There is none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Resignation accepted. And the next is an email from Janet Carter advising that due to her responsibilities at the landmark towers, she's prevented her from attending a lot of the meetings on the commission on aging and she's asking the mayor to make another appointment. President Hanna. Motion. I'd make a motion to accept and file a resignation. Second. Motion in second to accept and file a resignation under discussion. There is none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Resignation accepted. That's it. That's it. Okay. Next item is mayor's appointments. Attorney McLean, please continue. I hereby submit the following appointment for your consideration. Michael Warnches, to be considered for appointment to the Board of Electrical Examiners, to fill the unexpired position of Robert Schrader, whose term expires on 430, 2010, signed by the mayor. And that will lie over. And Sherpao Vang, to be considered for appointment to the commission on aging, to fill the unexpired term of Janet Carter, whose term expires 430, 2010. That also lies over. And Jody Brooks, to be considered for appointment to the Board of Parks and Forestry, is the community recreation department representative, to fill the unexpired term of Harold Bebel, whose term expires 430, 2009, signed by the mayor. That also lies over. We have confirmation of mayor's appointments. Attorney McLean. And hereby submit the following appointments for your confirmation. This was submitted, the prior council meeting, to the Water Safety Task Force. I don't know that I'll read all the names. Just said night over from the last meeting. I need a motion to confirm. Motion to confirm the appointments. Second. Thank you. Motion is second to confirm appointments. Under discussion. There being none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Appointments are confirmed. Concluded. Thank you very much. Attorney McLean. Next item on the agenda is a public forum. Madam City Clerk. Thank you. First this evening is Dwayne Jordan. Is Dwayne here? I don't see Dwayne. Okay. Next on the list would be Jen Butler. Is Jen here? Jen, would you mind coming up to the mic right here, please? And if you can get the mic kind of close to you so we can hear you. If you move those, there you go. Silver part. Okay. I hope it doesn't beep. It won't. And I need your home address, Jen. 1529 North 25th Street. North 25th. And you will have five minutes. Okay. My family and I moved here nine years ago because my husband got a job at Kohler. The reason we chose to live in the city of Sheboygan, instead of Usberg, Plymouth, Sheboygan Falls, Howard's Grove, or other surrounding areas, was because Sheboygan was one of the safest places to raise a family. Last month that sense of security was in question. I felt that the safety of my family as well as others in my neighborhood was in jeopardy. If it weren't for the article in the Sheboygan press on the 17th, many of us would have never known what was going on with the chance of sex offenders being placed in our neighborhood until it was too late. On Monday, September 22nd, the citizens that lived in the area originally in question came to the committee of the whole meeting and demanded that our city council stand up and fight for the whole community, not just 95%. I can't believe that without that effort, our city officials would have even contemplated the idea of placing large amounts of sex offenders in one isolated, highly child-populated area of our community. The audacity of even a few aldermen pushing for 1,500-foot buffer was totally insensitive of the rest of the community. Despite what the original proposal said with a 2,000-foot buffer, it was stated by certain individuals that they would take what they could get. That is not proper attitude a city official should have. You have the citizens of this community's lives at stake here. The well-being of everyone in this community should be considered when making life-changing decisions as you so often do. I wouldn't say that the citizens of the city of Sheboygan are going to get a false sense of security with this proposal. We are not naive. We understand probably better than most what resides here in our city already. We see it every day. I do believe, however, that we have proven to you that we will not lie down and let our city officials pass proposals that will endanger or cause fear to certain areas of our community. This is our home, and we will do whatever it takes to protect it, even if it means standing up and fighting against those who were appointed to do just that. I am one voice standing up here for many. We have collected several petitions of concerned citizens worried about the vote that will take place here tonight. I understand that many of you are concerned about the legal ramifications of your vote tonight. It is my belief, as well as many of our concerned citizens, that you look at the total picture. We are a community of high family values as well as high social values. It is imperative that you, as the leaders of our community, stand up and ensure that we are able to keep those values. It is not the state of Wisconsin that has made our community strong, but the people and the values they employ. As I stand here before you tonight, I ask that you not only think about the families in our community, but of your own as well. Keep in mind, as you place your vote tonight, the effect it will have on all of us. I urge you to vote yes on this proposal with the stated 2,000-foot buffer and the added places of leadership. Blackout the entire city. Remember, this is our home. We need to keep Shaboy again one of the safest places to raise a family. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list is Sarah. Is it Cruz? Sarah, would you like to come up to the mic, please? And Sarah, I need your home address. 1310 Kentucky Avenue. And can you pull the mic kind of close to you so that everybody can hear you? That's close. 1310 Kentucky Avenue. Okay. Hold on. This is it. All right. And you will have five minutes. All right. Go ahead. I am opposed for the ban on the sexual offenders living in Shaboygan. Now, I understand that we are in fear of our children's safety and other females and other victims in the society and in the city of Shaboygan. But we have to consider that these offenders already did their time.  And the surrounding neighborhoods are informed of a sexual offender that is coming to stay in their neighborhood. Now, these are human beings. Yes, they have done some things wrong. And there are repeated offenders. Now, I would take into consideration doing this for the repeated offenders. But for those who have done just one mistake to consider them a repeated offender and that they will offend again, that's wrong. There are other circumstances where it could have been a younger relationship where a sexual offense had taken place, but it was mutual. You also have those who have families of their own. What happens if you move them and they have children of their own into one set area? You are putting their own children in a high risk area. If there is an accident and everybody else is not around and there is only a sexual offender in that area, do you expect a sexual offender to help that certain person? Because the rest of the city had shunned them away. They are human beings. They want to get themselves better. But they can't when the city is turning them away. They are already labeled. They know what they have done and they have done their time and they took their classes. Please consider about the other people besides our children and our loved ones. The offenders are just that they are offenders, but some are repeated, but one or two or three people in Sheboygan may not have just repeated several times. They could have just done one mistake. They go to church. Why are you taking their church and religion away from them? They themselves have a right to go to church themselves. They have done their time. Do you not think that they put their heart and soul into the Lord Jesus Christ while they were incarcerated? They need their own religion to keep them mind strong. Thank you. Thank you. Next will be Gail Cruz. Gail, if you could come up to the mic. And Gail, what is your home address? 1310 Kentucky Avenue. Okay. And you will have five minutes. Okay.  I feel that each case of a sex offender should be seen as a case-by-case basis. Some offenders, yes, repeat. They should be looked at as placing elsewhere. But those sexual offenders that have placed one, that have done one thing wrong, I agree. They should be looked at. Perhaps it was a relationship that went wrong. She was 16. She lied about her age. A lot of it has happened and occurred.  What happens when they turn 18 years of age? Are we going to kick them out? On the other hand, I agree that we need to keep our children safe.  You go with the rest of them. Live someplace else. We don't want you here. We want to save city, yes. But look at it on a case-by-case basis. What if the offenders suffer from psychological or mental disorders that are being treated with drugs and therapy? You're now going to take them, push them away and leave them in an area where they may not be able to get that same quality of care. That same ability because you're pushing them to a different location where they may not be able to get their therapy or their medication. There lies another issue. What are they going to do for their therapy, their medication, if you're pushing them someplace else? I don't think it's fair. If you have a juvenile that's offended when he turns 18, what are we saying to them? We don't want you here. Get out. They're 18. Not a lot of children at that age actually know what the world is like.  And they're only going to learn by the ways of these other sexual offenders. They need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Some offenders are light in what they've done. Okay. Put them in a community where they're still getting treatment and it was a one-time deal. If you have a repeat offender, all right, let's find someplace where we can put them so that our community can feel safe. Thank you. Thank you. And finally, we have Delcey Johnson. Delcey, if you could come up please. And Delcey, your home address please. 1306 North Third Street, Sheboygan. Okay. And you will have five minutes. Thank you. Mayor Perez and members of the council. The fire department issued their second quarter ambulance report on July 28th, known by some as the Swiss cheese report. As you know, the fire department operates three ambulances full-time with a fourth on standby. The state requires two paramedics per ambulance. But Chief Lutusky only recounts for the expenses of four paramedics when in fact he has stated that he needs 19 to run the system. Chief Lutusky recently requested and received permission to hire two paramedics to replace two who are leaving, which per Chief Lutusky leaves the department with 19, five short of the size strength. Using the number 19, total expenses for the first six months of 2008 figures to be 718,799 dollars. The department listed receipts of 243,311 dollars through June 30th, which gives a negative difference of 475,488 dollars, not a profit of 13,387 dollars as reported by the fire department. And that deficit becomes even greater when you add unknown administrative costs which are not reported. Additionally, one must note that the fire department's overtime for the first six months of 2008 is almost 20,000 dollars higher than for the same period of 2007 and the big landmark fire took place in the first half of 2007. Fire services overtime for the first six months of 2007 was 15,403 dollars compared with 34,386 dollars for the first six months of 2008. The total number of fires in the first six months of 2007 was 105 and only 55 for the same period of 2008. So over time for fire services in 2008, more than doubled, though the department responded to only half as many fire calls. The total number of rescue calls in 2007 was 1,008 compared to 1,407 in 2008. So it would seem that the need for 20,000 more in overtime pay is due to increased rescue calls and not more fire calls. Additionally, if because of the loss of revenue from city of Sheboygan Ambulance calls, Orange Cross does not meet their operating budget and should require a subsidy from the county. You and all of your constituents will pay the subsidy and that cost should be considered as an expense in the fire department's year-end reporting. I attended the Committee of the Whole meeting at which the Ambulance second quarter report was presented by the fire department. And as I remember, all of the questions asked by council members were merely gratuitous. As elected representatives of the city of Sheboygan, I urge you to question the information that you receive from department heads and not accept it eepsofacto. Finally, a word about roving ambulances. When the council voted to give the ambulance service to the fire department, I believe you were voting for ambulances to be stationed at the fire stations. But it seems that the ambulance have taken to roaming. When I met with Mayor Perez in late May or early June, I told him that late on Saturday morning, May 17th, I was working in my yard when a fire department ambulance came cruising down Michigan Avenue, head at east, no siren, no flashing lights, no speeding, just a nice leisurely pace. It crossed 3rd Street towards the lake and turned north. I thought to myself, oh yeah, I take ambulances out to do building inspections, but then I realized they probably weren't doing building inspections on Saturday morning. And secondly, there are no buildings to inspect north of Michigan Avenue along the lakefront. So what was this ambulance doing? The mayor made some comment about the high price of fuel and asked me for my phone number. And to that story, the mayor has never called me with any explanation. This errant ambulance is not an isolated incident. When I mentioned it to an acquaintance, they told me they had observed an ambulance cruising down Geely Avenue, turning south on 3rd Street with no apparent destination in sight, no sirens, no flashing lights, no speeding. If this ambulance had been returning from Memorial Hospital to any fire station, their route would not take them down 3rd Street. The afternoon of Friday, September 26th, I was on my way home from an errand at about 3 o'clock, and at 6th and Pan, I saw a fire department ambulance, no siren, no flashing lights, no speeding. This would not be the route for any ambulance returning from either hospital. I read Med 1 on the back of the ambulance. The ambulance proceeded towards the lake on Pan and turned north at the Armory. This was also my route home. The ambulance continued on past the Y in the Northside Beach, and at that point I decided to learn what the mission of this ambulance might be. It continued north towards North Point, up the hill, onto Lincoln Avenue to North 3rd Street, where it turned south on 3rd Street to Superior, then west on Superior to East Street. Excuse me, Delcy, would you like your extra minute? Please. Okay, go ahead. At 8th and Superior, it turned south and continued to New York Avenue, where it backed into the fire station. There were two men in blue uniforms in the cab of the ambulance. I wasted gas in following the ambulance beyond my destination, but I buy my own gas. I would be surprised to learn that the incidents that I have mentioned are isolated incidents. Fire department ambulances should not be needlessly cruising around town. Further, since the taxpayers pay for the fuel for these ambulances and with a high price of fuel, it is even more disturbing to think of roving fire department ambulances. I hope that either Mayor Perez or someone on the council will look into this and get back to me with an explanation of how these little jaunts are occurring, wasting taxpayers' money. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That's it. Okay, before we move on, thank the members of the public who addressed the council tonight. It's an input such as yours that makes our meetings truly worthwhile. I appreciate that very much. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for the vacation and discontinuance of a portion of North 21st Street located in Sheboygan, Wisconsin and lying between North Avenue and Kelley Med Drive. Is there anyone here that would like to address the council? This is a public hearing if you would like to address the council. Yes, sir, please come up. And can I have your name and address, sir? My name is Milton Storm, and I reside at 1736 Marvin Court for 43 years and have been a resident of the city of Sheboygan for 51 years. Okay, go ahead. I'm in favor of the vacation or vacating and discontinuing the portion of the North 21st Street between North Avenue and Kelley Med Drive. Now, here's my suggestion for the future. I was thinking about maybe eliminating the stop and go lights, and let's go to a roundabout. We've been educated with this in the city of Sheboygan. Now, this thing would have to have at least three lanes and be labeled properly. The center lane would be for Kelley Med Drive, and it would be continuous. The left turn lanes would have to be yielded or stop sign, and the right turn lanes, the outer lane, would have to also have a yield sign. It will be made adaptable for the year 2039 if the populist so desires, and then Kelley Med Drive could go straight through. And North Avenue could be an overpass with existing ramps or without ramps. My plan is in my head and my computer mind and hasn't been made on the drawing board yet, but I'm getting there. Now, this may reduce the salary of the city plan commission, and I'm sure that Paulette Enders would be kind of disappointed that her salary would be freeze for the year 2025. Of course, my plan would come with instructions, so you know how to use it. My plan would need to be reviewed first with former Alderman Rene Shuchsia and possibly the honorable mayor. I'm sure that I have trouble sometimes with honorable, but then I think you all would have the same trouble calling me Your Majesty or Your Excellency. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to address the council? Is there anyone else that would like to address the council? President Hannon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd move to close the hearing. Second. Motion second to close hearing. Under discussion. There is none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. One no. Motion carries. Hearing is closed. Consent agenda. President Hannon. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. I'd move that all ROs be accepted and placed on file, and all RCs be accepted and adopted. Second. Motion and second on Consent Agenda 13-1-1321. Under discussion. There will be none. Please call the roll. Born. Aye. Boke. Aye. Decker. Aye. Gisha. Aye. Hanna. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Cleiness. Aye. Meyer. Motion carries. Communications and petitions. 13-22 to be referred. Report of officers 2. 13-23 to 13-32 to be referred. Please make a notation on 13-32. That is the budget that you've got tonight. The date on that item there says 2010. No, 2009. Please make that correction. And you will have received your budget today. I want to just point out a few things here before we refer it. The budget as it stands in your hands to preliminary budget, by that I mean that I'm not done. As you will recall last year, we balanced the budget three times. Well, this year balance in the budget has been an extremely difficult thing to do. We continue to have a dollar job, $100 job to do with $50. And folks, it's getting pretty darn near impossible to continue doing that. My staff and I, along with some suggestions of Alderman Gisha, who's chairman of finance, and Alderman Hanna, who's president of the council, we beat this thing back and forth, over and over and over again, and it's not there. So we will have to probably resort to some drastic moves, and that may include, or may not include, but probably some potential layoffs. I tried my best not to even consider that, not to make that consideration, but as it stands now, the revenue just not match our expenditures. Our expenditures, as you know, go up automatically every year. Light goes up, gas goes up, automatic salaries go up, wages and salaries, premium shares go up, benefits of state health benefits, costs all go up. Everything goes up every year automatically, and our revenue has not been increasing that much. So we've had some, we've been able to pull some good rabbits out of the hatch for the last several years, but we're almost at the end here, and we're going to have to resort to some pretty drastic measures within the next week. This budget is going to finance. By that time, by the time that finance committee meets, I will probably have the balanced budget. Bear in mind there will be some drastic moves that will have to be made to balance that budget. As it stands now, the preliminary deficit is a little over a million, about $1.2 million, $1.3 million. We do, as we put our budget together, I'll just say real quickly because it's a hard concept to understand, but expenditure restraints, we have to be very careful with that, or we don't get the state aid that we do because we stay within a certain gap. We do have approximately $750,000 from health insurance costs, and we do have increased operations for the new police facility that we're building now, I should say. Keep in mind also that we let go of about $120,000 in revenue because we actually reduce the local tax rate by a nickel. It was a courageous move on your part, and it was courageous and responsive for the longest time this council, and I have worked hard myself too to be extremely responsive to the people's pleas for tax relief. You have done an incredible job, but because we've done such a good job, we have put ourselves in a situation where now it's time where it's going to get a little tough, a little tougher than it has been. I just wanted to point out that our levy is comprised of four things, and most of you will recall when I've talked about them, we do have 60% of our money that goes to the general fund as operations that we work under. 13% of that levy goes to the library. That's been the traditional portion that goes to the library. What does that mean in dollar amounts? It's about $2,651,000. We also appropriate about 17% to our debt service. That's money if we borrow, we need to pay it back, so we have debt service, and about 17% of our levy goes to debt service, and that translates to $3.5 million in debt service. And as you know, we also appropriate for transit, and that adds up to about 3% for transit, and that's what transit has been getting traditionally for all these years. What does that translate into money? About $658,000. As I've said, our expenses continue to go up automatically every year. Our revenues do not. Our people have asked us not to raise taxes. We've been very responsive. That portion stays flat. So a huge percentage of our budget is governed already just by those decisions that have been made. Again, it is a preliminary budget. We continue to beat it. We continue to beat it and try to make it work. By next week, early next week, or at the end of this week, we should have a balanced budget. Please expect and understand that some drastic moves will have to be made. I will go back to my department heads and talk it over with them. Thank you very much. Next item. I'm sorry, we got some people want to speak. President Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First off, I've been at a couple of meetings with you where we discussed the budget, and I need to publicly thank you for the hard work and the hours you put into this. I don't think Alderman and the general public realize how much time and effort you put into the budget process and how difficult this decision has been of what hard decisions are going to come in front of us. And I'd be remiss not to compliment Terry Hansen for really hitting the ground running. I mean, coming into a new city, and he's instantly been an asset in helping us through this process. So I hope Alderman will be supportive of you during this difficult time. Thank you, President Hanna. Appreciate that. And Alderman Bauch, you wish to speak, sir? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My constituents are telling me they like it and they're pleased with the last three or four years of no tax increases. And it's interesting as we contemplate the business cycle that our shawing families are living through right now. High gas prices and an economy that we're all unsure of. It's interesting on a macro level, a large-scale level in Madison and Washington, governments tend to isolate themselves from business cycles. They just take, take, take. And here at the local level, it's exciting to be part of a team that is saying, you know what, we're not just going to take, because we can't during these hard business times, we're going to face the same business cycle that our neighbors do, and we're going to not take. And so congratulations to you for your past no tax increases. And I, too, want to thank the department heads and the people who have been working on the health care committee, health care costs are just kind of rocketing for our city employees. So thanks to that. I, too, have had some great experiences with new Director Hansen. He is just a fantastic new asset for the city. And so, again, thanks to everyone who's been putting in time. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to add to the Terry Hansen Love Fest. I've appreciated his, his hard work, and he has hit the ground running, and it has been helpful to the city. And I've also appreciated some of the meetings that we've had on the budget as, as finance chair. I appreciate being brought into some of those. And we're talking about rabbits out of a hat. This is more of a, I think, to change barnyard animals. This is more of a chicken come home to roost. You know, we have over a million dollars in additional employee expense in this year's budget. And where we have revenues based on just appreciation of what we have, about 300,000. Your job is huge, and I appreciate the fact that you've impacted the council's goal of not only balancing the budget but reducing the tax rate. It's not an easy thing. I know you guys have been going around and around. I just want to thank you and to challenge the department heads to come together with you for this last hurdle. And we, in finance, look forward to your report on Monday. Thank you, all. Okay. Nobody else? We will move on to resolutions. Introduce three. 1333 by Roman Hanna. Rinflies, Heidemann, Kittleson, and Ryan. Authorizes the Sherboygan Police Department to participate in the grant program under the non-motorized transportation pilot program. President Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the resolution be put upon its passage. Motion and second, under discussion. There is none. Please call a roll. Bauch. Aye. Decker. Aye. Gisha. Aye. Hanna. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Clioness. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Motion carries. 1334 by Alderman Hanna. Rinflies, Heidemann, Kittleson, and Ryan. Authorizing the donation of obsolete traffic safety vest to the United States military for their use in the Republic of Iraq. President Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the resolution be put upon its passage. Motion and second, under discussion. There is none. Please call a roll. Decker. Aye. Gisha. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Clioness. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Rinflies. Aye. Ryan. Aye. Vanderwheel. Aye. Verhaselt. Aye. Foran. Aye. And Bauch. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carries. 1335 lies over. 1336 through 1340 to be referred. 1441 by law and licensing recommended denying beverage operators license number 8021 based upon the applicant's failure to include all relevant convictions on the license application, the record as a repeat law violator and failure to cooperate with the committee. Vice President Bourne. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Motion and second under discussion. Your Honor is Nicholas Brock here tonight. He's not here, Your Honor. Very well. Please proceed. Mr. Brock had two opportunities to appear before the committee, the second by certified mail. He did not appear. And the committee was very concerned about his record as a repeat law violator. Mr. Brock has had 23 contacts with police since 1999. So on that basis, it was a unanimous vote to deny the application. Thank you. Any other discussion on the 1341? There being none, please call the roll. Gisha. Aye. Hannah. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Clayunas. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Rinflige. Aye. Ryan. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Verhaselt. Aye. Boran. Oppropriations in the 2008 budget. Establish an appropriation for fire department gas expenses as a result of a drowning established revenue and appropriation for donations received for July 4th celebration. Aldermen Gisha. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the resolution be put upon its passage. Second. Motion is second. Under discussion. There is none. Please call the roll. Hannah. Aye. Heidemann. Kittleson. Aye. Clayunas. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Rinflige. Aye. Ryan. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Verhaselt. Aye. Boran. Aye. Falk. Aye. Decker. Aye. And Gisha. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carries. Relating to the sexual offender residency restrictions and passing the attached substitute ordinance. Alderman Boeck. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I move that the RC be accepted and adopted and the substitute ordinance be put upon its passage. Second. Motion is second. Under discussion. And please continue. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I would just like to again, thank the citizens for their comments tonight. I'd like to assure some of the later speakers that on a case by case, the case-by-case basis is absolutely provided for in the ordinance so that all people who turn to the city can make their petition to the Public Protection Safety Committee and that with the 2,000-foot circles the entire city is protected based on the addition of the words and places of worship. So everything that we talked about delivering the night of the committee the whole this ordinance does deliver on. Thank you. You need to say something? I'll wait on the Alderman. Let's see. Turn the clean. Thank you, Your Honor. As far as the the coverage of the city I just received the map today from Tom Hornis and engineering. I don't know if any you shared that with any of the aldermen but in the interest of full disclosure I note that on the extreme south end of the city there are, according to this drawing, approximately six or seven lots I believe in the lower portion of the Fox Meadows subdivision that are not in the shaded areas. So it's not accurate to say that every residential lot in the city is covered by this. I guess the next possible response is okay do we widen the circles? I guess you can do that. My suggestion would be if you want there to be a hundred percent coverage of residential areas that you consider adding additional focuses if you will that you measure the 2,000 feet from. As I mentioned at the committee of the whole I think 2,000 feet is justifiable and would withstand scrutiny in that that as far as I'm aware is the maximum that other communities have established the distance requirement at. Rather than expand the distance I guess my suggestion would be to if again if you want to do this would be to look at coming up with another category you added places of worship there could perhaps add some other category so that you would have a complete coverage of all the lots not suggesting you have to do that but you know unfortunately this map isn't large enough so it's clear to anybody looking at it but looking at it it's clear that there are a couple lots in the city that aren't trouble. Next taking you in the order that you're hitting your lights all the kittles in your next thank you your honor I wasn't here at the committee of the whole meeting and I'm sorry about that I wish I could have heard more of the conversation but we did receive a letter here from the state of Wisconsin Department of Corrections with several questions which I read through and highlighted and I just wondered if those questions have been answered could someone address that for me please yes thank you thank you I spoke to the the author of the letter from the Department of Corrections yesterday and actually the ordinance does answer all those questions I referred her to several points in the ordinance and she needed additional clarification to ask the city attorney but the the points in her letter were covered to her satisfaction thank you hey next we have Alderman Ryan thank you mr. Mayor definitely we do need to to take action and covering those those lots there we can't even if it's only seven lots it's it's unfair so I don't know what the easier route will be I would think if we just increased it to the 2,500 foot radius I would think at that point that would definitely cover that and we should be should be in good shape so I that would be the route I don't I don't want to put it in amendment to the resolution without further discussion right now but I think that's the route that we should take because it's not fair to anybody to have any any area that is that is open under this ordinance thank you taking you as I as I get you old man president thank you a couple things I think my suggestion would be tonight to pass the ordinance we make a friendly amendment just to include that neighborhood and then come back at a later date and work on attorney McLean's recommendation but I think tonight we can solve that issue with just an amendment to that specific neighborhood and then we should be we should be just fine I also spoke to the individuals with the department of correction as chairman of the public protection and safety and encourage them to call me if they have any follow-up questions to their letter okay next we have all my honor I just wanted to thank all the people that came together to look out for our children in our community and a special thanks to Jenny Butler Jen Jenny Engels Charlie Dickey Lisa Ferguson and Kevin Hawley their efforts to put together petition drive have been phenomenal it was successful they had over 300 signatures and I'm very proud to represent the people of the 7th district and I'd like to thank them again for all their hard work they made a huge difference like Elman Meyer next we have all money in place thank you Mr. Mayor I do think that we need to take a look at that neighborhood I again not being an attorney but if we can simply add the language for one neighborhood I think that is going to open us up to examination within lawsuits because we're not following a consistent pattern we're gonna you know handpick a neighbor but if that was the case we could have done that in community of the whole I also understand that the 2,500 feet may also open us that up but we have a few lots right now in that area as we continue to expand and annex in we may not have additional places of worship that are annexed in we may not have additional school property that's annexed in or parks that are trails that are annexed in so I still would like to see the 2,500 feet so that we do protect areas as we continue to annex and grow as well knowing that it still may shine a bright light on our resolution here so I will make that amendment to change any place within the resolution that states 2,000 feet to 2,500 feet there's a motion in second and I still have some blinking lights there's a motion in second to change a number from 2,000 to 2,500 feet under discussion on that 2,500 feet only what I'm going to do is I'm going to turn all the lights off that were initially on we're going to go I'm going to ask you to turn to hit your light if you want to discuss the amendment only from 2,000 to 2,500 so they're off who wants to go first because you got it first oh sorry because I wrote this maybe I can add a little bit to it I don't care if it's 10,000 feet but we have to be able to defend it and that's why kind of dovetailing off attorney McLean across the country 2,000 feet is defensible I would prefer to see I can't live but you can't do that it's the court's pretty clear on that most recent ruling in Franklin from July is very clear on that it's defensible I would ask that the amendment be be removed and that amendment be reset rescinded and I would ask that we pass the 2,000 foot child safety zones and I would commit as I committed a year and a half ago publicly to bring this to the council I will commit and there are ways of doing this the gentleman from Green Bay the older person from Green Bay spoke to that when he was here speaking before our committee there are ways to include these little sliver areas and they're not magical and I would commit to bringing in an amendment to the ordinance in a very short period of time to solve this problem without us getting into a legal issue with expanding beyond the 2,000 feet it can be done I've already talked to him about it and it's not that tough and I felt the 2,000 was actually going to cover it okay I missed six lots I can I can fix that and I just ask that that we pull back on this this amendment and allow us to fix it and it can be fixed quickly and I'm committed to getting that done all in Gisha is correct I think it if you in this case the motion has been made in second to amend if you vote the motion down to keep it cleaner pass it is is come back think it over see how you want to cover that area so that you don't put yourself in a in a potential legal buying come back later reintroduce the amendment or introduce the amendment and it'll keep it very clean a suggestion I agree with Alderman Gisha we have Alderman born next thank you your honor first of all attorney McLean would with the additional 500 feet block out those those lots or not scale well I don't see scale on here Alderman born but it looks like yes 500 feet would cover all the lots you know maybe 200 feet would cover the lots I can't really okay can you give me a can you give me a better idea big in the public exactly where those lots are right along the lake shore or is it or is it West where is it the southwest this is the south half of the city of shabuigan and I believe this is the fox meadow subdivision here not positive of that can't read it but there there are about six or seven lots on the very south end of that subdivision that aren't in some of these circles or is where is a business drive on there as a reference or business drive so it would be it would be right around where crossroads is down there were those yes in that area there okay southeast of crossroads all right thank you all McLean is district okay we done yes yes we have all about thank you your honor I just ask does it put us at more legal risk could we pass the 2,500 tonight and two weeks later we're send the 2,500 make it 2,000 and put in the wording would it raise any immediate flags with those industrious ACL you lawyers be able to act quickly faster than we would be able to to change it okay okay I just wanted to because obviously the thing we're weighing is is do we leave six lots unprotected for two weeks which is about how long it would take to learn next meeting do we leave six lots unprotected and leave ourselves less vulnerable to outside lawsuits or do we pass the 2,500 feet cover everybody as of tonight and two weeks later change it and would that make us you know then no longer vulnerable do you know how those lawsuits work attorney McLean with that once we change that would that make us less vulnerable again or once we once we touch 2,500 does that make us vulnerable thank you your honor I'm not saying excuse me I'm not saying that 2,500 will you know instantly draw somebody's attention but I think once your ordinance gets out there it gets on the internet and that could be a draw you know it could be a red flag to somebody not saying it will be but you know I guess my preference I would favor Alderman Gish's approach I think there's some other way to address that without increasing the distance and I only speak from the standpoint of reducing the city's risk of being sued I think you're a lot safer and I feel a lot more comfortable for the city if we're in a pack in a group as opposed to being the one outlier I think you know there's the approach to coming up with some other physical item that you could refer to in the ordinance where you measure 20 2,000 feet from or something like that I'd prefer to see something like that rather than 25 okay thank you attorney just quick follow-up then I didn't move to open the floor to our friends from the Department of Corrections that are here tonight just ask them in the next two to four weeks do they have any intentions of releasing any more sex offenders into our city I'd like to know that answer before we vote tonight pending releases there a second to opening up the floor motion and second under discussion all in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries who is here from the state please please come up hi could I get your name please Sybil Garvey pardon me Vicky Sybil Garvey SEI B as in boy EL hyping GAR VEY okay and this is Kendra Heary. Okay go ahead there would be no people that we are aware of that would not fall under the grandfather clause of the provision at this time okay thank you very quick thank you very much then with that just one last follow then with that knowing that answer then I think I feel much safer keeping us below the radar I just want to be very clear to the people in those six lots the city of Sheboygan is not doing this intentionally we're gonna we're gonna fix it very very fast our intention I I won't speak for the council I'll speak for myself I believe that we want to work hard to cover the entire city and that may take two weeks but we're gonna get it done thank you we're still on the amendment and next we got two more we have all of them in place thank you mr. Mayor I understand the concerns about it's only two weeks let's move forward I guess I have some doubts on if we can find language that way the growth of the city's coming to the north and to the south we're kind of hampered to the east and west by what lake and by the highway but as the growth has continued in those directions we're not actually building in the city houses of worship we're not building new trails we're not building a new school properties in that direction so I guess I would rather see 2,500 to protect those areas and perhaps defend it if need be for that aspect then try to find some creative new property out there which I think is creating again another way that we can be out there and having to defend ourselves and we can't say within 2,500 feet or 2,000 feet of every tree every sidewalk every fire hydrant the city we have to have some basis of logic behind why we're going to do that and I failed to see on the current farm fields out there where that's going to be as someone that represents that district I would hope that we still keep that 2,500 feet I understand a concern it's up to a vote second point again just want to point out that if the chairperson the committee would like to make statements and give direction to the council Robert's rules requires which we follow that the chair person step aside turn the microphone over and address us another way I would say that because again the phrase keep it clean voted down I don't know the exact words again came out and I appreciate the input of that but I think just to keep it technically clean if the chairperson in this position the mayor would address it and turn the microphone over to perhaps the president at that point in time and share that point in time because the input is valuable I just I don't want to see that line crosses really of when the chairperson is chairing the midi versus perhaps giving some input that's outside that chair so I urge you know again formally discussion openly with no offense meant that we do that in the future thank you if you will call me tomorrow I'll direct it to the section of the city code that says that the mayor is free to give advice on any items that he feels is important to the council so please call me I will share that with you if you haven't read that thank you vice president born thank you your honor if I recall correctly from the committee of the whole meeting the alderman from Green Bay said that the city of Green Bay is not 100 percent blocked out but the name if I remember if I recall correctly he said the neighborhoods that are not blacked out are affluent neighborhoods where the Department of Corrections wouldn't be likely to place anybody because they couldn't afford to do so so that's one of the thing to keep in mind whether this these these lots that we're talking about down there if they're at a fluent area and I guess I don't know exactly what the definition of fluent is but they feel comfortable up in Green Bay that the the small area that's not completely covered they feel safe that nobody would be placed there for that reason thank you much present born and we have one more over get you on the amendment thank you alderman born is 100% correct in that there are slivers of Green Bay that aren't that our areas that don't didn't have any before and likely wouldn't have any this is one of those areas so I think it could withstand a couple of weeks a month at the most of coming up with some of the fixes that Green Bay dealt with and to to correct some thoughts actually you can make it 2,000 feet from curbs sidewalks and fire hydrants but there is a fix for that neighborhood that that doesn't necessarily need to include that and I asked that we that we pass it as is for all the reasons stated by attorney McLean and others and we vote down the amendment and we we allow the fix I took this seriously a year and a half ago and I take it very seriously now and I take those six lots whether they even have a house on them or not I'm not even sure we're sure about that but assuming they do I take those six houses extremely seriously and and and I'm committed to a fix and I'm confident there is a fairly simple fix to this thank you thank you very much no more discussion on the amendment only please call roll everybody clear on what the amendment is it goes from 2,000 to 2,500 feet and I vote we'll do that okay first we have Heidemann Kittleson Kleinis Meyer Montemayor Rindfleisch Ryan Van der Wiel for Hassell Boren Bauch Decker Gisha Hanna three eyes 11 nose motion fails we were back to 1343 it was made to accept an adopt and pass the substitute resolution vice president born under discussion thank you runner before we vote on this I just want to thank all our man Gisha for all of his hard work on this for the last year and a half I went to all our man Gisha's first meeting slash press conference on this back at Faulton Park restaurant a year and a half ago and it was kind of interesting Alderman Gisha's opponent when he was running for Alderman Bruce Christiansen who is a former police officer was there to give Alderman Gisha his support for the concept of coming up with this ordinance so again I just want to thank Alderman Gisha for all his hard work also like to thank Attorney McLean for all the legal work on this on this ordinance also it's also appreciated thank you thank you much there is no more discussion please go roll Kittleson Kleinis Meyer Montemayor Rindfleisch Ryan Van der Wiel for Hassell Boren Bauch Decker Gisha Hanna and Heidemann 14 eyes motion carries ordinances introduced 10 1344 and 45 lies over 1346 and 47 to be referred matters laid over 11 1224 number 202040809 by the city plan commission for the vacation and discontinuance of a portion of North 21st Street located in Sheboygan Wisconsin and Lyon between North Avenue and Calumet Avenue Alderman Montemayor thank you your honor I moved to accept and file the RO and the ordinance be put upon its passage motion and second under discussion there is none please call roll Meyer Montemayor Rindfleisch Ryan Van der Wiel for Hassell Boren Bauch Decker Gisha Hanna Heidemann Kittleson and Kleinis 13 eyes 1-0 motion carries 1239 resolution number 11809 by Alderman Ryan authorizing the execution of an agreement with the Wisconsin State Historical Society designated Sheboygan as a certified local government Alderman Ryan thank you mr. Mayor I move that the resolution be put upon its passage motion and second under discussion there is none all in favor say aye any opposed motion carries 1240 resolution number one 120809 by Alderman Gisha Kleyunas Bauch Boren and Montemayor authorizing a transfer of appropriations in the 2008 budget establishing appropriation for police department dive team equipment damaged or lost as a result of drowning Alderman Gisha thank you your honor I move that the resolution be put upon its passage motion and second under discussion vice president Boren thank you your honor this 617 dollars is half of the expense and Sheboygan County will be picking up the other half as the Sheboygan police and Sheboygan Sheriff's Dive team is a shared service so they're picking up half we're picking up half good point vice president Boren thank you for pointing it out we need more discussion on 1240 there is none please call roll Montemayor Rinfleisch Ryan Vanderwheel for Hassel Boren Bauch Decker Gisha Hanna Heidemann Kittlesen Kleyunas and Meyer 14 eyes motion carries 1257 resolution number 130809 by Alderman Hannah Meyer Montemayor and Vanderwheel directing a public hearing to be held in connection with a change of the zoning map for property located at 2019 and 20 or through 2021 North Avenue President Hanna motion to put the resolution I move that the resolution be put upon its passage motion and second under discussion there being none please call the roll you need an oise okay we're just gonna take a voice vote all in favor say aye any oppose motion carries 1251 general ordinance number 560809 by Alderman Montemayor Sirich Meyer and Decker amending the municipal code so as to create the job description and job code of the confidential secretary to the finance director and eliminate the secretary finance and purchasing thank you your honor I move the ordinance be put upon its passage motion and second under discussion there is none please call roll Rindflash Ryan Vander wheel for Hassel Boren Bauch Decker Gisha Hanna Heidemann Kittlesen Kleyunas Meyer and Montemayor 14 eyes motion carries other matters authorized by law 1348 refer to finance and joint municipal court 1349 finance and salary grievances 1350 a resolution by Alderman Gisha and Bauch to provide raises to provide for raises for non-represented employees for 2009 Alderman Gisha thank you your honor I asked that we have a suspension of the rules for item 1350 reason for this would you like to make a motion I would like to make a motion is there a second to that is there second second is there any objection one objection then we'll take a vote you need two-thirds or three-quarters three-quarters vote on we need a three-quarters vote on the on the suspension of the rules because there's been objections we'll take a vote but we're under discussion right now Alderman Rindflash thank you Mr. Meyer I would like to hear the explanation before we vote on the suspension to the objection on the suspension to see if it's something that we do need to act on immediately thank you okay oh my guess I would you please explain thank you your honor yes and I was starting to do that when all the buzzers kicked in T the the reason for this is because for twofold one is we have a limbo situation for for the non reps personally for oh nine two we have a limbo situation for a budget that's got to be done on Monday for the finance committee and without solid non rep pay numbers for pay and benefits we have less of a chance to have an accurate budget for Monday so it's one of those crunch time number of things we gone over this several times with with little resolution of its previous path this is a path to resolve it thank you all my gisha discussion on my right by second time thank you mr. Meyer my kind would be that obviously it seems to be too late at this point in time to go to committee the whole we did have a meeting scheduled of us did not have enough information to discuss that at the committee of the whole meeting but something this important dealing with the city budget I'd like to have further discussion obviously it can't seem to have in this point in time I'll still vote in a favor of the objection to it but I do understand the motto hate nation behind thank you okay oh my gisha second time thank you just just to note if the rules are voted on by two-thirds to be suspended I would also like to offer an amendment three four it's actually three quarters three quarters votes very good thank you any more discussion on the suspension of the rules please call a roll Ryan Vanderweel for hassle boron bauk Decker Gisha Hannah Heidemann Kittlesen Clioness Meyer Montemay or and Rindfleisch 11 eyes three nose didn't pass motion fails a term clean yeah that's that's accurate requires three quarters of the members though elect which would be 12 so it would be 12 correct not the other two still get counted in okay motion fails we will move on something with this document would you like to refer this to southern grievances what would you like to a committee of the whole what would you like to do I'll make sure I would like to do nothing okay I will refer to the back to salary and grievance and then unless all about you'd like to take it all about no you're on I think salary and grievances is kick the cat twice and this is a chance for them to really deliver it right thank you thank you all about my present born thank you're on her just so I'm clear on referring this to salary and grievances is this going is this going to give you enough time to to do what we have to do with the budget without having a pay a pay plan in place for the non reps are we going to have to hold us in advance to the next council meeting how are you going to be able to deal with the budget if you don't have the pay plan for the non reps I will have to make assumptions as reasonable as I can and perhaps lead with the chairman of finance and salaries salaries and grievance and maybe they can have a quick meeting soon thank you 1350 we'll be referred to salary and grievance please make the notation 1351 lies over 1352 does not lie over please make a notation that it will be referred a public protection and safety 1353 lies over 1354 those city plan commission notes 1355 an arrow by the city plan commission recommending filing documents submitting a communication from blue lines shabuagan stating that they were considering the option to purchase the land they're currently lease and are informing the city that they're hiring an engineering firm to do soil borings all of them I would like to take 56 to thank you your honor yes please agenda item number 1355 an agenda item number 1356 I move that the arrows be accepted and filed is there a second motion and second under discussion there is none all in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries 1357 an arrow by the city plan commission recommended authorizing the appropriate city officials to execute an acknowledgement and consent to a cross easement agreement all moment of my art again thank you again I moved to accept and file the arrow and the resolution be put upon its passage motion and second under discussion there is none please call a roll Ryan van der wheel for hassle boran bowdecker yeshah Hannah Heidemann Kittlesen Clianis Meyer Montemayor I and Rindfleisch 14 motion carries 1358 an arrow by the city plan commission recommending granting Jack van der wheel van der wheelie the privilege of encroaching upon portions of Indiana Avenue at 1136 Indiana Avenue for the purpose of constructing and maintaining steps all moment of my art thank you again your honor I moved to accept and file the arrow and the ordinance be put upon its passage motion and second under discussion there is none roll van der wheel for hassle boran bowdecker yeshah Hannah Heidemann Kittlesen Clianis Meyer Montemayor Rindfleisch and Ryan 14 eyes motion carries 1359 lies over to October 20th please make that notation 1360 an arrow by the city clerk granting various license application I need a motion to step in the file thank you Mr. Meyer I move that the report of officer be accepted and placed on file motion and second under discussion there is none all in favor say aye any opposed motion carries 1361 goes to transit commission other matters attorney McLean 1362 is an arrow by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30 2008 June 30 2009 that goes to law and licensing 1363 is communication submitting petitions from various members of the public both inside the city and out stating they object to the sex offender residency proposal which would allow registered sex offenders to move to the pocket from superior to same in between North 20th and North 29th Street they that will go to public protection safety committee 1364 is an ordinance repealing section 29 dash 115 of the 1975 municipal code relating to the salary wage compensation program for non-represented employees that lies over new motion to adjourn all in favor say aye any opposed stand adjourned


Hello everyone and welcome to the People's Sales Dispatch. Today we are here with Zane Rieswig from Public Citizen to discuss a new development in the story about COVID-19 vaccines and which is connected to Moderna's proceedings against Pfizer because of the use of mRNA technology. So, welcome Zane. Maybe we can start with discussing how this new court case by Moderna against Pfizer has once again brought the issue of patents for mRNA technology at the centre of the debate which deals with COVID-19 medical products and of course other medical products as well. So, can you tell me a bit more why this is so and what is actually Moderna playing in the court? So, what are they trying to do here? Sure, so the story of mRNA technology goes back decades, right? There's science is always incremental, it builds on each other, knowledge builds on each other and so, you know, there are many contributions that many people around the world have made to mRNA. You know, perhaps one of the biggest breakthroughs came in the late 2000s when some academic researchers at the University of Pennsylvania discovered that if you just put mRNA into the body itself, it creates too many side effects, you know, it's almost the body recognises it as a foreign substance and so it reacts to it, it's reactogenic and those scientists identified that if you substituted one piece of the RNA with another piece of the RNA, one of the bases, then the body, if you modify the RNA as it's called, then the body does not, you know, have that same kind of negative response and so that was a critical breakthrough, right? That opened up the kind of field of modified RNA and so the story of Moderna as a company actually is building off that discovery, right, building off that invention rather. They kind of, you know, the company's name Moderna comes from modified RNA, mod RNA Moderna and so this is a company that should be understood as benefiting from this kind of, you know, foundational academic public science and also, of course, it has received a kind of federal funding, you know, at many stages of its development. So you look at mRNA technology and the kind of, you know, the decade-long history of it, Moderna got involved around 2010. That's when the company was founded, you know, it was spun off from a lab and, you know, they have made their own incremental contributions, of course, right? And so what Moderna is saying in this new lawsuit to Pfizer is that, you know, your vaccine, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, actually infringes some of the patents we have on both, on some of the key, both coronavirus technology and also the mRNA technology. And so as you can imagine, you know, there are many, many dozens of patents on mRNA technology and Moderna is saying that Pfizer-BioNTech is infringing on two parts of it. Okay. And so, you know, still staying with the case. So what do you think, what are the possible outcomes or the different scenarios that we could be looking at here? And of course, you know, what would that mean for access to COVID-19 vaccines for people around the world? I think the most likely scenario here, and we should be clear. So Moderna is seeking damages, it is seeking royalties, but it's not seeking what's called an injunction, right? It's not trying to stop Pfizer-BioNTech from selling its vaccine. What it's doing is telling Pfizer-BioNTech, you should be paying us a percentage of your sales or some other calculation because you are using our technology without our permission. And so the most likely outcome, I think, is, you know, the courts will kind of assess, you know, both the validity of patents, you know, there'll be kind of this process, you know, Pfizer-BioNTech will file its complaint, maybe it'll challenge the patents. But I think one of the most likely outcomes is the fact that if there is kind of a finding of infringement, and if there is one, then Pfizer will have to pay Moderna a slice of, you know, the billions of dollars it has made.  And we'll have to see how that ends up being calculated. So I think from an access perspective, we can say that, you know, there are, it is primarily going to be a monetary situation. One of the potential concerning impacts here might be the fact that, you know, Pfizer, when it entered into contracts with a lot of developing countries, it actually told developing countries that if we get sued by anyone, you know, we're not liable for the costs you are. And so, you know, it remains to be seen if and, you know, if that applies and whether Pfizer will actually act in that way. But that could be, you know, a significant development as well. And just to come back to something that you mentioned before, of course, so the technology that's being disputed here has been developed and built upon, you know, in different phases and by different people. And part of that has been also made possible thanks to US National Institutes of Health, who work with public funding. So maybe can we speak a bit about the validity of the dispute and if, you know, how can Moderna actually take something that's being developed with public funding, go to court and play ownership over that and whether the US government is taking any stand when that's concerned. Right. So there's many different components of mRNA technology and Moderna, at least as press release, you know, deliberately states that this is not, you know, the patents that were at dispute between the National Institutes of Health and Moderna over the COVID-19 vaccine. However, as we know, there are still so many more kind of federal contributions to mRNA science. And so let me actually give you even a stronger example here. So the story I told about those academics at the University of Pennsylvania who figured out, you know, if you modify RNA, you can, you know, introduce it into the body and it's tolerated well. What Moderna is claiming that Pfizer infringed is actually a different kind of modification and not even necessarily a different kind, but it's a particular kind of modification that they are saying that Pfizer is infringing that they have a patent on. But the idea and the invention of modifying was done at the University of Pennsylvania. Right. And so you can see how incremental the step that Moderna says it has taken really is.  This is mine and, you know, you can't have it.  And so finally, one final question. So maybe looking at it from a bit of a different perspective, do you know, what would you say would be the ideal scenario to see in this case? And maybe also reflecting a bit on how mRNA technology could actually be made more accessible to more people instead of pursuing this destroyed that Moderna and Pfizer and the other farmers, big pharma companies have chosen. So right now, we are seeing a strategy of control, right? Moderna is trying to exercise monopoly control. Moderna is saying to Pfizer, if you want to continue selling this vaccine, if you want to continue using mRNA technology, you have to go through us. And it raises the question why, right? Why should we allow Moderna to monopolize this technology and control how it is developed, not only now, but also in the future for many different kinds of applications? Because this is not just about COVID-19, right? This is about mRNA technology and all the future potential applications it might have. You know, one of the kind of classic arguments the industry says is, oh, no, we do need to protect IP. We do need these patents because of a return on investment, right? But Moderna has already made tens of billions of dollars. I've already lost count, right? I think it might be more than 30 billion if I'm remembering accurately. And so, clearly, there's been enough reward, right? I think an ideal version of how this might proceed if we were to understand mRNA technology would be that mRNA technology itself, the key patents would be shared, right? They would be shared widely. And you know, there can be like royalty, right? Royalties are not necessarily the problem here, right? The problem is the way the company seeks to control the technology. And so you could imagine if the patent were widely shared, they're widely licensed, you know, for some reasonable loyalty, then manufacturers around the world could use the technology and develop it in their own ways, right? And make it, you know, more locally applicable.  They could, you know, provide additional innovation and kind of think of new ways of improving the technology. But instead, what we have right now is this big company basically asserting itself and saying that this is ours, right? This is ours. And what we need to do as a global community is push back and say, actually, you know, mRNA belongs to all of us. And I think that's actually, you know, one of the key principles, I think that the World Health Organization is supporting through the mRNA technology transfer hub, which is why it's so important. It's an effort by developing country manufacturers around the world to work with mRNA technology and to help provide vaccines and treatments in the future. So we are not reliant on just a handful of companies controlling who gets access and on what conditions. There's one way to look at this case, which is, you know, a purely commercial dispute between these two giants, you know, and who cares if Moderna, you know, gets Pfizer to pay Moderna money, right? That's one way of looking at it. I mean, you know, and many people are looking at us in that way. But there's another way of looking at it, which is about who asserts control to technology and who sets the terms and conditions under which life-saving vaccine technology is available, right? And so while we can't say for sure, you know, what the consequences of the case might be and what it might look like, I think it's reasonable to say that, you know, we can imagine that some more mRNA manufacturers around the world will be a little bit more careful now, might be, you know, might be, there might be some chilling effects, at least partially on some innovation for mRNA technology, and they'll be watching closely. And some might actually, you know, decide to leave the field entirely potentially, depending on how the technology is controlled and exercised. And so we'll just have to wait and see. Thank you very much, Zane, and thanks to everyone who tuned in to listen to People's Health Dispatch, this episode, and see you next time.