 I'll call the Committee of the Whole meeting to order, please. We will have the Pledge of Allegiance first. Pledge of 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. Okay, we need to look at the minutes from the February 3rd Committee of the Whole meeting. Motion. Okay, so motion and seconded to approve the minutes. Any discussion? Okay, all in favor of approving minutes? May it be opposed. Minutes are approved. Thank you. There's only Willie, yes. Oh, sorry, call, roll call. Sorry. Horne, Decker? Here. Gisha? Here. Hannah, Burt? Here. Here. Kath? Here. Kittleson? Here. Biondus? Here. Montemure? Here. Reinflash, this is going to be Wade. Sirg? Here. Is there anybody? Here. Who will excuse? Wongamant? Here. Quorum, Mr. President? Quorum is present. Thank you. Sorry for the out of order. We have just one thing on the agenda this evening. It's discussion of possible recommendation on Council Item 2235, which is the ordinance change for the current table of organization. And we have Mayor Ryan here. And we have a presentation on the screen. So I don't want to take it over, Mayor. Do you want to sit up here? No, I'll go back over here. All right. OK, I have it on front door. OK, thank you everybody for coming today. I appreciate especially the alderman showing up for yet another committee of the whole meeting. Always a good thing. Topic tonight is city organization and structure. What we're going to do is with our city for at least the next three years. Why change? Why do we want to change what we're doing right now? Number one, the city is losing jobs that support a family wage. We're talking well-paying jobs. The city's growth rate is stagnant. As a matter of fact, we may be in danger of our tax rate, our tax base actually going negative next year. Improvement in the city's infrastructure has been deferred. We have not done nearly enough over the years, not put enough money into our infrastructure in our city, our roads, our sewers, our parks, our city buildings. The city has not kept pace with technological developments right now in our city. Technologically, we're probably somewhere in the early 90s. We definitely need to start moving forward with technological improvements, IT improvements, and realize some efficiencies. And last but not least, the citizens of Sheboygan voted for improvement of city government. And that's what we're all here about. Why reorganize? In order to improve the performance of any organization, three things must be done. And they need to be done in a certain order. Number one, the organization must be structured in a manner that promotes unified purpose and cooperation, the key being unified purpose and cooperation. What is the vision? Where are we going? Why are we doing what we're doing? And are we all pulling together to get that done? Number two, business processes must be analyzed to ensure they're being done in the most efficient manner possible. If we don't have a way to measure what we're doing, we don't know if we're improving or not. And number three, new ideas must be implemented in order to better serve the citizens. It's time to start thinking outside the box a little bit, not just not doing things which happens so much in a lot of organizations. We do it because that's the way it's always been done. New organizational structure will increase cooperation between departments, create a broader area of focus, streamline systems and processes, efficiencies, reduce time constraint, and implementing change. The problem right now in order to get anything changed in the city, it takes us forever. Faster, better, cheaper, that's what we should be about. If we can get things done faster, can get things done better, and definitely in this economic environment get things done cheaper. The silo effect, we all know what the silo effect is. The silo effect refers to the lack of communication and cross-departmental support, often found in large organizations. Departments work on their own goals, often ignoring the needs of others. Information in customers, in our case, our citizens, or our customers, sometimes get lost in the middle. In our current organization, and this is basically our support organization that we have right now, those departments that support the other departments in the city, in the functions of the city. We have HR, IT, finance, and the city assessor's office. They all operate as independent departments. Proposed organization, they would fall under the division of finance and administration, and under the director of finance and administration, and pull together for one common cause, find synergies and efficiencies between those departments. The former directors of IT and HR will become working managers, rather than them being directors. The positions will be IT and HR managers, and they'll be working managers, working within their department. Consolidation, we have the mayor and the common council. Consolidation of departments will reduce the number of silos from eight to three, providing a unified focus. The new positions allow the mayor and council to focus on policy related to the city-wide decisions that impact growth, rather than concentrating on the minutiae sometimes, which we so often do, and so many efforts that come directly out of the council trying to change departments directly. We can concentrate on what's our common goal and where are we heading. We have the mayor and the common council, actually over that mayor and common council should be something called citizens, because the mayor and common council are ultimately responsible to the citizens. We have the director of operations proposed. The operations takes care of the tactical portion of the city, the day-to-day operations of the city, and those departments that fall under that. Director of finance and administration, the example we had up here before are the support functions. They support the other departments. The director of development, which I see as being hopefully the busiest department in the city in the near future, is the strategic function of the city, the future. Where are we going? How are we going to grow? We definitely cannot tax our way out of the economic times that we're in, out of the economic situation that we're in. We need to grow our tax base through growth. Citizens voted for growth and a business approach, and that's what this is all about. Leadership, leadership in any operation can carry different titles. Private world, the leader might be the president of the company. Or in government, possibly a city administrator. Some cities have a city manager. In our city right now, we have a mayor. We will have a mayor at least for the next three years. The director of operations, finance and administration and development, answer to the mayor and the council. Leadership can carry different titles, however the functions stay the same. It doesn't matter if you have a mayor, a president, a city administrator, you still have the functions of development, finance and administration and operations that must work together in order to progress the city or any organization. And that sets our city culture. What are we all about? Where are we headed? Why are we here? Why are we doing the jobs that we're doing? Organizational chart, there this one has citizens on it. Top of the org chart is always the citizens. Citizens are ultimately in charge, they're our bosses. Mayor and the common council. People have talked about a city administrator in the future, it could be mayor and administrator and common council. It could be administrator and common council. Right now, it's the mayor and the common council. We have three divisions in the city. We will have divisions and departments in the city. Three divisions, division of administration and finance. Again, this is our support functions in the city. We have the city assessor, the HR manager, the finance director who is the director of administration and finance, which also takes care of purchasing and risk management. And we have IT, one change from this, which will be an IT manager. Notice an IT manager and an HR manager. One difference here, the cable television function. We're proposing reporting to the IT manager. We've been kind of kicking around cable television. Where does it belong? I think the best answer is under the IT manager. I had that under development at one point. However, I feel it's probably better off under IT. It's a highly, highly technical function of the city. It probably belongs under IT. Our development division. Of course, we all know our director of finance and administration is Terry Hansen, who is presently our director of finance. Our division of development, director of development is presently in Wolverine Paulette Enders. We have economic development, tourism, city planning, zoning and everything that goes along with it. If I have my way, the director of development will be the busiest person in this city. As some of you know, we do have a lot of balls up in the air right now, and hopefully some of them come down soon and we can make some announcements and get the city growing. Our new position in the city is the director of operations in the operations division. The operations division, of course, is the day-to-day operations of the city. Also, the operations division are the functions of the city that have day-to-day contact with our citizens. Our fire department, fire and ambulance. Our police department, patrol and CID, daily contact with the citizens. Our building inspection department, our engineering department under that GIS, and of course, our public works department who we see every day all around the city. Another change we have made here, senior center. I believe the best place for that is under the director of public works. One reason for that is the senior center with a good leader kind of operates itself. However, we've always had issues with the senior center with basically building support. And that, of course, falls under our public works director. So that is the organizational chart as I am proposing it this evening. Like I said, I need your help in order to move the city forward. I need the help of the council. I obviously cannot do this job on my own. I need the council and I need every employee and every leader of this city to work together. Impact to the city budget. This has been a big question. What, you know, why are we going to pay another person? Well, this basically has no impact to the city budget. It's a zero impact. And let me explain. When I took office, I believe it was last May, the May, June, maybe June or July. The administrative assistant position in my office was eliminated. I did that voluntarily because I did not feel that that position was necessary and was a necessary function of the city. I do have my self Mary Rager in my office who does things very well. I did not need a second person in there in that function. I believe that that turned into more of a political position than an actual operations type position. So that position was eliminated as savings of $62,500, $62,000 in change. IT director. We've had an IT director in the past. The last former IT director was making $85,000 a year approximately. For an IT manager, we can drop that salary to 75,000 because that IT manager will answer to the director of administration and finance and therefore save about 10 grand. The HR director, the last HR director we had offered who had accepted the position and then withdrawn was offered $90,000 as an HR director. As that HR director, he would have been in charge of HR and also been in charge of labor negotiations and grievances. The new HR manager's position, which answers to the director of administration and finance. Being a manager's position, we can reduce that salary. We have 75 up here, savings of about $15,000. Less contracted services right now in the budget. We had $70,000 in the budget that was budgeted for outside legal services basically when it came to grievances, when it came to labor negotiations. Our last HR director used Davis and Kiehlthou extensively. I don't know if used is the word. Tom Rice, since he's come on board and who will remain on board is a contract employee for negotiations and will remain on board for the final stages of grievances. We made it through the last contract negotiations, settled all of the contracts with paying no outside legal services. So we had $70,000. We've left $50,000 in that budget, which truthfully we may not need that much. We still left $50,000 and taken $20,000 in savings. Then we have salaries. Director of operations is in new positions. These salaries for director of operations, it's in a salary range right now. This is an approximation. Taking that position and making the pay range the same as our present director of development and what we've proposed for the director of the administration is about $101,000, $102,000. Our city assessor, I've made it known. I've not made a secret of it that my choice for the director of operations is our present city assessor Dave Lutsky. However, I have said and I will make sure I will guarantee you that the civil service commission will be enacted. It will be a nationwide posting. And if Dave Lutsky comes out of the civil service commission as a one of the five recommended to the hiring team, chances are I'll probably hire him. If he does, city assessor is presently making $75,000 a year reporting to the mayor. With the city assessor reporting to the director of administration, we can reduce that salary by about $7,000. We do have two people in the city assessor's office that are presently licensed and could step into that role. Director of finance, which is presently Terry Hanson will be taking on some additional responsibilities. Some of those he has now like IT and things like that but he doesn't get paid for them right now. Director of administration, we have at 106 which is proposed and it is in the package. That costs us about $7,000. Our director of development Paulette will remain at the present salary. So our total link impact compared to the past organization is actually a wash. If for some reason Dave Lutsky does not come out of the civil service commission as a potential candidate, obviously we will not save that $7,000 there. He will remain as the city assessor, which total cost of this may be about $2,000 in order to run our city more efficiently and in order to get ourselves some direction and get ourselves some positive growth. So I'm asking for your help in this. This has not been something that we've come up with overnight, if you recall. I was standing before you right here, I believe back in October with this. We started working on this, I believe in June. It's been well thought out. It's taken a couple turns here and there. But as I said, this proposal is only the first step in a three step process. This is the first step is the organization. However, it is the most critical step. Without the organization, the other steps don't happen. So the idea is to move the city forward and restore it to its former glory that being a vibrant growing community that's safe with opportunity for everybody. So we must have new ideas. We must improve our processes and become more efficient. But we can't do that without the organization to support it. And that's what I'm here tonight asking you to approve. I need your help with it. And that's all I have. Of course, we will take any questions. Anybody has any? We are missing a few Alderman here this evening. Since you're gonna take the questions directly, right, Mayor? So then, yeah, you won't see lights then. Okay. So you have to raise your hands, right? You have to raise your hand. I don't have the board. And you might wanna put your mics on because we are being televised. Okay. All right. Gene? Okay. Director, well, everything, you know, I rethink everything. And especially when I have Alderman kicking me in the head, I think even harder. So, no, I mean, yeah, truthfully, I mean, development is our future of the city. We won't get from where we are now to where we need to be. And we won't grow our tax base without development. And I believe our director of development is going to be very busy in the near future. Glad to see those two changes. Thank you. Jim? Bob, a couple of questions. With directors going to managers, what does that mean for five-year appointments? There will be no appointments. It'll be employment at will. Okay. So all of the only appointments in the city will be director's positions. Now we presently, Terry Hansen presently has an appointment that will not be renewed for another five-year contract. I believe he's got two and a half years or something left. Paul left, I believe, has two to three years left on hers. Those will continue. Those will not be restarted for another five-year appointment. The director of operations would be offered a five-year appointment. Now, let's not confuse an appointment with a contract. It's not a contract, it's an appointment. Bob, another question would be, again, this director versus managers. Directors upon retirement receive a specific, and Ed, maybe you can help me, I don't really know the answer to this, a certain retirement package as a director if they retire from the city, I think, versus a manager. You're virtually the same as any other non-reemployed. Okay, thank you, I just wasn't sure about that. What? I'm sorry. My final question is interim appointment. Interim appointment of the director of operations, I think you're referring to. Yes, I will not make an interim appointment of anybody. Truthfully, I hope the Civil Service Commission can be activated soon, that they can get that job search going, and I will not have a reason to, and truthfully, to appoint somebody as an interim to me just dirties the water. Thank you. This needs to be above board. Ed. One of the, I read Jim's article in the paper, and one of the points was that this is leading towards or a step towards an administrator, and can you explain to me how, if you have these three executive positions, where does the administrator fit in the future? Truthfully, and in my opinion on this, I think the administrator goes where the mayor is. In my opinion, because if you look at other cities and city administrators, you may have a city administrator, and most of those city administrators have deputy administrators or assistant administrators, in somewhat of a function like this. There's very few city administrators in a city our size that strictly operate as a city administrator with all department heads reporting directly to them. So, I mean, truthfully, if the city decides to go city administrator, I believe it would be up, would the city administrator want to rework the whole chart? I would doubt it because hopefully this is functioning properly in the way it should. Do the people want a city administrator, instead of a mayor in the future? That would be up to them. Thank you. Julie? Okay, the director of operations is a five-year appointment. Correct. So that's, whatever you call it, it's five years. We would have this position for five years. Right. So I'm also hearing that this is a prelude possibly to a city administrator, but we would not have a city administrator and a director of operations at the same time. Truthfully, when it comes to a city administrator, I think your director of finance and administration is closer to a city administrator than a director of operations. Your operations is your day-to-day operations guy. He's your efficiency person in the city. If you're looking at a city administrator and looking to plug them into one of those three positions, I believe that would be closer to your director of finance and administration than it would be to your director of operations. Wouldn't the city administrator be all three of these positions? And also a full-time manager? Sure, if a city administrator wants to go back to the chart we have right now, it would be all three of those positions. And then you'd have all these independent department heads answering back to the city administrator. We'd be right back to the system we have right now. It's a possibility. That would be up. I mean, if the city gets a city administrator and that's what the council decides to do, anything can be done. What I'm looking at is the next three years that I know I'm in this position and operating the city in the most efficient manner I know how. And that's why I'm here to ask for your help in doing that. Marilyn? If we were to do this, we would have three silos instead of five. No, right now there's about eight, but however these so-called silos with having three directors, these three directors will be meeting with me a minimum of twice a week and probably on a daily basis to keep communication open that there are no silos. We are still operating in a cooperative manner. Now the mayoral assistant, that's 625 that's gone. So that's out of the budget. Now was that budgeted for 2010? Is Terry still here? No, it was not. It was not, okay. And the previous HR director, if I remember right, got 75,000, not 90. The 90,000 was a gentleman that had accepted the job that we had offered the job to in that range and then he withdrew. Okay, okay, and if we had him in that position that would have been 90. All right, now if Dave Lutsky doesn't get the job for operations, then we don't save that money. We don't save $7,000 at all. You don't save $7,000, he would remain as the- Okay. Yeah. The difference is $7,000. We don't have a handout with all those numbers on, do we? It was just a presentation there, right? We've had this before. We can get you copies of this also. Of these numbers that you presented tonight? Yes. Okay, thank you. Bill. We've had our present system of government for 157 years. Right. And now we're asked to approve a whole reorganization. Has this been this type of thing? Has this been done other places? Or are we unique? Are we unique? Has this been done in this fashion in a municipality? I don't know to tell you the truth. I've seen city administrators with deputy administrators and everything coming in the same capacity. Myself, I don't operate up here in a municipal capacity. I operate in more of a business capacity. Regarding our present government in 157 years? 57. 157. 157 years. In the past administrations, there's been changes to the table of organization regularly. I can recall several of them, moving engineering from here to there, developing the administration before a mayoral executive assistant. This is not that drastic of a change. Where can we draw information from or assurance that this is going to work if it's not been done before? Where can you draw it from? You can draw it from my job. If it doesn't work, you can have it if you want. You know, we're, excuse me if I sound a devil's advocate here, but we're being asked to approve a system on suppositions. None of this is done before, so it has to be done before. Well, it has been done before, Bill. We have, you know, there's all different kinds of forms of organizations. I mean, there's a lot of org charts out there that look similar to this, that they have a city administrator, deputy administrator of finance, a deputy administrator of operations. I mean, it's not that far off of other systems of government. What would your answer be to people say we're creating another level of government? My answer would be to say we're eliminating silos and trying to streamline our government. That's exactly it. We're not creating another level of government. Because from what I've heard on the outside and talking to people and business men and so forth, they're not exactly excited about this. They're worried, they're upset. They think we might be making a drastic error. Jurassic, number one, this is not that drastic. There's been changes to the table of organization in every mayor that has ever been in this city. Every mayor has changed the table of organization. I can remember, since I've been on the council, several changes. It's not that drastic of a change. Regarding business men, if you have business men that cannot understand this chart, that think it's a mistake, I would like to meet them. Because I mean, this is a basic business or you can refer to it as a military chain of command works the same way. But are we a business? We need to operate more like a business, yes. Can we use the word profit? Never. Would I like to use the word excess revenue once? Certainly. Okay, thank you. Marilyn. Thank you again. And I applaud you for trying to do this. And when you were elected, that's true. Business was riding high. Nowadays, business doesn't have such a glory sound to it anymore because those things happened after you were elected. What things? The crash and the near depression. No, that happened before I was elected. That's right, it happened November and you were elected in April. That's right. That's right, thank you. No, in business, the only place that's a bad word is in Washington right now, as far as I know. I'm not gonna say that since your elected business went down. I don't think there's any correlation to that. What's the weather on the national seat? I know, I know, I'm just kidding. No, I knew what I was getting into when I ran for the office. It wasn't like I came in on the upswing, so to speak. I like some of the questions. Bill had those questions I've heard, too, regarding is this new, is this different? And I went on, you know, how every municipality's stuff is on all these websites all over the place. I must have went on three dozen of them. There is not one organization structure of a city that's identical to any other city in the state of Wisconsin. You could ask that question, are we doing something different or whatever. Every single one of them is different and make it unique to their community. I know that the old, here's what I know, I guess. My impression, the old structure of the city, not that this is that dramatic, because it's really not, brought us one of the highest tax rates in the state of Wisconsin. It brought us cumbersome change it brought us the inability to be nimble when we need to be nimble and actually protect the status quo. And I think that's not just Sheboyga. I think that's virtually every government, but if somebody wants a parallel to that proposal that I just saw up here, go to the people who pay our salaries and elect us because every single business of any size of any sort other than a mom and pop shop runs just like that. And as you know, businesses have to succeed, otherwise the doors get closed. And I don't see this as reinventing the wheel, I see it as adding some subtle organizational changes that are proven outside of this building and buildings like this all over the state. Or better yet, buildings that have big domed roofs in Madison, they could use an organizational chart like this. The thing I guess I would be looking forward to, Bob I guess as far as looking at this, I find and I'm gonna make myself the guilty one on this and others I'm sure have their own feelings regarding themselves, but all the ideas we've been presenting up through the council, it's been coming from the council down to half dozen or more, eight department heads, all these different silos. All the ideas, all the empowerment to do these things is us coming up with stuff. A bunch of aldermen sitting around and say, hey, that's a great idea. Which can be rather haphazard at times. I don't think it's good, I think it's been done too much, I think it's been done too much by me personally, I'm just being guilty of that myself, but it had to be done because it was a vacuum of a structure in which those ideas are coming to us constantly. And we're deciding from a policy standpoint whether they're good or not. I would like to see from this structure, and I'd like to your opinion or assurance or the best you can that it would happen, that we would that it would foster more of an environment of us reacting rather than developing. Well, I mean that's why we're here today. And this is a perfect example of you know, staff always has been coming up with new ideas. Let's make changes. I think council needs to get on board with some of these changes coming from staff also. This affects our people in the city, our management level people much more so than it does the council. And we discuss this regularly in our meetings. And I don't have our department heads presently disagreeing with this. Yet it's hard to convince the council that it's a good thing to do. You know, what we have to ask ourselves is, you know, what's the better answer? To do nothing because the city's running perfectly the way it is. I don't believe that's the answer. And that's why I've been working my butt off trying to fine tune this and trying to get it where it's acceptable to the alderman. I mean, I need your help with this. I can't do it on my own. I need your approval. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mayor Ryan. Here's the problem that I have. I have to answer to my constituents. And I'm in this chair because those constituents voted for me knowing that I wanted or that I'm backing as city administrator 110%. If we look at this director of operations, the cap of that pay is $112,000. And you take the 8% increase for the director of finance. You're looking at the starting pay or the starting wage, almost $120,000 towards the city administrator. Why reinvent the wheel? I mean, Because what you're going to do is for the next three years until you can get a city administrator, maybe you're gonna keep the city in its present state. Right? That's the answer. The answer is to do nothing and hope for a city administrator in three years. And if we do nothing, I guarantee you'll probably have a city administrator in three years because this city will be in worse shape than it is right now. But how will we have a city administrator when you've got a five-year appointment at 100, well, who knows how much that'll be in five years? If you have a city administrator, you're not gonna get rid of all the directors in the city. A city administrator does not replace other people. The city administrator, if it replaces anybody, it replaces me. More so than our directors in the city. You think one person can come in as a city administrator and do the job of three? Yes. You do. Is his name Superman? I hope it is because, I mean, truthfully, you know, I mean, we have management in the city that works their butts off. They put in a lot of hours. They're trying to do the best that we can with the budgets that we're dealing with, with the technology that we're dealing with. Having a city administrator walk in, he's not gonna snap his fingers and make everything magically better. It takes the work of everybody else. But at least one person in the city government would know what's going on. That would be me. I know exactly what's going on. That's why I'm here. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, looking at the salaries and what we're talking about is the cost of management here. Okay, across the board, you take $101,000. In each one of those positions. Now, under the director of operations, we have public works. There's already a director and a deputy director there, okay? That's costing us currently close to $178,000 right now. You're right. So, we're gonna divide that director of operations and if you did that, just for the managing the department of public works, we're gonna be paying over $200,000, just for one department. The question is, do you need a director of public works and a deputy director of public works along with the director of operations? Now, the question, you know, I mean, in the long run, the director of public works will be a public works manager. We presently have Bill Bittner in that position. This chart is not designed to put people out of jobs or demote them. In my opinion, if you're going to demote somebody, you might as well fire them because if you demote somebody and they stay in that job, you don't want them working for you anyway. This is not designed to put people out of jobs. This is not designed to demote people. In the long run, will we have a manager of public works? Yes, we will. But that's not what this is designed to do. One night, I said in an office, we were at like the cost of our city government wages and benefits, our employees were like 85%. We're down to 79%. And I said, you know what? I wouldn't support this if we're not at that 79%. And he said, we work. We are. I said, that's a great idea, all right? But what I didn't take into consideration is what that percentage of management was versus what our laborers, our policemen, firemen are. Where's that percentage? When we were at 85 or when we were at 79%, what percentage of our labor was management versus the people that go out and do the everyday work? If you look, you know, our managers, even though we have directors positions, we're taking other directors positions down to managers positions. And that will continue to happen until the city has three directors, okay? So even though you may have three directors and three divisions, you will have less directors in departments. Thank you. On top of that, yeah, we're taking director levels according to this chart that I see and bringing them down to managers and that effect lowers their pay. But if you're looking from a straight head count, and that'll make less money, of course, going out to, on a straight head count, we have reduced management in a great number of areas, including public works particularly. But across the board over the last 12 months, we have had dramatic management reductions. And some of this will help bolster some of those holes that get, you know, as vacuums that get created with that. But this plan does, from what I can see, make less management and much less management over time. You know, the idea of this plan in the long run is to operate more efficiently and save money, okay? To look at it as saying, okay, it's going to, I mean, even if it costs us $100,000 upfront when we're operating with a budget of what Terry? $67 million, okay? Out of a $67 million budget, do you think we can save, even if it costs us $100,000, which it doesn't? Do you think we could find efficiencies? Yes, we can. That's the whole idea. You know, we can't look at today without thinking about where we're going to be tomorrow. That's where we need to get to. Mark? Great, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mayor. The most exciting thing about change to me is how are we going to grow our base of business? Whether you have an administrative model or a business model as you've laid out here, the key is getting a model that is going to allow you and the director of development to grow our base of business. Very true. And it sounds to me like you are highly confident that this is going to work. You won the election on a business platform and you've got a business model that you've presented here and the key to us being able to deliver high-level services is to be able to grow our revenue base by attracting businesses to our community. That is the only way we're going to survive. It's the only way it's going to happen. Right. And you as the mayor are telling us you're confident this is going to help us do it. I am confident it's going to help us do it because if it doesn't, who has the most to lose? That would be me. Thank you, Mayor. Tom? Since we have the public here, I was wondering if there's anybody from the public that would like to make a statement. I'm sure Mr. Hutswood. Mike? Thank you, Madam Chairman Alderman, Mayor Ryan. As many of you know, I am an advocate of the city administrator form of government. That opinion is based on 32 years of employment in the mayor's office during which I had the opportunity to work under three different mayors, dozens of Alderman as well as mayors, city managers and administrators around Wisconsin. I was also a member of the government structure committee which included current and past Alderman, citizen members and county leaders and which unanimously and enthusiastically endorsed the administrator concept for Sheboygan last March. Since that time, the Greater Sheboygan Committee and Sheboygan County Taxpayers Alliance have also endorsed that position. 28 Wisconsin cities have a full-time administrator, 24 with a part-time mayor and four with a full-time mayor. Clearly, that is a proven concept for effective local government. Shouldn't it be thoroughly considered here before any reorganization plan is considered? In my three decades of municipal experience, I found those cities which employed a city administrator to be most efficient and progressive and they also enjoyed a lower rate of taxation. I have personally seen the dramatic influence an administrator can have on a community in a short amount of time and I'm hopeful that you will agree that we should review the creation of that position rather than implementing an unproven and costly management reshuffling. One is only to look at the major challenges which our previous four mayors have faced to understand what an individual who's educated, trained, and experienced in the complexities of city government can offer to Sheboygan. Mayor Susha faced a dilemma of accepting federal funds to rebuild a failing downtown. He was challenged with the purchase of our mirror leather and a sale for $1 to general split in the hopes of providing jobs. Mayor Schneider was challenged with the creation of multiple TIF districts to promote development but which also decreased tax revenue. He also faced a challenge of marina construction and its financing. Mayor Shram was challenged with the implementation of fees and Blue Harbor and its funding. Mayor Perez chose to incorporate buyouts of employees to balance budgets and was challenged with funding for a police department and a transfer of the ambulance from the private sector to our fire department. Each of these men and more importantly our community would have benefited from the knowledge which an administrator would have brought to the table to help make those decisions. We only have to look two blocks to our east to Sheboygan County to see the influence an administrator can have on a local form of government. Mayor Ryan's proposed reorganization adds a multiple level of management complete with more bureaucracy, additional managerial confusion and increases in salary. The dynamics of management salaries is that you will be paid more than the people you supervise. Accordingly, with a rapid increase in salaries for the police chief and fire chief, Mayor Ryan's director of operations will soon be paid close to that of a proven city administrator but with only a portion of those responsibilities. Under the mayor's plan, each of the three directors will report to multiple standing committees which is an invitation for overlap, conflicts and infighting. With that background, I can only ask why do we need to create three additional management positions when the duties and responsibilities can be handled by one individual who is trained in local government? If you have reservations, follow the county lead and first hire an administrative coordinator to direct operations and to prove the worth of the administrator concept in our government. Many of you have already indicated your support for a city administrator. Alderman Giesha did it quite eloquently in the Sheboygan press on Sunday. However, I found it quite ironic that just above his article was a letter to the editor written by former Alderman Dennis Tetchlock which asked if the mayor's plan is approved and thereafter the administrator concept is adopted, how do you undo what you did and demote the directors? If an administrator is in our future, consider it now and don't saddle him or her with a management structure which he or she will be forced to change. Sheboygan government and management are in need of reorganization. However, there is no mandatory timetable for reorganizational implementation, only the expectation of our community that it be done correctly. If you're going to restructure, do it right and take the time to review all options with an eye to our future. One final thought. To those of you who remain committed to Mayor Ryan's plan for a three prong management team including a director of operations, I urge you to include a mandatory educational requirement of an advanced degree in business or public administration along with a proven track record of municipal experience and achievements in previous governmental positions. It is an absolute requirement that a thorough national search be conducted to not only ensure the hiring of the best possible candidate but also to dispel any accusations of nepotism. Also, since the position does not currently exist on Sheboygan's TO, avoid the temptation of appointing someone on an interim basis. Thank you for considering my thoughts, Chairman. Thank you. Mike and I often have spirited conversations about this which is great. However, there's some differences I think in what he stated regarding using the county as a model. This is actually how the county went about it. They brought Adam in on an interim basis like Mr. Hutz stated. But the difference between the county or looking at the school system is they don't have a mayor. There was no supreme county being. We can't pretend that we don't have a mayor of the city. If we added a city administrator now, it would be a dramatic, you would use that financial chart, it would be a dramatic budget buster. This is budget neutral. For the next three years, we're gonna have a mayor. He's not gonna evaporate, the job isn't, they're not gonna turn that into a closet. He exists to have a mayor and his full-time mayor with all its statutory and ordinance powers and have a city administrator and still have six or eight different directors would be a management disaster. No company would operate like that. I have reviewed the city administrator's positions. Actually, I took the exact wording for city administrator in our strategic fiscal planning committee and put it in as the exact wording for the job description for the operations manager. There is not a city administrator position advertised in the state of Wisconsin or in the Midwest that I could find that would agree with Mr. Hutts's, it must have this and must have that. It does not exist. We would be doing something completely out of the norm of all the communities that have city administrators. It doesn't exist. This does not bloat or create additional management. I disagree with Mike on that and I have nothing but respect for Mike. I would remind him that the Alderman-Techlog letter that he wrote, Alderman-Techlog voted for a tax increase every single year he was sitting in this chamber. I've also looked at city administrators at what their tax records are in the state of Wisconsin. I cannot find a city in the city of Sheboygan and maybe they're in the state of Wisconsin that the city administrator has not urged a tax increase every single year. If we want to look at the county as a model and Adam Payne is a very good friend of mine, let's talk about a half a percent sales tax for the citizens of the city of Sheboygan for the county. That's done by professional government management. Rather than looking at efficiencies and streamlining, we could go to an administrator but all I see is a track record and I believe we can have a city administrator with a better structure that won't perform that way but all I see is more government and more taxes and more layers and I think the best example is the county and the respect of raising taxes. Half a percent sales tax proposed by a administrator. I think in three or four years it'll shake out and we'll be ready for a city administrator but we will have a mayor until that time. You can't pretend he didn't exist, you can't pretend that taxpayers of the city didn't vote for him based on the model that he wanted to do was, we can't pretend that didn't happen. They knew what they were voting for and then to strip him from his authority, his statutory authority and so forth and go to a city administrator tomorrow. I didn't vote for him. I didn't support him. Thanks. Well, that's the truth. No, we know that. But I'm not gonna say that the majority of the citizens of Sheboygan's will should not be followed even though I didn't support the guy. They knew what they were voting for. They're not stupid. They knew what they wanted and they expressed it at the ballot box and the city administrator topic was a topic in that campaign. Every debate, every listening session, everything. It was there. And I myself ran on the basis of being a full-time mayor. And I've said from day one that if the public wants a city administrator, I was the first one to propose a city administrator studying it along with Eldenburg, former alderman sitting right here. At that point, I said, and I've always said, if we're going with a city administrator, which is changing our form of government, this is changing the table of organization. It needs to be put up for a public referendum. It needs to be put up for a public referendum and let the people decide if they want a mayor leading the city or a city administrator. I've said that. In the meantime, I'm the mayor. If we're going to continue to do nothing in hopes that our city will fail so we can get a city administrator in the future, I don't think, I know, we're not serving the needs of our citizens. So if that's the goal, is to have a city administrator and let our city go down the wrong path and not improve and not become more efficient and not develop for the next three years, that's not the way, that's not why we're here. That's not why I'm here. I was hired to be a full-time mayor. I was elected to be a full-time mayor. A city administrator may be something that the public wants three years down the road. That would be up to the public to decide and not a couple individuals with private interests. Right now, I'm here to lead the city. This is my request of the alderman to help me in leading the city. That's why I'm here. I've been working on this for seven months. This didn't happen overnight. This is not something I woke up one morning and said, oh, geez, great idea. But we're going to, some people have their minds so set on a city administrator that we're going to do nothing for the next three years again, fight everything along the way so we can get a city administrator. Let the city fail, I guarantee you, we'll have a city administrator. I'm asking for your help as alderman to help me lead the city. That's why I'm here. I'll say no more. Thank you. I've got another question, Bob. Or not, I guess not, okay? In order to adopt the changes that were suggested tonight by the mayor with this table of organization, we have to amend the resolution. So I would ask to amend the general ordinance number 5709 of 10 and amend it as follow. Remove TV8 from the director of development and reassign it to the IT department to under the director of finance. Remove the senior activity center from the director of development and reassign it to the parks and recreation under the director of operations. And I further amend that the salary and grievances committee make the necessary adjustments of the job descriptions to reflect these changes. I need a second on that. Second. Okay, so it's on the amendment only. Yes, we move in second and on this amendment to make these, I mean, changes. Any discussion on that? Okay, Alderman Montemar. Thank you, Chairman. Alderman Heidemann, you're talking about the general ordinance, the 2235 agenda item? Yes. That's the one you're talking about. Yeah. Okay, and you're talking about the job descriptions that came with it. Right. All right, thank you. Alderman Hanna, any questions? I have a question. Okay. Does this require, it's budget neutral. So it doesn't require... Just be in majority, I would think. Okay, thank you. Okay, Alderman Bowers. The only thing we would be voting on would be to amend the ordinance change for the table of organization. This is not approving anything because we can't do it in this body. So this would be salary and grievances to refer it to them. No. No? No. We're making the changes as the TO that was originally submitted by the mayor had those positions as those two departments underneath the director of development. We're moving those so we can't adopt that table of organization unless we amend what the mayor has brought before us. We're cleaning up the document. We're not passing the document yet. We're just cleaning it up. All right, that will be brought before the council at a later time for a vote. Well, we have. This is in our lap right now to forward to council. We can decide to forward to council if you file. I see. Okay, first of all, the question of the amendment is on the floor. So any other discussion about the amendment that Alderman Heidemann just mentioned? All right, we'll take a vote on, yes, would be to make the changes. Those who are organizational changes, their budget and control is shifting responsibilities. Okay, that is all of us in the month. Thank you again. What do you mean, what's budget neutral? The cost, it will cost nothing different. To change, to make these amendments. No, right, because it's just me reporting someone else. It's not costing anything. The amendments won't cost. No, yeah, just the amendments. Okay, thank you. Okay, roll call. Bowers? Aye. Dekker? Aye. Gisha? Aye. Anna? Aye. Heidemann? Scott? Aye. Kittleson? Aye. Clemenis? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Serk? Aye. Ben Wille? Aye. Wongman? No. 11, yes or no, one no. Passes, the amendment is changed. I mean, it makes a change on this resolution. Our change for ordinance, I guess it is. Now, before us, we have some action to take, whether we're going to recommend this to council. This is agenda item 2235, document number 5709, 10. Yeah, okay. All the person- Hold on, I'm sorry, I'll wait for you till there's a motion. Okay, I'm waiting for a motion. Just have, I have a question. Okay, question, right? Then, again, the changes we're going to recommend to council, will they be budget neutral or do they require two thirds of this body or is it moot? It only requires two thirds in the council. Two thirds of, it's majority of this body and majority of the council or city attorney McLean and Sir Richards. Thank you. Okay. I do have a question, maybe for the mayor, I don't know if you're answering questions, but the HR director, that $90,000 position is that still in the budget? Because the person did not take the position and that I believe was before the 2010? It was, it is still in the budget, correct, Terry? Okay, because that's a big chunk of it. Yeah, great. Okay, all right, so that is some, okay, and then we've got some other lights. Alderman, sir? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking of budget neutral, it was mentioned earlier that the administrative assistant as across savings of $62,498 was not actually budgeted. So there will be an effect on the budget because it was not put in there originally, so it would be a negative input to the budget, I would say. There is, I mean, this is gonna affect the budget. Yeah, this is not the budget neutral. Now what we're talking about is not budget neutral. This is money, salaries, yes. This is, now we're talking salaries and changes to... What I'm saying is that $62,000 is not in the budget, yet it's shown as a savings to the plan. So if the plan is approved as a whole, it is not budget neutral because it wasn't in the budget. So we need some different numbers. Yes. Yes, would you come up, Finance Director Hanson? In the 2010 budget, there is sufficient salaries and benefits according to the mayor's proposed organization. Not the $62,000, but other sources of funding. Okay, I'll then insert one more time. Oops, I turned it off. If that be the case, so wouldn't that require a transfer of funds from one budget portion to another portion of the budget? Terry, I suppose I'd answer. My budget's there, Terry, please. The budget that the mayor presented included allocations for the proposed TO at that time as it was proposed. And so there is no budget amendments that need to be done in order to implement the organizational chart. Thank you. Can I answer your question? I have another question for you. Okay, all the person. Thank you, thank you. Can we get those numbers that were there? Can we have? It's in the budget, yep. It'll be there, those numbers? It is in the budget. Then I can show you the breakdown if you need it. I guess, yeah. Would you like those for the meeting? Yes. The council meeting on Monday night? I would, absolutely. And then with this whole plan, from the presentation, is it a difference of $2,000 to $5,000 here, correct? Is that my understanding? It all depends basically on part of it is on the assessor. Okay. Is the assessor moving into, if Dave Lutsky stays as our assessor the way he is now. Bottom line. It's a difference of $7,000. Okay, thank you. I think $2,000, $2,000. $7,000. Right, it would go from negative five to a positive two. It's $7,000 difference. That we're going to reduce, be able to reduce that salary with the city assessor answering to the finance and the director of finance and administration. Right, okay. Thanks. All the person wants to be yours. Thank you again. According to our finance director, it's budget neutral. And I firmly believe what he said. However, it can't be, according to the chart that was used earlier, because the 62.5 from the mayoral assistant is not there. It has to be budget neutral from some other spots. During the comparison was to show the old organization versus a new organization. And that crossed budget periods. The 2010 budget, when it was submitted to the finance committee and went over everything, included that it did represent the mayor's proposed organizational change, because at that time the order chart was going through. I remember disclosing that at those meetings, and that was what was approved in the budget. So the budget already included what would have happened for those changes. Okay. So from the 09 budget kind of to the 10. So the 2010 budget took all of this into consideration. And that chart that we saw up there had nothing to do with this. That's correct. Thank you. So is it budget neutral? Yes. Ha ha ha. Comparing to the previous year, that representation of that chart is showing the comparison of the major changes. And then what was presented in the budget. There's no budget amendments for 2010 to incorporate the changes. And then that comparison are the numbers. Okay. So we would need to make a transfer of the. No, no, that is incorporated in the budget. Transferring in two different salaries to different positions, you know. No, that was incorporated in the budget. Okay. So we're not budget. We are budget. Oh, there's really no money involved. It's a chart. It's all money. Yeah, but no money. No changes. No changes from the budget. Okay. Alderman Heidemann, you're on. Thank you chairman. All this body is doing is making a recommendation to the common council. I mean, whether we have two thirds vote here or not, really doesn't make any difference. It's going to come before the common council, so. Okay. Is that a motion? No. Yeah, I'll make a motion to send it, send it to the common council with a favorable recommendation. Before we go into that city clerk has her hand up. Is there a procedure? Just to send them, that really isn't what you're doing. You have an ordinance in front of you. What you're doing now will be to you are approving doing a substitute. Okay. We should be part of your motion. Okay. Is that the council, if that's what you're going to do, is to mark the passage of the substitute resolution. If you don't do that, you'd be amending on the floor on Monday night. That's one of the bad things. Okay. I kind of figured it a little backwards, so you really could put the substitute in place. Okay. All right, to translate that again, that would mean that what we talked about is an amendment. Let's change. If we wanted to go ahead, change, file the ordinance as it came on, and then send a new ordinance in. No, substitute. Substitute. Substitute, yes. To file the substitute. No filing. No filing. No filing? No. Substitute. Okay. The substitute. Substitute, no. Okay. The policy. All right, the person who made the amendment. I did both. Okay, so would you change it to a substitute ordinance? I'll make a motion that we adopt a substitute ordinance and send it out of the common council. Yes. Yes. As amended. I'll second. Okay, that was all right. So then we're substitute ordinance. Now, this question right now is, what's our recommendation? Are we gonna send this ordinance out? Yes, with a favorable recommendation. With a favorable recommendation and a second. I second. I did a second. All person could also second a favorable recommendation and a substitute ordinance. Substitute ordinance. And all the person must be out. Thank you again, Chairman. Now it seems to me at our last council meeting or the one before, Attorney McLean said this involves a charter ordinance change. Is that still the case? Attorney McLean? Not the case. For what depends on this happening first, that would be for the city engineer position. Currently that's by charter ordinance the director of city development has the authority to appoint the city engineer. Oh yeah, that's right. The only way a method charter ordinance is by a charter ordinance. So you need to create a charter ordinance which I have drafted but we'll bring it in until it happens to have the city engineer appointed by the director of operations. It's just that little portion that needs the charter or change. Not this whole. This is just the simple majority. Change is also immediately made to the municipal code. Change in the table or the organization has a charter draft and an ordinance to do that. But again, no point in bringing that in until when this is expected. Such things add references to responsibilities. Responsibilities or about the director of city development, for instance, right now the ordinance says that building inspection reports to a toilet. So that ought to be cleaned up. That clean up document would come after this gets passed. If it gets passed, there's no sense, as I say, bringing something in to change all the provisions of the code and to clean it up until you've got your structure in place. Am I still on? Yes, you are. Thank you. And I sort of agree with Alderman Wongam and that the people who I've spoken with said it's just another layer of management. That's the way they feel. Now the fact that it actually is budget neutral makes me consider it in a better light. So I don't have the vaguest idea how I stand tonight. So we await your decision. Very good. I'm sure I changed the vote right now. Okay, I'm turning lights off. Anyone else? Discussion on this, there's a resolution to pass the other side, okay? All right, there's no other discussion. We will take a vote. This is just a simple vote to send it on. This is not a two thirds or anything like that. Call. Bowers? No. Decker? No. Gisha? Aye. Anna? Aye. Hydeman? Aye. Ka? No. Kittleson? Aye. Khayounas? Aye. Montemayor? I'm sure I didn't mean to get that. What was that? Sir? Sir? No. Fanny Willie? Aye. Wongamon? No. Seven Ayes. Seven five noes. Okay, so it passes seven and five. Okay, that's all on our agenda tonight. Motion to adjourn. Second. Thank you. Thank you for calling this.