 future, Mike, if you'd be so kind. 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. Everyone can hear me, and we're all good? Yes. Out of the way. OK. Hey, Trey, how you doing? Well, thank you. Good. So we are going to start with a motion to approve the minutes of our July 27th meeting. Move to approve the minute. Right. Second. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. We'll go on to 3.1, which is submitting a communication for direct annexation. Check, I note that there's a piece on this at the end of the agenda. Do we need to do something here? So the RO can just be filed, and the ordinance, which comes later in the meeting, is probably the more key document. OK. So if it's OK with everyone, I would like a motion to file the resolution. Move to file. Not the resolution, but the RO. I'm sorry, the RO. Move to file the RO. All right. And I think I heard a second somewhere. Second. All right. We'll be getting to this in greater detail at the very end of the meeting. So if there's no further discussion, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Very good. We'll move on to 3.2. Now, this is a claim that was filed by Jacqueline Bichard for alleged damages to her vehicle when a tree limb fell on it. The committee met to discuss this, and we are recommending denial. All right. The proper, the denial letter has been sent out so the proper motion would be to file the claim. OK. All right. Anyone have questions for Chuck? If not, I'd ask for a motion to file. Move to file. And am I hearing a second? Second. Is there any discussion? There are none. All in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right. 3.3 is a claim from Phillip and Suzanne Vanderbilt for sewer overcharging, built by the town of Shebaugen. Yes. And you've picked up on exactly what I'm going to say. The committee met to discuss this and recommended denying it. The bills come from the town of Shebaugen. We're not opining on whether the claim would be valid or not, but it should be filed with the town. And it gives me great pleasure to ask if we can have a motion to, you want a motion to file, right? Make a motion to file. Make a motion to file. Let's get to it. Second. All right. Any other discussion? I just had a question. Excuse me, I just had a question. I looked at some of the documentation and emails that were quite lengthy. Were they being billed inappropriately from the town? Was that the issue or inappropriately being billed by the city? It was kind of hard to figure out. The allegation is that they were being billed inappropriately and the bills were coming from the town. That's their claim. I'm not weighing in on whether that claim isn't any way valid and that the town will have to deal with that. All right, thank you. So do we have a motion to file? Move to file. Second. Second. We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? There are none. All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. And the motion passes. 3.4 is a resolution authorizing appropriate city officials to execute an engagement letter with Corals and Brady as our bond council. Check any comments before we have a motion? As is, we're fine with it. There is work being done in the background, perhaps, change some of these processes, but for now, we're good. It's been my thought, while Corals and Brady is certainly very competent, and because of the nature of the business, there are very few law firms at least in the state that can do this. Nonetheless, we should be looking for proposals from other firms or whatever. Any other comments, questions? If not, I am looking for a motion to authorize the execution of the agreement. So moved. Warren. Second. Marcus. Any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Very good. 3.5 is a resolution awarding the sales of $4.610 in general obligation refunding bonds. Who's going to take this? Marty, Todd? Yeah, I can take that. Alder Donahue, thank you, Chair. This is just in preparation for our refunding of the 2007 B bonds that were dated September 1, 2007. This is part of our, will be part of our August 17th special meeting before council, where we will be awarding the winning bidders for this refunding. This is the one where we are going to be doing this purely for interest savings. Is the interest rate really 13.4%? Yes, actually it might even come in a little bit higher than that. Depends on the market on that day. There you go. All right, we are looking for, what are we looking for here? We're looking for a resolution to award this sale of the bonds. Is that correct? No. Let me take a look here. Chuck, help me out if you think that this may be made the agenda last council meeting prematurely. I think that this made the council agenda prematurely. Yeah, because this is the resolution awarding the sale, and that hasn't happened yet. Is that correct? Correct, the awarding, it happens on the 17th. I think this made it on last week Monday's council meeting in a sense before the award. I think it was in draft state. Yeah, but the committee's got to look it over at least and determine that. Assuming everything goes fine, it's OK. So what you're doing is you're recommending approval on the 17th of the resolution. And probably the motion should include motion to recommend approval of the resolution, assuming the sale goes as anticipated on the 17th. Will we actually do that on August 17th as well? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. Will we do that on August 17th as well? The council will on August 17th. So this committee doesn't actually do anything. It recommends to do something. And so that's what's happening here is we're recommending that on the 17th the council approve it, assuming that everything goes as planned with the sale on the 17th. And then the council will take that recommendation and vote on it on the 17th. We'll have our special meeting on the 17th before the council, which will actually have all the details finalized. A special meeting of the finance committee? Yes. Yeah, I guess we're hearing that. OK, then you may want to wait, then you may want to hold off on this. Yeah, I think so. Okie dokie. So we will just motion to hold our files. Then it will be on the special meeting. All right, we're going to have a motion to hold. Do we have such a motion? Move to hold. But I do have one clarifying question, because I will forget by Monday. It's not a 13% interest rate on this, right? But it's a 13% or 13.96. I think it was savings in what we would be paying back, right? Correct. It's 13% savings on the amount that's still owed. We will save 13% on that. So it's about, yeah, I think it's the last four years. All right, well, that makes sense. Thank you, Betray. I appreciate that. Yeah, I was thinking, boy, this isn't 1979, so. I think the bond, this is Alderman Boren. Marty, the actually interest rate on that bond was four-something, wasn't it 4% something? Correct, it was just north of 4%. All right, so we need a motion to hold. Don't move, Boren. Second. And is there a second? All right, any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. 3.6 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to negotiate settlement of certain claims made by the city of Sheboygan, or made to the city of Sheboygan. I'm not sure. So this is, I'm not sure how this is different from our current practice, Chuck. So how this is different is that the current policy was not entirely clear on settlement authority when dealing with funds that people owe to us rather than the vice versa. So what this does is basically allows, without getting prior approval, we can settle liability insurance claims in an amount to exceed, not to exceed $50,000. So basically, what's going to happen is there would be a consultation between our office and the finance department and the city administrator on how to settle these kinds of things. And then if the total amount compromised is $50,000 or less, it wouldn't necessarily need to go to council. So as an example, somebody runs into a stop-and-go light and knocks it down, and there's all sorts of damage done, and DPW builds them for the various work that's being done. And then they say, well, the insurance company comes back and says, we're willing to pay 90%, but we're not willing to pay this 10% because of x, y, and z. Well, that would enable us to not have to go to council every single time to settle those kinds of things. OK. As long as it's under $50,000 administrative. To my mind, it's a little bit of a distinction without a difference. But first, how did we get to $50,000? Because that's the number that we use the other way around when we pay people claims, and we have given the administrator authority of up to $50,000. And that, when we did that, we based that basically on $50,000 is often sort of a standard in the statutes for various types of claims, whether they require certain types of things to be done. And for example, in the public works area, whether it requires going to public bidding and certain things. It was just a number. It's a round number that gets used for other things for me. Thank you. Kind of true, Chuck, isn't it, that in general, municipal liability is $50,000 per claim per person, generally. I mean, it certainly moves around, but I think that's where we came to the $50,000. So do we have a lot? I noticed in the document, Chuck, that ultimately we're going to get a report on the settlements. It's just that you can go ahead and do them and then report back to us. Is that correct? Right. It's very similar to what happens with the claims now. We come and tell you after the fact that we paid such and such a person $10,000 because our snow plow crashed into their bumper or whatever. It's the same kind of thing. OK, thank you. Do I need a motion to authorize or to approve the resolution? Move to approve the resolution. Second. Correct. All right. Is there any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. OK, let's move on to 3.7, which is a resolution adopting certain changes to the medical benefit plan and dental benefit plan effective in calendar year 2021 and so forth. And who do we have on this? Vicki, are you in the room or how are you doing this? Vicki's going to step up to the middle podium and give a presentation. Perfect. Vicki? Help that. Oh, OK. There we are. OK, so what is being presented is the plan for 2021. To give a little bit of history, we've worked on doing our due diligence as the Human Resources Department as well as the Wellness Committee to look at various options for this year. We had in place earlier that we would look at two plans. And in speaking with the finance director and with Todd that we believed that that second plan, which was going to be a more traditional plan, would put us more at risk. So we elected to have one plan, which is the plan that's being presented tonight, in addition that we would make a contribution to the HSA accounts for employees who would be able to use that, as well as keeping the opt out option for those who do not take our insurance and then keeping the spousal surcharge in place. So Vicki, where would you summarize the big changes to be? Obviously it's the HSA contribution. Yes, that is the most significant change for 2021. One of the other pieces that we had prepared employees to do was that we would go to a 9% increase. And again, in discussion with Todd and Marty and others that we would be looking at splitting the difference, we were at 8.13%. And we decided to go with an 8.5% employee contribution for the premium contribution. Todd, do you want to speak to the history of the HSA contribution and how this is changing? And I, or we also have Jenny, who can also speak to it as well, if you would like. We'll let Jenny talk a little bit about history. Do you want to be at that, Mike? You can be there. Floor is yours. The floor is mine. When we first went to the high deductible plan in 2015, for years 2015, 16, and 17, we gave an HSA contribution of $750 for single and $1,500 for any of the other tier coverages. In 2018, we dropped that down to $600 and $1,200. And then in 2019, we dropped it down to $400, $800. And the reason why we dropped it down each year was because of the projected year-end balance for the health insurance fund. We were projected to be at the end of 2019. We were projected to be at the $3 million mark, which is identified by ordinance, that we have to maintain that balance in the fund. And based on figures we received recently from CLA, we are just above $4 million in the ending balance for the health fund. So that is why, after discussions, we decided that to show some good faith to the employees, to give back some of that to their HSAs, because that is employee contributions. They're being smart with their health care. They are being good consumers with their health care. And we had a pretty exceptional year in 2019. And to date, I believe we are running right around 67.5% loss ratio, which is very good. Obviously, it's been impacted because of COVID, but that is historically. That's really good for us. Yes, very good. Questions for Vicki or Bert? And you say 67% loss rate, 67% of what loss? If we would be at 100% loss ratio, that means that we are exactly where we projected to be as far as expenses and revenues for the health fund. So we are at 67%, which means we are well below what was projected for 2020. Thank you. I had a question, Mary Lynn. I got a clarification late today, so I'm pretty sure I understand it. But Jenny, would you go over the deductible? And the high deductible is that it's $3,000 for a family, why I understand it. And the employee is responsible for the first 3,000. That is correct. And for a single coverage, the deductible is 15. I thought the employee was responsible for the first 1,500 in the city the second, but now I understand that the employee is responsible for the full 3,000 of the deductible. And the HSA will give them some help in dealing with that deductible next year. Is that correct? That is correct. They already could if they choose it to use it that way. Correct. OK. Well, now that I've got the clarification, I'm going to support the document. The only thing that does make me a little queasy, though, is we may be going into 2021 with over $4 million. Does everybody think we're going to be comfortable if we take the amount, whatever the amount is, out of the $4 million to fund the HSA, do we still feel comfortable with going into 2021 that less than $4 million is going to be enough in case we have a big spike in claims because of maybe people not going to the doctor as much this year, but if things change with COVID that we may have a much larger exposure next year. The way I have it calculated out with our current health insurance census, the total amount that would be coming out of the fund for the HSA contributions would be right around $386,000. So that still leaves us about $615,000 remaining in the health fund. And then we also are increasing our total premiums by 5.2%. So there is going to be an additional amount of revenue going into the account. What happens if we dip below the $3 million minimum? Do we have to make that up in the following year then with additional premium? Or how do we make that whole again? Good question. That is a question that I don't know the answer to, but I will find out for you. Todd, do you have any memory of when this has happened in the past? I don't. I don't remember us actually. The last one has gone up and down. Yeah. I don't recall us going below the $3 million, but I support the HSA contribution to the employees because as we continue to go up or go down, the employees also have to, they're affected by it. So the benefit here is obviously that they're seeing an increase of 5.2, as Jenny had said. We are in a unique situation with COVID, and people are being better consumers. And I think COVID has also affected that so that non-essential items were not necessarily able to be taken care of. But by giving some back, and it's just a one-off, it is not something that will be repeated in the future. It's just helping them through this COVID situation and during our tight budget times. As an aside, too. Would Marty have an answer to that question about if we did dip below the $3 million? Would that have to be made up in additional premium, or could we use undesignated fund balance to make that whole? Yeah, Alder Bar and I, this is something that Vicki and I did talk about earlier. It was something that we were going to follow up with Chuck on in regards to how the ordinance was probably written. I think we have options, whether it can be made up with employee premiums or fund balance or a combination thereof. But as part of that conversation that I also asked, or was talking to Vicki about, was if we as a, or if the committee should consider an inflationary factor on that $3 million on a annual or every other year basis to be able to stay current with rising medical costs. The intention of the $3 million is so that we have funding to pay for medical care, but I'm sure we all agree medical care costs more today than it did one year ago, two years ago, and so forth. So that was something that we also will be discussing. And Alder, I think there's a couple of good sources for finding out what the medical inflation is year to year. I'm trying to think of the one that's really well thought of comes out once a year, but I'm sure there's several where we could come up with that inflation factor. Oh, Jim, I have no doubt that Vicki will be on that. I don't think we need to worry about that. So I will just say I really like this proposal. The changes seem reasonable. I'm happy to see the HSA back. If there is a clear intent only to do it for one year, I think we need to be very explicit about it. If we continue to have a good claims record and we continue to maintain a substantial surplus of the fund, I don't see why we wouldn't continue it, but whatever the thought is, we just need to make crystal clear to employees what the deal is. So that's my only comment. Is there any other discussion questions? I would just like to support what Mary Lynn said because typically you don't give something and then take it away, but I'm understanding that the history of this HSA is that it's floating. Some years we have it, some years we don't. Some years it's this price, some years it's that rate. So I just think that needs to be communicated also. Mary Lynn. Yes. This is Todd. I wanna make sure that the committee understands that Vicki and myself and the committee have been very clear on this as a one-time situation and it'll be a year by year, but nothing has been guaranteed. Okay, good. So we need a motion to approve the proposed changes to the health insurance plan. So moved. Second. All right, and I didn't move that very well, but it would be to changes to the city's medical benefit plan and dental benefit plan as outlined in the resolution. So that's all right with everyone. It is. Sorry I could have been clear. Is there any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Jenny, thanks for your presentation. It was very clear. I appreciate it. Welcome. Moving on to 3.8, which is a resolution authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into a loan agreement with the housing authority. Just got some history who would like to take it. This is Chad, I'll take it. So you guys had, the council had reviewed this in closed session a number of months ago. As you'll recall, this is related to the reconstruction of the Wasserman apartments and the conversion of those 105 public housing units into workforce housing under a tax credit project that they're doing as we speak. They had a deficit in their performer based on some issues with the exterior of the building to the tune of 1,472,000. The council agreed to direct loan that money to Wasserman development with the payment coming from some funding that they would receive, the housing authority would receive from HUD and pay it off over a five year period. So the documents before you today are the loan agreements that the city has negotiated with the developer for that project. They will be paying a 4.25% interest rate and make annual disbursements back to the city based on the funding that they will receive from HUD. All right, questions for Chad? All right, then we will need a motion to recommend approval of the resolution. So moved. Perfect, any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. We'll have to get that done. 3.9 is an ordinance annexing territory from the town of Wilson to the city of Sheboygan. Madam Chair, I can take that one as well. So this is a parcel of land around an acre of land that's being annexed in around the Sheboygan Christian High School, Sheboygan Christian High School is in the process of moving through the plan approval process to obtain approval to expand the school to include the elementary and middle school on their campus and then doing so the building crosses the property line and the property line happens to be town of Wilson. So they're required to annex a piece of property so that construction plans can continue. The reason, so this document will be before the Planning Commission tomorrow, but the reason that it's here is state statute requires us to pay the town of Wilson the difference in taxes as it relates to the town's portion of the taxes. So what we've done in the past is the city has paid those fees and then asked the applicant to reimburse the city for those fees. So that's what we're asking for here is that the motion would be to approve this ordinance with the understanding that the applicant would have to pay the difference in the town and town taxes over a course of five years. I mean, they're a nonprofit, I presume. Why would they own any property tax? Because the property. Go ahead, Chuck. So the issue is that the way the statute is written is that the amount that the city has to reimburse the town is based on the most recent taxes and it is not currently tax exempt because they just bought the property. Oh, okay. The statute does not take into account the fact that it's going to become tax exempt and so there's going to be all this money. So that's why we're making sure that they reimburse us with that amount. One other piece that when you make the motion in addition to that condition that the annotation it should also be that approval is contingent upon approval by the Department of Administration that has not come through yet. And for that reason, I'm going to say that it's fairly unlikely that that will come in in enough time for this matter to go to council on Monday. And we would just hold it if that's the case. Maybe they're putting the folks from SCS are pushing the DOA to get it done, but that doesn't always work. All right. So the motion that I would see then is that we would hang on half a second here is that we would, I'm sorry, I lost my place that we would recommend approving the annexation is set out for the ordinance annexing the territory with the understanding that any tax liability the city will owe to the town of Wilson will be reimbursed to the city by the property owner and that approval of the ordinance is contingent on approval from the Department of Administration. Is that a fair? Okay. So move on. So no rendering? Okay. All right. Any other discussions? Chuck, I just had a question. Just to clarify the property that they're buying is on the tax rules. So that's why that for the tax reimbursement, but now that it's purchased, that property will now be exempt because it's a school. Most likely. I mean, they actually have to file the exemption request, but they probably will. All right. And David Beiber begins to build his town of Wilson empire. So one acre at a time. Are you ready to do any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Very good. I'm glad they finally got their school off the ground. Now our next meeting is August 17th at 5.15. This is to get information from Carol about the bond sale. And hopefully we'll be quite quick and then we'll just go right into the council meetings. Is everyone able to attend that meeting? I will be there. Should be no problem for me. Okay. Sounds good. All right. So then we need a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Thank you all. We got a lot done in a pretty quick period of time.