 We'll call the 11th regular meeting of comma council to order So would you call the roll, please? Bowman Berg Bonet Serta Graf Manny Montemayor Perez Peterson Rindflash Sagali Stefan Excuse Vanakren Vanderwiel Wongamon and Warner 15 present Orms present Alderman Warner I thank your honor move the minutes of the last common council meeting be approved and at the same stand is entered on the record Move to the second at the minutes of the previous council meeting stand approved under discussion Fearing none, all in favor? Opposed? Motion carried Alderman Bonet, would you lead us in a pledge, please? 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 Confirmation of the year's appointments This was dated to August 16th hereby submit the following appointment for your consideration Joseph Clark to be considered for appointment to the architectural review board to fill the unexpired term of Richard Londine whose term expires 430-06 signed by the mayor I thank your honor I move to approve Motion be for us in a second Is there any discussion? Not all in favor? All right Opposed? Public forum sue Joanne Scribner If you could step up to the mic Joanne and I need your home address please Three Seneca Trail, Sheboygan, Wisconsin Three Seneca Trail And you have five minutes First of all I would like to thank Mayor Shram and the Sheboygan Common Council for the opportunity for me to speak here tonight Question Have you walked the block around Sheridan Park lately? Have you noticed the beautiful green grass and the green leafy trees put there by God for us to enjoy? Did you notice the new playground equipment? The two new basketball hoops and the nice cement basketball area The nicely mulched playground area The bench to sit on The two baby swings The six older child adult swings A blue something that is hard to spin Maybe a merry-go-round would be better in that particular spot Did you notice the two cute colorful little kid rides in the sandbox? Did you notice the two blue litter barrels Enclosed in a rectangular brown fence on a cement slab? Did you notice the Civil War monument Dedicated to the men and women of Sheboygan County who served in that war? 1961 or 1861 to 1865 Did you notice that that monument is dated May 7, 1938 Which is 66 years ago And then did you notice a nice Sheridan Park city of Sheboygan Sheridan Park sign With the Lake S logo on it Original plaque of 1846 which is 158 years ago Do you see any kind of historical significance here? Did you notice that the Sheridan Park sign is surrounded by a nice circular sidewalk And tall grasses and flowers? Did you notice that there's a bus stop on the east side of South 14th and Virginia Avenue? Have you noticed the heavy traffic on South 14th Street? Did you notice that Sheridan School is right kitty corner across from the park Across on South 14th? Have you noticed the children crossing the street near the park And the school going to and coming from school And the parents and the buses dropping children off and picking them up from school And the crossing guards And this is a good site for a police station Responding to a possible suicide or murder alert during those crucial school hours Is this not a grave safety concern? Should the Sheridan Police Department have a fine, beautiful, big state of the art New police station? Of course they should And as soon as possible ASAP But not on Sheridan Park What is wrong with the North 23rd site And other sites that you may have been considering Again walk on South 13th Street between Virginia and Illinois Avenues Notice the beautiful tree line streets The quiet residential area Now imagine the police sirens going on Day and night Who knows what hours the police sirens are going on In this quiet or used to be quiet residential area Now one thing I did notice I've been to the park several times lately One thing I did notice There are kids that do play in the park Now if you add a few more swings A nice slide, a nice mirror ground Volleyball and that really attracts kids Just go past Roosevelt And King Park sometimes see the kids playing volleyball That wouldn't be too expensive to add a couple of wooden poles and a net I don't think I did not notice any gang activity I did not notice any backward cabs on kids Which of course does not mean gang activity necessarily And I did not notice any spray paint graffiti anywhere Just kids playing is all I noticed A friend of mine mentioned a possible scenario Some adults are going to walk into the new police station on the former Sheridan Park They will ask where are the trees Some children will walk through the new police station on the former Sheridan Park And they'll say where are the swings I'm sorry, time is up, five minutes Can I have just one more line How are the police going to respond to the children Where is our neighborhood park My plea for all of you, as Jerry Lewis would say Save Sheridan Park and do it for the kids Thank you Okay, next up is Vicki Meyer Vicki if you could give me your address again It's 3107 North 26th Street And you will have five minutes Mr. Mayor, council Thank you for letting me speak again on the subject of Sheridan Park I don't know if you realize how much pain you have caused me and the community With your decision to destroy Sheridan Park When all this started, we the silent majority Trusted you to make the right choice But you let us down So our only alternative was to form a group And save the park ourselves The Friends of Sheboygan's parks have started a petition drive We are finding at least 90% of the people of Sheboygan are signing them Some of the comments your constituents have said to me are We can't believe they are going to take our park I thought it was going to be 23rd Street I've even heard a lot of people say Recall like they did in Milwaukee And that's a strong statement So yes, the people of Sheboygan are very upset But there is still time to fix this And I would like to invite all of you To come to Sheridan Park on Saturday, September 11th Bring your picnic basket and a chair Because we have no tables and benches and things there And meet us, talk to us Meet the neighbors that live in Sheridan Park Come and see what you want to take away So please come and join us We would love to see you all there Thank you Thank you Vicki Renee Susha Renee, can you give me your address again please Sure Renee Susha, 303 St. Clair Avenue Okay, you have five minutes Okay, tonight I have four issues to talk about None of this information should be new to any alderman If I say anything that you are not aware of It's because too many decisions Maybe are being made behind closed doors And you're not privy to the information You'll be happy to know that I'm not here to voice My opinion on where to build the police station I'm personally not fond of either sites So I'll leave that one alone But I do have some suggestions for you Before you turn over the first shovel of dirt Before you approve any building plans You must reach agreement with Sheboygan County On shared services According to the police needs assessment And site analysis study The new police station will have a very large State of the art communication center As a taxpayer in the city of Sheboygan I pay for both the county communication center Operated out of the Sheriff's Department And also the city communication center Operated out of the police station This duplication of equipment And overhead expenses is a huge Waste of taxpayer money There is a difference between What one needs and what they want In my opinion the proposed police station Is full of desires and a little waste For example they currently function I believe with two restrooms Do they really need to put in 12 bathrooms in this new building I know it would be very challenging For the police department to share bathrooms With the Sheriff's Department But I think sharing the communication center Must be worked out as soon as possible As a taxpayer I'd like to see a more Creative fiscally responsible Decision made for the new police station Versus building the Taj Mahal At my expense Secondly I'd like to comment on the New fire station that the city Wants to build on the edge of Sheboygan Practically in the town of Wilson When I checked about two weeks ago This project was still slated To be on the books for 2005 And I don't know in the past two weeks If that's changed or not But before you turn over the first Shovel of dirt on that project I would suggest approaching the town of Wilson to discuss annexation Now is the time to sell them on our Delicious water and beneficial sewer system Before you sweeten the pot With the safety of a new fire station It's a great bargaining tool For the fire station without annexation The town of Wilson will benefit from The mutual aid pact This means that whenever there's a fire In the town of Wilson the new Sheboygan Fire Department will have to respond At the Sheboygan taxpayers expense So please do not build this fire station Without annexation of the town of Wilson Thirdly I'd like to comment On the seven page budget Survey that was given to all the Alderman it appears that 13 of You replied and of course The direction of questions that really caught My attention were the questions relating To room tax Someone forgot to request your input On one of the most important issues Where was the question asking if Room tax money should be used to pay The debt of the conference center The room tax lawsuit clearly states Room tax money can be used to fund A convention center not a conference Center If you want to gamble with the taxpayers Money and let Judge Langhoff rule on this Go right ahead After all Judge Langhoff was the city Attorney who set up the collection Of room tax in 1983 The only reason I'm bringing this to your Attention is because I think there's a Strong possibility the mayor and city Attorney are withholding information like This from you and I want you to be informed I strongly encourage all of you To start asking a lot of questions About this lawsuit before it's too late Lastly I'd like to give you an example Of a local governing body who's To withhold any secrets from its board Or its public. The school board Deserves to be commended on the steps They have taken to educate the public On their upcoming referendum to build A new grade school and high school Gymnasium expansion. The process And I want to emphasize the process They implemented to educate the public Is outstanding. At the end of Last year every child Who attends the Chewboygan public schools Was sent home with literature on The upcoming referendum. A dozen Sessions were held for community Input where the school board listened To the suggestions that the Community had and they provided answers To their questions. And most recently I was very impressed last week When I went to the open house to Find a table set up with Diagrams and somebody was there to Answer questions again about the referendum And it's my understanding that every Single school in the city of Chewboygan Had these resources At their fingertips last week for Open houses. This council should Learn from their examples of open Dissemination of information. After All they're going through this big Process for just an advisory Referendum. Nothing binding. So my question to you is when is The last time this council surveyed The public to see what they want. Thank you. Steve would you like to respond To that. On that What's your opinion And About holding back information That Judge Lankoff has on the Conference Center. The mayor or I have been holding Back anything. There's A hearing A week and a half ago As to whether or not Great Lakes could remain As a party to the lawsuit because The plaintiffs redid Their complaint for the third time And proposed to take Out Great Lakes as a party As a defendant. Great Lakes Was interested in the project And interested in the city's use Of room tax and pleaded with the Court to remain a party to the Lawsuit and the court allowed Great Lakes to stay in as a party. That's where we are. We've got Scheduled for filing Summary judgment motions Next Monday And then the plaintiffs have 30 days in which to respond to Those and we've got another 30 Days to respond to those. That's That's where we are on the lawsuit. It is True that One of the allegations that the Plaintiffs are now making is that Cities Funding of the convention center With room tax dollars Violates the law. Violates the public purpose doctrine. It's kind of interesting because We had communications Over About two years ago I think from The Shaboyan lodging group that Was very supportive of the City funding The convention center with room tax Dollars. But Now they're saying it's You know we're violating the law by Doing that. So we'll have to see It'll be a while yet before the Judge renders any decision As issues come up we'll be Presenting those to the council For your input. Okay. Thank you Steve Your clarification. Okay. Before we get into the agenda We're going to do the closed Session. Just a little different Tonight. We have a closed session With redevelopment authority. Alderman Warner you're going to Pull that forward and then we'll Go back into the consent agenda. Correct. So We have a closed session. I would like to pull forward Document number 1167 and I Would move to convene closed Session under the exemption provided In section 19.85 One of the Wisconsin statutes for The purpose of deliberating the Consent request by the great lakes Companies incorporated where Competitive and bargaining reasons Require a closed session. Thank you Your Honor. Just Clarification of why we need to Right now instead of doing it at Document 1167. We've got redevelopment authority People here Eric We've got a representative from Great Lakes and the Thought was to have That joint meeting with Redevelopment authority now so That the redevelopment authority Members could leave And the Great Lakes person Could go back to Madison. Yeah less for me but more for Okay we have a motion and a second On a floor. Would you call the Rule please. Bowman Berg Bonnet Sirda Graf Manny Montemayor Pardon Perez Peterson Rindflash Segali Van Akron Van Der Wiel Wangeman and Warner Motion carried. We will be Back right after closed session So if anyone wants to stick around I don't think it's going to take I wouldn't anticipate it would take Too long but it's going to be Dependent on questions by the Council on redevelopment authority Then we'll go back to open session So if you want to stick around please do so Probably 20 minutes Take a two minute break until Everybody clears out and we'll Be in closed session Bowman Berg Bonnet Sirda Graf Manny Montemayor Perez Peterson Rindflash Segali Van Akron Van Der Wiel Wangeman Warner 15 present Warms present Alderman Warner Thank you honor I move the ROB Accepted and placed on file Resolution be put upon its passage Move it in Second that ROB accept and placed on File and resolution be put upon its Passage. Sorry discussion Hearing none would you call Call that excuse me Correct so you want to do that Before we take our other after go ahead Alright we have a motion on the floor as well Any discussion on the motion Any discussion on the motion Any discussion hearing none all in favor The motion is signified by C&I All opposed the same The redevelopment passes the motion Thank you Going back to ours we have a motion A second on the floor No other discussion City Attorney you want Would you call the roll then please Berg Bonnet Sirda Graf Manny Montemayor Perez Peterson Rindflash Segali Van Akron Vanderweel Wonderman Warner and Bauman 15 ayes Motion carried Thank you everyone for coming Consent agenda All in order Thank you Your Honor I move that all ROBs Accepted and placed on file All ROC's be accepted and adopted All resolutions substitute Resolutions and ordinances be passed Move it to second that all ROC's Be accepted and file resolutions Put upon their passage That's 11-1 through 11-22 under discussion Alderman Perez Thank you Mayor Steve 11-19, 11-20 I don't believe it's Necessary Alderman Perez this is just to file Notices of Damage of injury Damage or injury That were filed two years ago As a possible Prelude to filing a claim No claims have been filed So the motion on the floor will be Just to place them on file I don't see you have a problem with 11-14 11-14 is a Reported committee that has Five items There's one In particular number two regarding to the Peace Pole The Peace Pole Larry McDonald Very Mr. Sandman Very Sandman McDonald Has approached this At least twice Asking them to put a Peace Pole Somewhere in the city I know that it says Here in the center of the rotary of Indiana But I believe at one point He said just put it somewhere And I guess I'm a little concerned that We haven't found a place for that Peace Pole Because Such a small thing that has so much Significance to Larry McDonald and to the people I believe And there's a message To me being one Can I ask If any other locations were Considered by that committee All of them Your Honor By the Public Works Committee No location has been considered What we did say through committee Was that the Plain commission would be the persons That would choose the position That would be placed So we referred to planning committee? I think it was already there Has it been? No Then I would rule Your Honor that If I may pull that out That we refer Reported committee Number 0405 Number 2 Relative to the Peace Pole Requested By Larry Sands McDonald That document was referred to the Plain commission and they took action And from what I can recall the action was That the roundabout That center location was already Spoken for So I think they moved to file That was my recollection so you'd have to Refer back and they'd have to Consider another location And that's what I'm asking It would be referred back to city plan I say we're bound to find a place for it That's a great idea All in favor of the motion? Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you Yeah, Larry approached me this last week About that also and he has one in his front yard So if you'd like to take a look at it Just drive by Larry's yard He has one up there Means a lot to him Means a lot to the community so Hopefully we can find some more for Tenton Broadway? That's 11-1 through 11-22 If not would you call The Rollins? Bonet, Serta, Graf Manny, Montemayor Perez Peterson, Rindflash Sagali, Vanakren Vanderweel Wangeman, Warner Bauman, Anberg 15 Eyes Motion carried. 11-23 11-30 to be referred 11-31 11-46 to be referred Alderman Rindflash Thank you Your Honor 11-32 I'd like to pull that one 4 and moved to file 11-32 Who seconded it? I'm sorry Who seconded it? Marilyn A few months ago under discussion I spoke There was another letter that came through regarding the city attorney and the mayor That I moved to file as well Instead of going to law and licensing or ethics board We had a presentation just to sum up again Many months ago Ethics issues really revolve around If anybody has Any proof or any claim That an alderman is profiting From their position financially And we both had an attorney As well as our own city attorney's office Gave that recommendation Much like I did once ago When I said an issue is political It's not ethical based on our ethical standards If you want to adjust our ethical standards We can do so on your committee But once again I don't see the point of Every letter that comes across our desks Complaining about any one Of us here Used to always go to law and licensing When there is no claim of financial impropriety Alderman Thank you mayor Just a question for Steve Should I abstain from this one? Thank you Alderman Montemay Thank you Mr. Mayor In this one in particular It's resubmission of the original letter And that was additionally Addressed by two attorneys That did not meet the criteria Thank you Alderman Bonet I'd like to address the fact that Resubmission because the original letter Was actually two letters And this has some similarities But is not the same letter and does address A couple other issues As the chairman of the committee I believe when it's referred to committee This is something we had to review As the law and licensing committee Being in essence a branch of the ethics committee The fact is that it gives the opportunity For the letter writer to speak to the committee When addressing the issue Otherwise if it's filed It won't have the way you'll ever have a chance To speak on the issue being a constituent Alderman Horner I think and I guess I too feel that We should send it to committee We have that process in place Being thrown into this thing a year ago And all the things we went through Under discussion It was brought forth that That's what law and licensing is supposed to do With issues like this It doesn't really matter so much what we think On a case like this That came in last time In fact I think those documents are on our agenda And they were filed already I think this should go to the committee Let the committee do its job If it needs the same muster It'll get filed in that committee And come through here again I think it's important that That process that we talked about Six, seven months ago gets followed That's what it's there for There's no need to consider ethics Or anything like that until The process is set up Alderman Horner Thank you Your Honor My concern isn't necessarily individual That's been claimed or the issue being claimed Or if it's the second time around Or the first time around We filed other documents earlier today That were correspondence from people And not necessarily claiming one person Or another person did this But they're communications to the council We read those documents If someone can point out where Something that is improper Versus someone complaining You know, we're all subject to that And if we set the precedence Anytime someone wants to throw ideas out there Without an accusation That someone needs to defend Then we're all going to be sitting at the law Every time, all 16 of us I fully defend The gentleman's right to write a letter We've all read the letter It's public, it goes out to The media and everybody else In the letter, my fear is That we're all 16 of us Every time one constituent disagrees with us Instead of the political process Which is elections We're going to be sitting at the law And I think all the time for every accusation Unless something is here That says that Biorethics Code And Alderman is using the position For financial impropriety Which I don't see in here And I still vote to defile Just to prevent the precedence From being set of all 16 of us sitting in there Every other week In law licensing. Correct. Alderman Montemar to the motion. The motion to file. Yes, as we do As Alderman Eric Renfleisch reiterated We do receive lots of letters We read them We think about them And we file them And this letter falls in the same category We read them We think about it We'll file it. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About the motion to file I just want to specify The reason why I won't file it Is because of this part of the sentence Where it says A conflict of interest For Alderman Perez's personal agenda And a parent support For a $34 million school District spending program That I didn't know And I feel maybe That should be investigated. Thank you. Alderman Montemar to the motion. Thank you. I guess I'm going to need Some direction from Steve Concerning the ethic code Because if we were making Decision on filing some And not others It's going to give Maybe the perception That we're choosing favoritism So I'm going to ask For your discretion on this one If indeed it doesn't violate Any of the ethics codes Considering that I guess we filed things In the path without them Being referred to a committee. Thank you. Alderman Montemar to the motion. I guess the initial Reaction to these things Is the ethics board Which is you as the Common council I guess my looking at it It appears to be a political Issue Concern about And Alderman supporting You know Saving the park perhaps I don't know that There's anything Ethically wrong with that I mean people are allowed To have different opinions Even those that are on the council Supporting school spending programs As opposed to seven million Dollar police station I don't see that as an ethical issue There again that's Really a political issue A judgment issue By an Alderman If an Alderman doesn't believe A police station is warranted Or for whatever reason He certainly got the right To have that opinion Without creating an ethics problem And it really doesn't have anything to do with I don't think with the Proposed school referendum My view of it is that I wouldn't see inherently Here any sort of ethics violation I know the previous letters from Mr. LaTree were referred to Law and licensing I wasn't at the meeting But I'm aware that Looking at the minutes That law and licensing Recommended filing the communications You could do the same thing This time if you wanted But I don't really That's my take on it Now again the ethics board Of which law and licensing Has been designated as the Subcommittee to initially review Matters Can look at it differently I'm there to advise the council And the ethics board when asked But ultimately it's the council That makes those sorts of decisions As to ethical violations or not I just don't see that it's Clear cut enough as a personal Or financial interest issue That would clearly be an ethics Code violation sort of issue Alderman Warner on the I guess on a motion to file Your Honor the reason I don't Want to support that is Because I think that the Individual that wrote that Should have an opportunity To come to a committee meeting That's where we send documents To address it at the committee Meeting At the last meeting when Those other documents was there I came from I believe Municipal court committee meeting And went over to that meeting When it was at that time Perhaps you know it was a Plan commission and went to That meeting and the individual That wrote those letters wasn't There either Perhaps you give them an Opportunity to come Do I see anything major here Well there's some things that Maybe of concern to one person And maybe not to another But I just think that you give The people out there an Opportunity to speak at the Committee meetings and voice What their concerns were If it had to go someplace That would be the committee To send it to a law and Licensing and that's where I Think it should go. Okay on a motion Alderman Segal. Yes I just feel enough Enough we need to get on with This just I don't care who it Is here we need not to be Doing this anymore we're just Going on and on and on Somebody made a motion to file Let's get on with it and Let's file. Okay if there's another Discussion thank you. If there's another discussion You want to call it over please. This is a motion to file. Right. Correct. Okay. Serta. Hi. Graf. Hi. Manny. Hi. Montemayor. Hi. Perez. Peterson. Hi. Rindflesh. Hi. Segale. Hi. Fongerman. Hi. Warner. Bowman. Hi. Berg. Hi. Boney. No. Motion carried. Okay now we're I lost track of it. 1146. Okay. Is there anything else In the referral? Anything else? Alright. 1147 by Alderman Graf For an initial resolution Regarding industrial development Revenue Bonds series 2004 Financing for Nemshoff chair Not to exceed $5 million. Alderman Graf. A point of order. Hang on. A point of order. We voted on the motion to file. Do we vote on the Well they're just automatically Referred to vote on their No. They were referred. Thank you very much. Alderman Graf. Thank you Your Honor. That resolution along with Resolution 1148 which is An initial resolution Regarding industrial development Revenue Bonds series 2004 Financing for Yeah. Padaplast. Padaplast. Thank you. USA Inc. In the amount not to exceed $3 million. I would believe that those Two resolutions be put Upon their passage. Moved to second that. Both resolutions be put Upon their passage. Under discussion. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. Since we had some Discussions on manufacturing Businesses in the community Lately I just thought This was important. And I'd like to say On 1147 I think it's Great to see Nemshoff Chairs expanding its Operations in the city. And I hope this Resolution is successful And look forward to Increase manufacturing jobs In the city of Sheboygan. I'd like to thank Nemshoff For continuing to invest In the city. And for Padaplast USA Inc. Again as in the Previous resolution I'm very happy to see Padaplast purchasing and Installing new equipment At its Crocker Avenue Facility. And I think this is Another sign of the city Of Sheboygan's health And vitality in its Manufacturing sector. As before a big Thanks to Padaplast For investing Not only in its future But in the future Of the city of Sheboygan. Thanks. Is there any Other discussion? If not Would you call the roll please? Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Peterson? Aye. Rinflesh? Aye. Segale? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Wonderman? Aye. Warner? No. Warner? Aye. Delegate? Aye. November 16th, 1149 Will I over? 1150-57 To be referred. Thank you for coming this Evening 1158-59 To be referred. All in one go name. Thank you very much. 1160 You took me for 1160. 1160 By launching. Recommending very stock. Thank you, Your Honor. Committee, under discussion. Alderman, Perez. Your Honor, I will be upstated. Okay, anyone else? Nott, would you call the roll, please? Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Peterson? Aye. Minflash? Aye. Segali? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderville? Aye. Wonderman? Aye. Werner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Be carried. 1161 through 1164 to be referred. By the way, thank you. You do these got on these agendas? Oh. They're really fast. No, it's good. 1165 will lie over. Alderman Werner. Your Honor, on, you said 1161 through 1164 to be referred. Correct. 63 and 64 reports of committee. Okay, back up, back up. Let's go back. Thank you. Yep. 1163 and 64 reports committee okay you're right correct all of them go up thank you your honor I move under 1163 which is the RC that was referred to our committee on finance from salary and grievance as well as from public protection and safety recommending hiring of three police officers one now and two at the end of 2004 we have found that funds are not presently available to hire an officer in 2004 the committee therefore recommends including the hiring and I've been off of the officers in 2005 budget unless funds become available someplace else in 2004 and therefore I would move that we'd accept and adopt and place a document on file we have motion before us accept and adopt the document place file under discussion Alderman Warner I think your honor I believe we should not support this document and we'll vote against accepting and adopting it the public protection safety committee recommended last spring the hiring of three patrol officers the mayor agreed in a memo to Alderman vernacring that we should hire one patrol officer this year and two at the beginning of 2005 the funds were a bit available the salary and grievance committee reviewed the request that came from public protection and safety and did read and the mayor's memo and did recommend adding one officer now and two at the beginning of 2005 should funds become available the finance committee did not approve using money from the police department's own salaries account to fill one of the three open positions on a police patrol division I disagree with that decision the department has 46,000 dollars in its salaries account and would need about $20,000 to put one officer on the street for the rest of this year the remaining 26,000 would still be there for finance to use as it sees fit the money is there public protection and safety recommended it salary and grievance recommended it and the mayor recommended it I still think we should fill this one position this year and I encourage the council to support filing this document and eventually fill all the positions positions that are open in the police department and if we do file this I will make a motion to have the proper documents drawn up to use the money in this fund to hire one police officer this year and bring that back to the next council over the rock you know after discussion in finance with the monies that may become available in in the police department they're also being used or being looked at for covering some of the overages in the other accounts that they do have going right now specifically police overtime it's a huge account that that is at this point in time I'd have to refer to rich but I think it's about a hundred and 100,000 over spent at this particular time therefore we couldn't find any additional funding for for a police officer and and that's what our recommendation is. Thank you Mr. Mayor I would almost assume that since we've already passed this that we were going to hire a police officer I don't understand now why all of a sudden there is no money for it you would think that common sense would tell you that overtime could be prevented if we hired another officer so I feel that we need to hire an officer in the 2004. It was never approved it was part of the discussion was if finance can find the funds for this and we were unable to. Now if it's going to come from another committee and they're going to come up with some funds this council has to vote on that but finance could not find any additional funds available for that position. Your Honor when I came to our committee there was $20,000 that was available for this one officer and I thought the common council did approve that one officer and I I don't know where the $20,000 went but that's what we were relying on. Okay, Alderman Prez. Thank you Mayor and I was one of those people that voted to to hire a police officer with the understanding that the money was there and I believe all Alderman Van Ackerman is correct that we were told at that time that there was money. I don't know what happened either but if the police department and your honor feel that that the hiring of a new police officer now can be absorbed and cost then by all means I would support it. If we don't have the money we don't have the money but if you feel that we we we can't find that money there then by all means I would support this again. Alderman Warner. Thank you your honor. A little bit about the overtime. After being down three officers this year, eight officers in 2003 and seven officers in 2002, this past year the finance had the police department reduce its overtime budget artificially by $120,000 over what was requested to meet the 2004 budget goals with the understanding that that money would be replaced by transfer from the cable TV fund and other sources of revenue. Not the money was not replaced and now they're holding the fact that the department is short and its overtime budget up is something that is a reason why they can't use part of this $46,000 in the salaries account to cover they want to the finance department wants them to use that money. There's $20,120 in the telecommunicator's salary account that could be used for this officer. The other $26,000 is projected salary savings at the end of the year and that money would still be there. Projections are probably accurate. I guess I've seen enough flip-flopping on filling the police department's needed positions in the past couple of years and if you want to argue overtime, argue it when the department is fully staffed not when there's the continuing need to put cops on the streets using overtime because they are not at full strength. I think the public believes that we need a fully staffed police department. At that time we can address those overtime concerns a lot easier. There's a whole lot of things that need to be looked at in this budget year but we keep putting this off and putting this off and when we're down eight officers in 2003, the police patrol division alone, the total overtime budget in 2003 was $359,622. We were down eight officers in 2003. In 2002 we were down seven officers. The overtime account in that year was $299,346. In 2004 we're down three officers but they took $120,000 out of the overtime budget to make the budget meet and now how are you supposed to make that up? You still have to have more people working overtime. It's just not right. That money should have been put back in there. We're talking an estimated just for the patrol division of one and a half officers in overtime paid out in 2004, just in the patrol division. You have two one and a half complete officers just in overtime in the over budget amount. If we get this department up to its full staffing and then we deal with the overtime issues, we can probably manage them much easier. The monies in that account, as I said, I will be making a motion after this. If we file this document to have documents drawn up to bring forward to the next council meeting that we can vote on this and if something changes by then, something changes by then, but I think that's the way to go. We'll give it a shot once it's about time. I'm glad you said about overtime. Alderman Warner clarified that because even if we did, we're at full staff, there's still overtime that we have to address in public protection safety, but you're correct. Thank you, your honor. Alderman Warner, you're asking for us to file this document and you to bring another document forward then after this? We would have to vote this document down and then I would like to make a motion to have a document drawn up. Well, he's asking to file it and you said you wanted it filed also. He's asking that that be filed, but I want us to vote to file it and then I'm going to make a motion correct. So you're asking to have it filed? Yes. You're asking the same thing. Right. Correct, Steve. That's why I just want clarification on it. Steve, I need you to clarify that. Wait a minute. No, you. No, that's not right. Hang on. The recommendation is to because there's no funding available and less funds become available in 2004 that's not going to be an officer hired in 2004. The motion on the floor is to accept and adopt the report committee. And what? And file the report, which is what it says. Accept and adopt the RC and file the report. Yeah, you don't. Alderman Warner, I believe what you're asking is if you're accepting and adopting and filing the report, that means you're not going to be an officer. What you want to do is hold that open for that part time position to be filled. Correct? Not part time. Excuse me. Yeah, I think the issue is where it says in the committee report that the committee states that the funds are not presently available to hire an officer in 2004. There seems to be some issue about that. Alderman Warner is arguing that there are funds available, which is contrary to what it says in the committee report. I guess I would suggest to bring in another document that's different than this would be to file this, to place it on file, and not to adopt it, but to place it on file and have another document drawn. You know, it's a little semantic. I think as I said, that one statement is there appears to be a conflict on, but the recommendation is to hire an officer in 2005 budget unless funds become available in 2004. I guess what you're arguing Alderman Warner is that funds can become available in 2004 because they're available right now, which is somewhat inconsistent with the committee report, but you could probably still bring in a document no matter what happens to this document, saying that there are funds available in 2004 we should hire an officer. And you could have that drawn tonight. And I understand it, but we are saying to accept and adopt the report of committee and file that issue. And I don't want to accept and adopt the report of committee. I want to file the report of committee. I can't because there's motion on the floor. On that I would move to file. Okay, we have motion on the floor in a second to file this document. And under discussion, chief, would you like to speak please, maybe clarify some of this? I'm not sure if I can clarify this or not. The money, the money, you've hired. As of this morning, I believed $120,000 was not put in there. And I believed that the $46,000 that was expected to be extra revenue was being used to account for the $120,000 budgetary shortfall. I've been assured now, by Rich, that the $120,000 was placed in there, that there is now an additional $100,000 deficit. So if that's clarification, it's been clarified. I think what we need is still $46,000 in account. Salaries. No, because that is to pay for the $100,000. Just to clarify, when we reviewed the accounts, we were trying to cover the objective $100,000 shortfall and over time. We're projecting some balances and some of the accounts around 20,000 each, but not enough for the $100,000. As we did the review, we saw more accounts that are projected to be over budget by year-end, such as gasoline. We never found enough appropriations to cover the shortfall and over time this year. Last year we ran a similar overage and over time, but there were turnover within the department. The shortfalls, as Alderman Werner referred to, the turnover in the department and that covered the shortfall and over time. We don't see that pattern this year. And that's what I brought to the Finance Committee and told them I met with the chief and his staff over this. And we reviewed every account that he has to try to find balances to cover the shortfalls plus funding an additional officer. We did not find that. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion to file before us. Would you call her please? Perez. Explain what that means. You're not accepting and adopting this report of committee by finance. You are filing it, which means you're not accepting their recommendation. You're filing it. Accept and adopt would mean you're accepting that they're saying what it says in here. You're not doing that by filing. Alderman, I don't see how he can spend money if he don't have a plan. You know, if we file this document, they come back with a document to hire a police officer. We're going to write a checklist, but that's going to bounce. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me. Thank you. Alderman, right? Just one last thing. I've all that confusion. I guess that's what I'm looking for summary of. I'm for hiring a police officer. I'm for bringing in public works back up to staff. I know don't know that money's coming from, but we're already in 2004. My question is if we file it and we come back with a document that we can vote to hire another one, where is that money coming from? Let me get Alderman first, first was okay. Thank you, Mayor. And again, just just to pair it with all of them. I said, I have no problem. I wish we could hire five more police officers and put them up to par. But do we have the money? I somebody used to tell me that. Alderman Warner. Well, I think it was money there a week ago, and all of a sudden it's disappeared. Well, that normally that can happen pretty easily, which tells me something that we can move that money from the cable TV fund. $20,000 if we like or any other account. I think we can find a $20,000 someplace to hire one one police officer this year. There is money out there that's available. There's money and other accounts that's available. We'll have to figure out a way to come up with it. Obviously it's not in this 201, 130 account which had it a week or two or a week and a half ago, but it was there. You can tell you that much because we talked about in committee and I was there. Yes, we talked about it and selling grievance also. I still think we file this and we bring in a document and we look for the money in the next two weeks and see if we can come up with it. Just know that Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you, Your Honor. I just wanted to say for file this tonight, and we don't find the money, then we don't hire a police officer, but you know, we can file it and look for the money in the next two weeks. Call the roll, please. This is to file. Perez. Peterson. Rin Flesch. Zagali. You are voting to file this document and then Alderman Werner or someone is going to bring in documents at the next council meeting to hire one police officer. Am I correct, Alderman Werner? And find the money somewhere. Okay. Van Akron. Wankerman. Werner. Bauman. Berg. Boney. Serta. Graf. Manny. No. And Montemayor. Motion carries. 11 ayes and four noes. Alderman Perez. Excuse me. Alderman Werner. Thank you, Your Honor. In that, I would move that a proper document be drawn up to have the common council directs that one police officer be hired this year and that they are using funds that can be found available and that the remaining two positions be filled on January 1st, 2005 should those funds become available and bring them back to the next council meeting. Perez. We have motion before us under discussion in a second. Go ahead and hold on to my Montemayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There is no document. It's being drawn up. It's going to be drawn up. Right. So, I mean, there's nothing to vote on tonight. Yes. There's no paper to vote on. No. Nothing, no paper to vote on, but he's asking that the document be drawn. Well, right, but that doesn't have to be done by the council. He's going to do that. No. He's asking the council to vote on it tonight to have the document drawn. Draft it. That's what you're voting on now. We're going to vote on whether we're going to draft a document. Correct. When have we voted on whether to draft a document? You did that many times on the council floor, brought documents to have them drafted on the council floor. Well, maybe not since you've been on, but that has been done. Right. That has been done. Alderman Rainfler. Just to clarify, we're voting on to draw a document and not whether to support the document or not. Correct. Exactly. Okay. Is there any discussion? Any other discussion? Call the roll, please. This is to draw a document. Peterson. Rinflesch. Segali. Van Akron. Van Der Wiel. Wankerman. Werner. Bauman. Berg. Boney. Serda. Graf. Manny. Montemayor. And Perez. 11 ayes, 4 noes. Motion carried. Okay. Moving on. Lost my trans out here. 1164, by public work, recommending filing documents with regard to designating land on the southeast corner of 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue as a park. Alderman Bauman. Well, thank you, Your Honor. I would move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. We have motion in a second. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. So those that were not involved in this document, the parts that we're looking at is on the corner of 14th Pennsylvania Avenue. It is already designated or designated as a, is it a designation again? No. Okay. Access right away. Undesignated green space. It's already something that the city is maintaining. And further, if I may, I'd like to move on. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Enjoy it. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. And I wish I had a better opportunity. And further information, I think I'd make an excellent spot for the Peace Pole. And some people have been here at the parking lot. Alderman Warner. Just briefly, Your Honor. I know I went to a public works meeting and they were planning on cleaning up that spot, possibly putting in a venture tool for people waiting for the bus. Some plantings make it look Last time I drove by there, nothing had changed. Okay. Oliver Graw. Your Honor, if the RC, the reporter committee, has accepted and adopted, we would place this document on file. The resolution would be filed. That's their recommendation. That's correct. And there would be no designation of it as a parkland. Is that correct? That's what the document says. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Everybody knows. Okay, let's call the roll on that one. Montemayor. Aye. Peterson. Aye. Rindflush. Aye. Sagalee. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderwheel. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Bowman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Serda. Aye. Groff. Aye. Manny. Aye. 15 Ayes. Motion carried. 1165 will lie over. 1166 will lie over. 1043 by Alderman Van Akron, to change the class grade of secretary fire department in the fire department. Okay. Alderman Van Akron. Your Honor, I move to a general ordinance to be put upon his passage. Moved in second to ordinance to be put upon his passage. Under discussion. Alderman Groff. Well, your Honor, what is the cost associated with this change, if any? Okay, we have chief behind us. Chief? And that'll be coming out of your budget, correct? This is one that we found out that was not brought up to grade at the time and she has not been paid for months, that grade. So we brought her up to grade. Thank you. I need a roll call, please. Peterson. Aye. Rinflesh. Aye. Sagali. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. And Perez. 15 ayes. Motion carried. Other matters, 1168 will go to public protection and safety. Steve. I'm just signing in the front of the building for the school buses to drop off and pick up children. That will go to public protection and safety. 1170 is a communication from the Sheboygan Professional Police Association offering their support for the decision to use Sheridan Park as the new police site. Building use. 1171 is a communication from Joe McKillips, stating his reasons for not building a new police station at the Sheridan Park site. Building use. 1172 is a communication from Mary Bernke, stating her upset with comments being made between all their persons during the discussion of the Sheridan Park site as the new police station. Building use. 1173 is a communication from Janet Van Akron indicating her concerns with using Sheridan Park as the site for the police station. Building use. Hang on, hang on. Forward urn, we're gonna take some time, Rich. Rich didn't get a chance to present the budget to us and committee of the whole. Rich, please. Thank you, Your Honor. I know it's been a long evening, so I'll try to be brief. In your packet tonight was the document 1144 bringing in the budget. At the back of that, there's four pages of analysis of the requests. And if you haven't had a chance to look at that, I would hope that you will be able to during the next few days. Also placed on your memo, on your desk this evening to outline some of the main points. The main area that I think you need to focus on here now is what we're facing here. The requests from the general fund for 2005 are over four and a half million dollars or a 14% increase. And the funding sources from this, the revenues are only supporting 700,000 or a 2.3% increase. So we have a difference between there of over $3.8 million that is not funded. And on page three of that document that you have in the analysis, you'll see a listing of the departmental reductions that would be required in order to balance this at this point. And that's what the revenues, assuming the proposed 5.5% tax levy increase. I also outlined in there about the expenditure restraint program. And what we received from the state that it appears the maximum would be about a 3.5% increase in appropriations for 05. That would allow us to be able to fund additional $400,000 of revenue to be able to support the appropriations if the council so wished that would put the tax levy at 7.7%. But even with that, there would still be over $3 million of requests that would not be funded. So if the 400,000 I mentioned on here was granted in addition that that would, with the reductions also in unemployment and severance pay that would save about 11 jobs and services to the community. And I know right now we don't have time this evening for you to hear from all the departments, but obviously there's a major service impacts that will go along with this. And hopefully we'll have that discussion at the future meeting. I outlined there at the bottom of the memo what the tax levy increases would be to be able to fund all these. I realize they're high, but you have to, you had some presentations tonight by transit and the library so you understand their needs. And I know it's a very tough question put upon you, but the document that was passed by council before was for us to have the departments go back to 2004 as their base budget, adjust those by the revenues. We're also adjusting them for the salary, trust contingency, any severance pay and unemployment comp. And that is the outcome that's reflected in that analysis that we have given to the departments that they have to look at reducing their requests. And we are going to be going through that process here after we get an indication from the council what level of funding that they feel that they can give to the departments to assist them with this. And so we hope we can get that clarification then next Monday and the 13th of the special meeting so we know how, what level resources we have to be able to fund next year's budget. So that's very quick. Follow the graph, hang on, follow the graph. Thank you, I just want to say that with what Rich presented here, we're counting on everybody to give us some long range planning. Quick fixes are our temporary situations will not do and will just be further behind the eight ball when we come to year end 2005 as we're experiencing in 2004. All the concessions that we've negotiated and the city employees gave us are now coming back and we're saying, okay, now you have to fund that as of the beginning of 2005. So we're starting a step back and we're losing ground. And if we do the same thing in 2005, we'll lose even more ground. So think of long range planning and think outside the box and we'll get through this year and the year after two. Yes, we will. Alderman, for us. Thank you, Mayor. I know Rich and his office have a lot to do but if at some point in time you could put together a glossary of terms that are being used in defining layman terms so that a lot of us can understand what some of the stuff means. I'd appreciate that. I'll try to address that for the next meeting. If you have time. Certainly. Thank you. Okay. So next Monday night, seven o'clock. Can you make six? Six. How about six-fifteen? All right, six-fifteen. Next Monday night up here we're gonna work on this budget. We have a lot of work to do. We have to get it down so it's acceptable. And obviously you heard it is not acceptable at where it is now and we're just starting so we have a lot of work ahead of us so please be here next Monday night, six-fifteen. If you can't make it, let me know ahead of time so we know if we're gonna have a quorum or not. You won't be here. Remember to hand in your little great forms. Yeah. And please bring your forms if you haven't handed them in. Okay. We have motion before us. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All in favor.