 I'm going to call the shaboying and common council committee of the whole meeting of Monday November 22nd 21st 2011 to order, please call the roll belt Orin here Carlson here Decker Haman here Hammond here item in here pass there Hiddleston is here Maddachek present Reisler here Samson here Sam Akron here Vanderwheel here and versey here Thank you, let's stand for the pledge, please The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands One nation under God Indivisible with liberty and justice for all Next we have on the agenda number four as approval of the minutes from the November 16 2011 meeting We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from November 16th any discussion All in favor I opposed chair votes aye Number five we have a public forum on the Agenda item that we're going to discuss regarding the city budget Those wishing to speak will be limited to three minutes per person who would like to speak Please step forward Don't see could we have your name Dulce Johnson 1306 North 3rd Street Shepoekin? We'll have three minutes At the last committee of the whole meeting You voted to recommend privatizing the garbage service and for a five-year contract I Support privatizing the garbage service I Think the time is now because of the many retirements You don't need to make any layoffs and you avoid having to spend 1.6 million dollars for new trucks But I do not support making it a Fee service it needs to be a part of the budget Otherwise, you're not balancing the budget. You're just increasing Everybody's taxes a hundred to a hundred and twenty dollars. I don't have any problem with the present service. I Think they work very hard. They do a good job but I'm Familiar with privatized services and other communities my son lives near Rockford, Illinois and Everybody their contracts for their own service. There are no problems. They do a very good job I'm aware of a community in Florida Where they have privatized garbage service. They collect garbage three times a week there twice. They collect household garbage once a week recycling and once a week all Yard waste no problems, but it's just fine So I don't think that that should be an issue Although I don't have any problem with the the current system The other issue that I have with the budget consideration is I think you should stop kicking the can down the road on Reorganizing the fire department If you're going to do this reorganization through attrition the time to start is now Because there are four retirements in the department. I think closing the downtown station would be a big mistake It serves the oldest and Largest densest part of the city Chief Herman has a map where he draws Circles takes the fire station and he draws a circle out. I don't know what the distance is But if you drew that circle for the downtown station You'd be covering a lot of You know the city if you draw that circle for station number five the same circle Well, that station is only two blocks or two houses from the town of Wilson lines. So You know that circle would cover a large part of the town of Wilson and the taxpayers of the city of Sheboygan Do not provide fire service for the town of Wilson Somebody figured based on the 2008 information of 99 structure fires in the year which averages out to less than two fires per month per station That the chance of your house Having a fire is once in 111 years We can no longer afford to staff for the worst-case scenario And I hope that you will begin the reorganization of the fire department Starting in 2012. Thank you Thank you. I'll see anybody else wish to speak Yes, sir for the record Mr. Longiller your address 2611 rolling meadows drive. I Wasn't gonna speak tonight, but when I hear miss Johnson's statement of worst-case scenario, I Don't believe that Sheboygan is staffed for worst-case scenario if that was true Maybe we need 10 or 15 guys on our rig. We're staffed right now just to meet the minimums just to have a house fire Is that worst-case scenario miss Johnson? Some people it is but the worst case we could have multiple fires We have just enough people on scene to do one house fire It doesn't matter if it's one in a thousand one and a hundred thousand it could happen at any minute right now So I think that needs to be put into your thoughts Mr. Versi Alderman Alderperson, Versi. I Didn't want to comment, but I thought your comments in the newspaper were interesting as well low hanging fruit. I Thought the the graph in the paper was very interesting So such that it's low hanging that we're our firefighters per population per capita is one of the lowest Not to mention our per capita cost one of the lowest So I wouldn't say that the fire department is that has a lot of low Frank low hanging fruit that people are hitting their heads on Thank you. Thank you Anyone else wish to speak Anyone else wish to speak And for the third time anyone wish to speak Thank you for speaking and during the public forum Chairman's comments What I'm going to do in just a moment once we get into number seven is I'm going to have our Chief Administrative Officer Jim Immortio will come up and give us a update on the budget since the last committee of the whole meeting and then You can ask you can ask Mr. Immortio any questions and then right after that I'm going to ask Vice President Hammond and Chairman of the Finance Committee to go over some possible scenarios To take care of our budget for two thousand and twelve and then we'll be able to ask Vice President Hammond any questions on those possible scenarios So next on the agenda we have items for discussion and possible recommendation of the Common Council Item number seven is discussion and possible action on the city of Sheboygan, Wisconsin 2012 budget Mr. Immortio Thank you since last time we met Shortfall we had for the city in a 2012 budget was roughly nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars Since that point in time we've added a few things we know that We probably have a primary in an election for the mayoral office, and we also probably have one For our the governor's position in the state So we've added another twenty thousand dollars in an election or eighty thousand dollars in total in addition, we all talked about we also talked about the Airport prep site where the city might have to contribute up to a hundred thousand dollars For the dredging that will go on for the site prep at the airport So we've also added that The offsets that we know to date to that and that the total of nine fifty the eighty and the hundred are One million one hundred and thirty thousand dollars police supervisors ratified Their contract and that's a savings to the city of seventy thousand police patrol has not that was potentially a savings of 230,000 so the next step in that process is mediation Public Works director as we spoke earlier we would not be replacing that's a savings of a hundred and twenty five thousand with benefits we've also negotiated between the motor vehicle fund and the fire department where fire department had a lay out had a retirement for its mechanic and We're gonna actually do the mechanical work for repairs on the fire equipment at the motor vehicle pool So we would not have to replace the mechanic in the fire department saving another eighty thousand dollars for fire Also looking at the public works restructuring and sitting down with Dave and what his plans are He's got roughly five people on a supervisory staff that are being shuffled around three of them have retired Actually, four of them have retired and through consolidation were able to save two and a half jobs In addition We're gonna save a job in the parks department probably a secretary that's retiring out of the engineering department And we come up with a total additional savings and public works In addition to not replacing the director of two hundred and seventy thousand dollars So when you add up the fire mechanic the police supervisors the public works director and the public works restructuring as we know it so far today That's an offset of five hundred and forty five thousand dollars to the $1,130,000 deficit That currently puts two thousand and twelve at a shortfall of five hundred and eighty five thousand dollars in addition in 2011 as we've talked about looking at this Over a two-year period if not three We currently have retirements to date of 37 people in the city the impact on the general fund For two thousand and eleven is eight hundred thousand dollars in retirement benefits that will be paid out by the end of this year and twelve thirty one eleven as I've also stated in this year's budget. We have roughly three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's been reserved for that So that leaves a shortfall in two thousand and eleven of four hundred and fifty thousand So I'm looking at the five eighty five was short and twelve the four fifty were short In eleven that's a total of one million. Oh thirty five thousand In addition We spent a lot of time talking about ordinances tonight Ordinances that affect people but we have a significant ordinance that says in order to keep our bond rating We need eighteen percent of our general fund reserve balance based on next year's budget Currently we're at sixteen point three percent In order for us to get to eighteen percent. We probably need another six hundred thousand dollars in that fund to meet That specific ordinance, so we also need to keep that in mind If we added that to the total shortfall it would be an excessive one point six million dollars The only thing that we have hanging out that As a potential savings as I said is on police patrol at this point, which could be up to two hundred and thirty thousand if they had ratified the contract Unfortunately by the time we go to budget press Through mediation and eventually arbitration. We probably won't have anything settled so probably early part of next year Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Amodio All our person cough Yes, thank you chairman As far as the garbage there were estimates did any of the firm bids come in for privatization of garbage They're going to be in by this Wednesday. There'll be again some details to iron out, but They promise to have quotes into us by Wednesday So that Thursday and Friday being a holiday we could at least address them on the 28th. We didn't give them much time But they're going to do the best effort to get them in Wednesday. Any other questions for mr. Maudio Thank You Alderman cough Then if there's no more questions for mr. Remodio, thanks Jim. I'm going to turn it over to You want to stay up here in case we have to write Be my pleasure. Thank you Vice president Hammond Thank You mr. Chair. I Guess first off as you guys know and I've heard these are not going to be very easy decisions We've looked at a lot of different options And banted around around men bantered around many But even again after this year and I this is more of an editorial for General consumption, but You know hard decisions are going to have to also be made in the years going forward Which obviously many of them could include increases in fees Increases in taxes those things because I don't personally think there's a lot of low-hanging fruit out there anymore I think we've done a pretty good job over the years of Kind of weeding out a lot of the excess and fat and now the cuts are going to be To the core of services So that said I'll start off with the the first one Which would be eliminating the city dispatch Effective 7-1 And turning it entirely over to the county By doing that on 7-1 Because we would have to right now. We pay roughly 1.1 million dollars for city dispatch Of course every resident of the city of Sheboygan also pays for county dispatch So the average city resident pays about 27 dollars a year where the average county resident pays about nine so By combining that or turning that over to the county The city on an annual base will be the sale save about 1.1 There's gonna be some new staff. We have to hire to do some of the administrative functions I'm sure chief Domodalski can speak to what those would be But in the in this upcoming budget year my estimate would be about 350,000 of savings Secondly would be Reducing the funding to the library of Somewhere between a hundred and two hundred thousand The initial hundred thousand came from the Walker bill not necessarily from operations The next would also be a reduction of about a hundred and fifty thousand from the police department the fourth One of the challenges we face if we do decide to stay in the garbage business Is that we have about one point six million dollars of new equipment? We have to purchase because the trucks we have now are just not going to continue to last One of the options to do that and again in addition to other equipment That we have to purchase right now. We have about two million dollars in our motor vehicle fund DPW alone is requested that two million dollars 1.6 and garbage trucks and 400,000 and various other pieces of equipment My thinking would be To implement a and again a dollar amount we can debate over a three to five dollar Equipment fee Recruitment replacement fee whatever you want to call it because we're also going to have Probably within the next couple years another fire truck and of course some Maybe even some squad cars, but certainly a fire truck and the equipment we need for DPW That fee again could either be on the water bill or or I Don't think we can get it in for this year, but also on the tax bill a three to five dollar Between 630 and a million million fifty a year those dollars would be go to paying off Obviously, it's not going to pay for the garbage trucks in the first year We'd have to finance those trucks and again the goal would be to pay them off over a few a few years Using that fee. I would also propose that we sunset that fee Pick a date into the future and if it not one of these it would sunset Unless the council continues it it would be a hard sunset And then go from there The top three options Would be roughly about seven hundred thousand of savings We are reviewing various other fees Again as I mentioned earlier, it's it's my belief that fee for service Those things that are for the general good police fire garbage in this is Don's opinion But police fire garbage and those others, you know, those are general goods should be paid for by the tax But by the taxes by that by everyone Things that are specific to an individual things like, you know bartenders licenses all those types of things Clear water. I don't think anybody should have to subsidize Me selling my house same thing with other types of fees I don't have a dollar amount for those. It's not going to be you know hugely significant But I think again it covers the cost of our staff Doing the things they have to do to approve those licenses so That's where we're at again part of the goal was not only to just fill this hole But look at you know 12 or 13 and going forward And how we can deal with some of these issues that we're dealing with now But all I had Any questions for Alderman Hammond I Guess I'll have I have one starting out and that is in lieu of a garbage fee Whatever we want to call it Mr. Amodeo and mr. Bevel maybe can answer this question. I know you've had some discussions on it and I had This recommendation from one of my constituents my cut so used to work for the city called me yesterday regarding the garbage and He mentioned that rather than going to a fee That the motor vehicle rates should be looked at and then talking with mr. Bevel I guess this morning that had been going on on a yearly basis for a number of years and those motor vehicle Rates have not really been looked at for the last two or three years and I'm wondering in lieu of the fee If we were looking at those motor vehicle rates What kind of revenue we could expect if those rates those rates for reimbursement for motor vehicle were increased We've looked at those this past year and Dave's done a good job of allocating the cost Unfortunately, 90% of the cost that get allocated for vehicles are in the general fund So it just make our hole bigger and just to reiterate what Don said a little earlier In 2010 we ended up with three point one million dollars as a reserve balance in the motor vehicle fund In 2011 to fund the operations i.e. the expenses the gas The mechanics that fix in the parts to repair our vehicles We used six hundred thousand dollars of that fund reserve balance So in 2011 best case will end up at two point five million as a reserve balance In 2012 if you look at the budget close to four hundred thousand dollars is coming out of that fund reserve balance to fund operations So we'll take our fund balance down by the end of 12 without any capital outlay to two point one million dollars if in fact we do The vehicles that are requested by motor vehicle i.e Garbage trucks as well as other fleet vehicles they need to replace Our fund will have a zero balance and on a go-forward basis Without the ability to fund it Over and above what the operations are We'd actually have to close that special revenue fund and that would mean roughly seven or eight hundred thousand dollars of those costs Would slide back into the general fund for all the maintenance on the vehicles that the general fund uses So we're not in a real good situation there How much is slated right now with the current rates that we're using in motor vehicle reimbursements How much money will be going into is slated to go into the motor vehicle fund for 12? The way it stands right now one point one million dollars and another half million dollars for vehicle rental So about one point six Okay, so that's going in right now. That's going in and to fund the operations from an expense side It's two million dollars And the biggest pieces those Jim are roughly five hundred and fifty thousand in gas Five hundred thousand for vehicle parts and the balance is all Employee related labor and benefits Just to expand a little bit on what Alderman Hammond was talking about dispatch The state of Wisconsin highly encourages one Part of county government whether it be the county or the city to run dispatch and not have two dispatches like we've had in Sheboygan County for many many years In fact, whenever any funds come down to buy dispatch equipment It goes to one designated part of the government and the state of Wisconsin right now recognizes the county as that Provider of dispatch for an example. I think it was two or three years ago The state provided eighty thousand. I believe it was seventy or eighty thousand dollars In money that could be used by Sheboygan County To use in their dispatch operation the city of Sheboygan because we're not really the designated dispatcher for Sheboygan County Even though we provide dispatch we never get the funds and the benefit of any of those funds So whenever we have to make any purchases for our dispatch center, it's on the taxpayers back where the county Benefits from that As I don't think it's any it's any surprise that we've been in negotiations with the county for many years to make this a combined Dispatch I remember back four years ago This was almost the dead issue in Alderman Verhasselt and myself kept this issue alive And there's been continuing discussions for the last four years, and it just hasn't gone anywhere and I see this as an opportunity If the county is not going to combine dispatch with us to get out of this business and let the county handle this service because They're the ones that are actually the designated one right now as far as any any funds from the state. So I Would support getting out of the dispatch on July 1st And it's certainly no reflection on our on our dispatch department That department has done an excellent job over the years, but it is not a service that's mandated for us to provide Alderman-Rasler, thank you. Mr. Chairman I guess I would respectfully disagree with you and I'll be curious to see what the chief has to say Number one about the cost savings and the actual Elimination of the dispatch. We're still going to have to pay people to do dispatch The county will only be mandated to answer the emergency calls They won't have to answer any non-emergency calls, which again the chief hopefully can shed some light on is still a large percentage When that officer is on the street and picks up that radio and calls, he's not going to call the county He's still going to call the city Whenever there's a any type of call they're still going to have to have someone to answer the phone So I don't think that we're going to have quite the savings of what we think we're going to have And obviously I think the Services are still going to excuse me suffer and I don't think that that's obviously in the best interest of what we're looking for as far as the I think it's also kind of a slap in the face for those of us that have been on the board to do the Combined dispatch that you're just basically going to throw it here and say take this and and be done with it I think it's kind of a slap in the face to all of us that have worked hard on that and Yourself mr. Chair over all these years. Thank you I Believe I believe Alderman Hammond has had some discussions with Adam Pien and I don't know what he can share But some recent discussions and it's my understanding that combining the dispatch is going nowhere There are certainly some challenges to combine this batch By their own admission they don't feel that they can bring their board together to do that Whether it's you know, I'm not going to speak for him. I don't know what the reasons are But it doesn't look like it's anything that's going to happen or could happen You know, I think I Think just a concept of combined dispatch is as as I've been involved with this and especially over the last month or so I think we've been framing the argument wrong Candidly, I think the argument has been instead of combined dispatch. It should be Which municipality which unit of government's going to take it over? Issues with protocol those types of things so I don't You know, I apologize if you think it's a slap in the face Because I've dedicated a very good portion of my life to working on this as well But I also think it's it's one of those things you can't ignore when it's almost a three-to-one Expense so You know again, if we certainly can open up for the chief and get his opinion on some of these things that Alderman Reisler pointed out, but You know, and I'm not looking at I don't think I Wouldn't see combined dispatch happening under its current Under the current formula or under the current way we're proposing it I've tried that the button didn't work Thanks, I guess I'd like to know about the floor to the chief if you'd like to come up and talk about it I guess I'm I Have a hard time as I do with many things of of us trying to micromanage the departments When we've never been there and other than two of us on here have never even Really been on the other side of a police radio or known what's going on or knowing what our safety is out there and wanting the best quality service we can provide for the citizens and I guess I'm I'm curious to the chief's viewpoint of this and obviously, you know my displeasure to all of it Thank You Alderman Reisler chief. Good evening. I would say that the biggest problem I have with this is that it's pretty difficult for me to Give an informed decision when nobody's spoken to me about it or brought it up asked for my input Asked for me to look into anything it just gets dumped on me and and you're told to come up and Pull the magic answer out of a hat. I apologize sir But As many of you know, I've been pushing for combined dispatch I think it's Obviously the way to go because the burden that it does place on the city taxpayers And because I think that there's an opportunity to get a better service by combining But just pushing it over onto the county in That short of a time frame is going to leave a serious service gap to the citizens of this city Because the county is not prepared to take that over Do you see not having two dispatchers in that dispatch center, I Don't know what we would need without looking at it. I guess I guess just my rationalization in my head I someone has to relieve the person When we're having breaks or you're having something going on, you know, we have to we schedule Obviously, we don't schedule for we need a body here. We can only have one We have to have someone who's taking days off someone who is filling in for that person someone when there's more than Enough going on. I guess the second question I have is Would you agree or disagree other than the emergency calls? There's still a large volume of calls that come into that dispatch center. Sure. I Guess that's where my probably the majority of calls I would say emergency calls probably make up about 10% at the best So you still have to have somebody answer those phone calls that aren't the emergency line. Yes Even if we go to combine dispatch one of the things that we've addressed in the plan is that there has to be people there Staffing the front desk and taking those administrative calls and directing people to and and validating and invalidating warrants and Responding to the warrants within the time frame for other agencies I mean those are all responsibilities that are technically non-emergency responsibilities, correct? Yes Thanks Chief you and in the communities where you have a county dispatch And then you have a municipality for example I'd take Jamesville for example where they have a separate operation for their dispatch But I'm sure the Jamesville police department. How do they do you do you know how the are those those non-emergency calls are handled in those Municipalities are from your experience that I'm walkie our walkie has their own dispatch center Mouaki County has a dispatch center But in those other scenarios work where there is a county where there is a county dispatch And then you have a municipality with a large town like Jamesville Most of those issues are worked out in a collaborative way so that there's MOUs in place to maximize where the calls are taken Alderman Hammond chief 9-1-1 calls that come in from a cell phone. That's an obviously a growing Number of calls correct. Yes, and those are going into the county now, right? Yes And then there's a transfer process that goes from the county to the city Yes, how much additional time on average is is it? I've heard anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute and a half by the time the transfer and then and everything is dispatched Is that a fairer and that's probably fair. Yes, okay, so by combining the dispatch That would eliminate Theoretically would eliminate that issue It would increase if the dispatch was combined if we're just dumping and telling the county here You're picking this up the county's not going to pick up everything that would be worked out in an MOU essentially situation that that there's a Intergovernmental agreement on how things are going to occur Thanks Oliver raceler one final comment I guess again I will apologize on behalf of the council for no one consulting with you before this I think that's very unprofessional and I apologize on behalf of the committee You have a large stake in in this Whether it's the hundred fifty dollar fee that's gone or the dispatching and I guess I apologize for that Any other questions for the chief? Thanks chief I've been involved in these negotiations. I haven't been on the shared services committee But let me tell you the frustration of the people that are actually on the shared services committee Basically, I think it was about three three meetings ago the shared services committee I think with the exception of one county board supervisor Wanted the chief and the sheriff to come to come together and get this combined dispatch done and In every ensuing meeting since that it's been excuse excuse excuse why this is not going to happen and This has been debated for 40 years and I don't think it's going to happen. I just don't think That combined distance dispatch is going to happen and If we have to take a few more months to iron out everything Then I think basically this should this should be a county function and again I got to say again the state of Wisconsin highly recommends that one unit of government does dispatch for a county And if it stays the way it is currently The citizens of Shevwegen are not going to be of any benefit from any money that comes down from the state of Wisconsin for equipment purchases It's all going to the county as the seventy or eighty thousand dollars did a couple years ago And I don't think it's fair to the city taxpayers to continue to have this burden So I think the logistics can be worked out But I think it's time we get out of the dispatch business My personal feeling all the person Hiddleston. Thank you chairman I Guess I just want to say as chairman of the city county shared services committee. I don't feel that way I feel that we are making progress there. I know we we've talked about this for a long time It's been 40 years in the making but I think that our last meeting. I thought it was a positive meeting RIT department showed us some things that could be worked out And I I felt that our county board supervisors were on board that were there They're on board with it It's just a matter of taking some small steps to to make this happen and and I truly believe I feel very positive that That this will happen And I don't think that we need to just go dumping things on to people Without talking about it. We do have a timeline already put into place We we have we've gotten information I think we I think it's a good thing and I think we are going to make some progress in making this happen We just don't have to dump it on anybody. We are working together and we will will do it Thank you Thank you all the person Kittleson with with all due respect I've been sitting in and some of those same meetings and also some meetings that all of them Hammond has been having with with Adam Payne and I'm not getting the same vibes on it at all. I I just don't think it's going to be a continued stall Just like it has been for the last four years excuse after excuse that it never happens and again I get back to the point that the state of Wisconsin is encouraging one part of county government to be responsible for dispatch and I resent our taxpayers continually Not being benefited any funds that are coming down from the state They're all going to the county and when we have to put in a new council at the dispatch center We're paying for it. We're not getting a nickel from anybody and the county is benefiting and the state again is encouraging one entity of government in a county to do dispatch and it's Sheboygan County and Many counties are either going to combine dispatch or one entity And that's just that that's just what's happening in Wisconsin And may I just go ahead and that's the end goal and and and I believe we're gonna we will get there If we can this is a shared service that we can that we're working on and and we are making progress Alderman Carlson you're next. Thank you chairperson. I guess that 40 years. That's a long time at some point You got to cut the cord. I Understand government supposed to move slow, but 40 years is ridiculous I've also had the pleasure of sitting in some of these meetings and I I don't see This this progress that you're talking about with all due respect. So I I support this Any other comments on that I'm going to make a motion that We get out of the disc get out of dispatch By July 1st Second we have a motion and a second Is there any further discussion Alderman raceler? I guess I'm trying to contain myself I'm hopefully doing a good job of it and I mean no disrespect to anyone Again, you're looking at micromanaging something that the chief of police the head Person the department head The person we put in charge of the department has not even been involved in any of these meetings. I Am assuming that this is probably one of the first times he's heard of this and now you'd like to make a decision After all these secretive meetings, which I'm very very disappointed at And You want to do something that you don't even know is going to save money at this point in time And I'm not going to go out and guarantee. It's not going to save money But I'm going to tell you you are going to have to have people still employed in that dispatch center And I don't even know if you're going to be able to cut a Few positions. I think we need to do our research on this before we start to make motions on eliminating positions and doing things that The chief and I think the fire chief has has a valid interest in this as well because Those are people that are going to be performing dispatch functions for him that I don't know I guess I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm going to say I don't think you've heard of this before Wow, this is It's disappointing to say the least much more What do you think the responsibility or the response is going to be from the county when it comes to any joint Dispatch, we don't need to have meetings anymore because we're just going to throw this in their face and we're going to be eliminated by This is I don't know very disappointed very very disappointed all over in Hammond I Can understand where you're coming from all the restler Was the sheriff in any of these meetings the chief has been well as the sheriff at any of these me finish I let you finish The chief was in all those meetings the sheriff was in all those meetings inspector Brooke power was in all of those meetings so all of them The fire chief the fire chief we have had that conversation. He was not in in those meetings Is there all stakeholders in what's going on much more the public safety aspect of it for our citizens I Just can't see rushing this along to We have not even done a financial to see how much it's going to say There is no money even on the table say this is going to save this much money It's not because you don't know either does the chief doesn't know if that's the case Then why would we combine because you're saying that we know there's not going to be you're saying no savings by combining there isn't Then we know that then why would we do it for the efficiency for the effectiveness for the citizens of Sheboygan and the county to make a Better service you just said there wouldn't be because we have all the administrative costs. So why bother? We go into the shared dispatch knowing that there's going to be a cost involved in it All right, we are going into this not knowing if there's a cost involved for savings We owe it to at least find out whether there's a savings before we do this or before we make a motion to do this So out of 1.1 million dollars You're indicating I don't know by turning dispatch over you don't think that there's any savings whatsoever to be No, no, no one's looked into it. No one's asked the chief. I disagree. We have asked the chief Then tell me what the savings are how many people we're gonna let go. Do you even how many people do we have in there now 14? Full-time part-time 14 full-time equivalents 14.6 and how many are we gonna lose all of them? What do you mean how are we gonna lose how many are you Any of those dispatchers would go to the county considering they're trained on the same equipment who's gonna do the dispatching for the city I Think that still needs to be worked out Well, we have to have some answers to this before we're looking at eliminating something is my is my whole point behind it You can't just go and say we're gonna cut it. Oh, but by the way, we need 12.6 equivalents to do the job We're doing now. That's not getting us to our end goal here and in balancing the budget I Yeah, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree with this on. I mean, I think that there's Substantial savings to be had by doing this number one if we if we got a 1.1 million Line item in our current city budget and that 1.1 million goes over to the county We're paying for 2012. We're paying 28.32% of the county levy city taxpayers that right there is a savings of almost $340,000 So that leaves a net a net savings of around 840 or $50,000 We understand that we'll have to maintain some clerical positions in the police department to deal with some of the stuff You were talking about. I think the initial figure floated around and that was Around $200,000 if we get out of this July 1st We're gonna potentially save 388 to $400,000 yet in 2012 again You were talking about no offense, Mr. Chair things, you know nothing about All right, you're not gonna keep $200,000 worth of clerical people you are gonna keep Dispatchers to answer the phone to dispatch calls to dispatch the fire department. You're going to keep all this. You're not going to lose this I'm not sure Where we disagree on this or how we can disagree you cannot get out of the dispatch business a hundred percent. It's not possible You're not gonna keep three people behind to do clerical Someone has to be over and the reason you're not understanding is because you have no understanding of the job We're micromanaging like we always do and we shouldn't be doing it We should be looking to the department heads for the suggestions and saying what is the best route I'm not gonna talk for the chief because I don't want to disrespect him any more than we already have But I think he's gonna tell you he knows how to run his department a lot better than we do who Most of us have no knowledge whatsoever of the police department We're not gonna get out of the dispatch business Well, a lot of municipalities have gotten out of the dispatch. We are not I'm just telling you plain out. You can't we're too big. We're a city. We have certain responsibilities We have statutory require requirements requirements. It's not gonna happen Then why is the state recommending that there's only one part of government run and make it if they wanted it They would make it a statute that we could only have one dispatch. They're making recommendations They make recommendations on everything they make unfunded mandates mostly All right, if they so choose That the majority of the money goes to the county. We have no saying it. That's the way it is Well, I think that's that's a pretty strong statement on the part of the state if they're sending money to That they're sending money just to the county Alderman Ben Akron you're next Thank You mr. Chairman just to I guess for full disclosure myself and I'll them and raceler obviously employed at the sheriff's department. That's why I've been silent through this entire process And I will be abstaining on any such vote just because again being employed at the sheriff's department and having a sheriff department Then take on these responsibilities. I think it'd be inappropriate for myself I'm not gonna speak problem racer, but certainly for myself to take any kind of vote or to try to sway anybody's opinion We work closely with the dispatchers at the sheriff's department their jobs it and as well as mine Certainly will be affected by any changes with that. So again, I will be abstaining and Not partaking in any of the the Conversation or trying to make any points again. I do have an opinion on it. All right because of my position I think it's appropriate to abstain Thank you Alderman Samson you're next No withdraw withdraw Alderman homin Thank You mr. Chairman This seems like a really really drastic measure, but we're we're we're charged with making really tough decisions and a really tough time And over and over and over again I hear from everybody who talks to this body when it comes to making these decisions that we keep kicking the can down the road 40 years we've been trying to trying to work this out for four years serious discussions This force is the issue It's drastic as it sounds is this force is the issue. We know when we've got to have this accomplished by It doesn't sound good. I Agree it doesn't sound good, and I'm still gonna support it because it forces the issue. It makes the decisions We need to make to move forward We're what do we look at we we're gonna drag our feet on this one some more We've got to get something done We've got to get something done. It doesn't it it doesn't taste good It never does But we've got to make a decision. We got to move forward. This force is an issue that's been dragged out for 40 years I haven't been alive for 40 years This force is the issue Thank You Alderman Haman Alderman Alderman Maddichick you're next Thank you. I have to agree with Alderman Corey Reisler. I believe that we do need to At least hear from the the police chief before we make a decision about this We created a chief administrative officer because we believed in the trained professionals to run and leave the city But yet here now we're totally ignoring the trained professional handling the situation and I'm going to have to agree that we need more discussion about this Is there any other discussion? Alderman Carlson, thank you chairman I guess just using that logic every director is going to tell us not to do any cuts So I mean that that's what we're here for every director is going to give their opinion We we have to make that final say Thank you Alderman Carlson. Is there any further discussion? Yes, I would like to thank you chairman and I I have to reiterate we We shouldn't be doing something as drastic as this without more more input as to really what it's going to save us more study We need to to to hear more on this and and as far as doing something like this I don't know then how the county is going to feel about sharing anything else with us We have a shared services committee. We're working on it. Please. Let us do our work. Please. Let us do our work on this We we are making progress. I think we can go forward with this and make it happen Thank you. Thank you Alder prison kiddles and Alderman versey you're next. Thank you, mr. Chairman very pretty much a simple question to the chief you have a timeline Could you make it work? So follow up on on your comment Alderman versey There's a possibility that if the county got into dispatch They could use our facility over at the police department chief. We could work out something I mean we're we've got a state-of-the-art dispatch center over there with enough councils We could be primary if this comes to fruition and the county could be back up They wouldn't have to build their 1.5 million dollar addition onto their dispatch center use that for backup We've got a state-of-the-art Department there we may have to add one more dispatch council So I think these are all things that could be worked out But it is a possibility that they could use us as the primary dispatch center and use theirs as a backup Well when the county taxpayers are faced with building a 1.5 million dollar addition on the county courthouse I think they may be singing a different tune when they've got a state-of-the-art dispatch center available at our PD Alderman belt you're next I just have a quick question to Alderman kiddles and how many More years do you need to work this out I? Can't I can't answer that I haven't been I've only been chairman of the committee a short time And I know how I feel and I know I'm committed to making it happen And I'll work really hard to do that and I have been working hard to do it And and that's all I can that's all I can tell you that that's what I can do I mean nothing's happened and For years now. I don't see it happening anytime soon Unless we put our foot down I respectfully disagree. Thank you. Thank you Alderman belt. Is there any other discussion believe we have a motion on Alderman matter check Well, it brings up a good point of question If the county can handle it at this point right now and not public safety that the delay in response Along with if we just drop this in their bucket if you will what kind of negotiations does that make for the future? Or would they be even more willing to come to our police department and make it a their main dispatch center? Or would they just find that as a result that meant that the city is just going to do whatever However, they want and not negotiate anything. Thank you for your comments. Any other any other comments? We have a motion and a second on the floor. I believe my motion was to Put the city to get out of the 9-11 dispatch service by July 1st of 2012 We have a motion in a second. Please call the roll belt I For an eye Carlson, I Decker is excused Haman hi Hammond, hi Heidemann, hi Koth, hi Kittleson no matter check. No Racelor abstain Sampson hi Van Akron abstain Vanderwheel I Annversy hi, we have ten eyes two nose and two abstentions motion carries the next thing on alderman Vice-presidents List was the library funding Cutting that of what was it? You were proposing 100,000 or two thought hundred thousand dollar cut Alderman Hammond just ideas just ideas hundred two hundred thousand any Anybody want to have any discussion on that item? Alderman belt your first. I guess I have a question when people come in and Request a library card. Is there any cost to that? No, please please No, there is no fee for that and by state statute and Interpretations by the attorney general of state statute the library public libraries in the state of Wisconsin can charge fees for core services Having a library card being able to check out materials would be a core service So unless there's a change to that statute and the way it's interpreted You can't charge fees. Okay, okay Next we have Alderman Sampson. Oh Thank You mr. Chairman just just on this topic for the library is the idea. We're not talking about a full 200,000 We've already eliminated so to speak From the Walker bill the hundred thousand from the from the retirement and health benefit contributions has already been done So we're really looking for an additional hundred thousand, right? Okay? So to this body Right Alderman Reisler. I'm not done yet Again, we've cut from the library the last two years To cut from I understand that everybody has to pay their part. I think they've been more than Willing to do it. We've heard and I hear from my constituents on a weekly basis. How important it is It's a a community center. It's it's got all these things wrapped in one and again I just I can't support any customer library and I actually get the vote on this because I don't work for the library Alderman Reisler, I'm happy to report that. This is something you and I can agree on I think I think the from what I've been on the city finance committee for this is my sixth year and I think the library has been a good steward of the Money that we provided the library They did step up to the plate with that one hundred thousand dollars For the Walker bill and I believe the library board has been good stewards for 2012 and rejecting a number of pay increases even for senior staff at the library so and Then besides hearing from many of my constituents last year when we went through this and hearing people tonight I think this is a core service That we should provide and in my opinion the library has have been very good stewards of the taxpayer dollar So I am not going to support any cut to the library funding Next we have Alderman Bursi. Thank you. I'll add to the shock of agreeing with Alderman Reisler I'm alongside you on that with obviously live in the same district having the same maybe the same people calling But it's overwhelming response And this is actually one of the many duties that you do have to listen to your constituents along with privatizing the garbage same scenario I originally voted for price having garbage, but the overwhelming response to both library and garbage That is our duty to listen to the constituency and that's what you're elected to do And in this this manner, it's the same same thoughts There's got to be other departments we can look at Once again, we always overlook other departments, but we'll get into that in the future But as far as library goes kind of the same same ballpark. We already got a hundred thousand from them We also need to spread our wings look other departments Alderman Hammond And I'm at this point not going to advocate one way or the other which way I'm going to come down on that on the library one I was asked to throw out various options But I do as I listen to the conversations and these are very difficult for me as well as I listen to the conversation and I hear that pretty much everything is a sacred cow and I find it very difficult when everything is sacred to figure out where we're going to fill the hole and Again, as I mentioned earlier, you know, these are going to be some very very difficult decisions that we have to make and If everything is off limits Where's the dollars going to come from because we can't raise taxes ladies and gentlemen Alderman Raceler thank you, Mr. Chair and I just want to fall off of one thing And I don't think there's anybody left here from the press But I know Mike Kinzel is here or people from the press on the outside If we could maybe get that across so that people know that we can't raise taxes I've been getting a lot of phone calls and a lot of emails saying just raise the taxes I can take it off my federal tax We understand that but we can't and that that is something I think we just kind of need to get out there that we're not allowed to do that and That's pretty much a done deal and a closed item and that being said, I Guess I will make a motion and we'll see if it gets the quarter not to Not privatize the garbage to keep the garbage the way it is and to add a five dollar fee per month Onto the water bill to pay for the city-run garbage second Who's the second Alderman Vinakar? We have a motion in a second not to outsource garbage and To have a five dollar a month fee And what was that going to be used for? We have to subsidize the R01 garbage instead of privatizing it. I'll take the discussion whenever you have a second. We'll have yeah, we'll have Alderman Hammond I guess on the surface I agree with you So I'm going back to the green I guess the challenge I have is You know, I would like to see that fee be used for equipment For the actual trucks not for the operation and I'd like to see some sort of sunsetting on that Now again future councils can decide to re-put that in but we all know when these things get in they're there for life And it's not always going to be the situation where we can't raise income tax or raise taxes Not that that's my first option for anything either But I think you know that it should be a very defined purpose with that fee is going to be used for and there should be a sunset I Think it's going to be used for to subsidize the garbage collection That's going to free up the money from the general fund that we're not or from the Money that we're not paying for something else to help balance the budget It comes to about one million 50,000 so what do we do with the equipment purchase take it out of the motor vehicle fund and deplete it We're gonna have to take it out of more vehicle fund 1.6 for the first Now I guess in our discussion is I'm more than willing to see what these numbers come back as on Monday to make sure that we are doing it more efficiently and I guess this gives us some time That if we decide this is what we're planning on doing for the first period of time And it comes back that the rates are fair and we look at wanting to go to privatization with a five-year contract It's something that makes sense. We can explore that down in the future, but right now we can settle things Essentially coming up on Monday if the numbers come in right that this is one of our savings or one of our ways of doing Thank you Alderman Raceler Alderman built your next How many garbage trucks do we own and how many are we gonna have to purchase? Mr.. Bevel could you answer come up and answer that please and also what what type of trucks you're Proposing buying if they you've come to a decision on that First of all, mr. Bevel, maybe you could explain To the Alderman that don't know in the public why we have to buy new garbage trucks Well the current garbage trucks that we have the the packer mechanism that the garbage goes into that crushes the garbage It's it's pretty much getting obsolete the equipment's leaking It's non-functional So it needs to be replaced right now. We have six garbage packers Four of them are used every day the other two are spares And they get rotated in When there's equipment maintenance the other one goes out So there's a constant fleet available at all time for backup So we would be looking at moving forward purchasing five trucks in the future The original budget figure that we have in here was to go to all front-loader vehicles one person operation Currently we have eight garbage collectors two on each truck the thought process was to go to Five trucks front loaders one-man operation That was the original proposal button in hindsight looking at this the the the equipment is quite large in many of the areas of the city especially in the What I would say the older sections we have a lot of alley pickups we have Areas where the streets are narrow Wires and trees so the front loader mechanism wouldn't be that conducive We would look at using those in the outline the newer areas were it's wide open so I'm looking probably at two of those types of trucks and Purchasing three of our dual rear packers yet moving forward. So a combination All of them belted you want to follow up? could we okay by the two front loaders that you're talking about and Maybe one or two of the other ones this year and then next year by another one Regardless if we if we get permission to purchase There's a long lead time on this type of equipment anywhere from six to nine months This type of equipment isn't sitting on a lot that we can just go and say I want that they're custom-built We order them and that's that's the the thought processes when we order We order try to order five at a time because you get an economy of scale somewhat where instead of just Building one truck at a time year after year that you can get five at a lower cost Purchase one pretty much how much would you save by ordering five? Potentially anywhere from ten to fifteen percent Thank You Alderman belt Alderman Bursi you're next to the gentlemen Hammond Dave in capital improvement. We talked about we gave us the option of buying less the front loaders You did say that there's actually gonna be a potential money savings because the other trucks cost less correct If we go to only two front loaders and the three of the other ones It's not one point six for spending any longer correct that that could happen I don't I don't have the prices yet until until we actually go and specify the type of equipment and we go for bids So at this point it's it's hard to hard to gauge that pretty but the potential is there that it would be less than the 1.6, but I'm not I'm not saying it's going to be 500,000 less that but it would be less Thank You Alderman Bursi Hammond you're next Dave just a quick question. Is there a used market out there for some of these types of equipment that we might be able to pick up some used There is there is a used market in fact, we would put our trucks on the market and put them out there for auction and Probably get much better deal if we auction them versus trying to trade them in what about us purchasing That's a potential especially for the the dual rear rear packers Because they are readily available in the market. So I guess if we're Looking to buy some time. Maybe look at the used market the only the only issue is that You know, we really would have to check that out Do our due diligence because we don't want just like ours are causing a problem when someone buys our trucks They're going to have that problem. So we'd have to very investigate the used market Next we have Alderman Samson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my turn over to Alderman Van Ackerman He's been very patient apparently. I am not coming through to your board, but Just to go back and reiterate going down to the five trucks You anticipate there possibly being some savings so that we wouldn't be spending that 1.6 There is a potential but yet I We need the 1.6 just to have that in case we don't know what the bids will come in it It's it's an engineering estimate at this point Every year that equipment gets more and more expensive as we delay the replacement Okay, and I guess this will be somewhat joined for City Administrator Imodio if you want to step up there as well I'm going to kind of go over all some of the the discussion topic points that we went through with this last time Just just to confirm with you again the estimates you had for going to the private side would be approximately 1.9 million and Our operating costs are approximately 1.6. Is that 46 okay Do doing the math under Alderman Racelor's plan of the five dollars a month Does come out to if you multiply that out so $60 a year times the I believe it was 17,000 17,500 households approximately correct, okay, and that would generate approximately a million 50 correct, okay Again the reason I was a certainly a vocal opponent of privatizing is I Think at this point in our financial situation There are certainly some some things where we're gonna have to raise some fees and starting to raise some money and a garbage fee A garbage vehicle maintenance fee something that effect. I think is suitable However, I think it is our our job But to make sure that we are getting city taxpayers and homes and families the best deal possible I have a concern if the private industries are telling us it's gonna cost 1.9 million But yet our city can do it for 1.6. Do we don't we have that? Responsibility to at least get them the best deal that we can under this situation. We're charging them It would be a charge of approximately five dollars Again, I reiterate after last week's I don't like the fact that we're charging a fee of any kind But until we make some of the tough choices and every department isn't that sacred cow where it appears to be off limits Until we make some structural changes on what services we provide as a city Some of these fees and some of these things have to come along So I think this is appropriate for you. I think it is something that Helps us bridge our deficit gap and it actually helps us into the future based on the numbers you've given us So I as much as I don't like the idea of adding a fee or adding any cost to city households and families here in the city I do think this is something that's reasonable that I think a lot of people that I've heard from Would be willing to pay to make sure that they get that same quality of service coming to their home Something they can depend on and quite honestly where we can do it cheaper than the private industries have come back and said If I can just respond to that for a second And again if I was a private entity and I was going to go out and buy five trucks I'd have to finance them and that cost of money on that financing over a five-year life on a truck would be significant so Simple example if we're going to spend a million and a half dollars on five trucks We get it without cost of money. I've got the money sitting in a fund reserve balance If I had a finance them it had probably cost me two and a half million dollars over five years For that same million and a half dollars to pay the cost of money or the interest expense on that loan And when you look at that Currently the motor vehicle fund charges the sanitation department $325,000 a year as Rental on those trucks So if you do the math That's like one point six million dollars. That's the replacement cost So if you had to put in a half a million dollars instead of the three twenty five It says sanitation would be roughly one point eight million dollars Which would be extremely close to privatization and don't forget we do this not not for profit and they do So it's tough to try to compare both But if we had to put cost of money on our investment, we would be extremely close and I agree with All the person Hammond with the exception of the sunset Because once we put this fee and it's very difficult to go back Whether we're going to buy trucks or offset costs in a general fund and we'll have to figure out What we're going to do with that stream of revenue that would come in If we sunset it X number of years from now we still have the same problem That somebody will be sitting here and saying okay, we need to fill this hole now because we agree to a sunset That's very difficult Correct. Can you just go over the vehicle maintenance fund how that is funded now you'd said that the Garbage DPW then puts in a certain amount each year I would assume to pay Forward towards buying new equipment Correct. I mean the intent always was is that You're getting twice the replacement cost for a vehicle over the vehicle's life Whatever that vehicle is so that it pays for the maintenance and still leaves money enough to buy a new vehicle in its simplest form the problem we've faced though in the last several years is that The rates we were charging were pretty high the vehicle usage was low So at the end of the year The motor vehicle fund didn't charge out as much in revenue We didn't have a lot of road construction going on and mainly in public works all the streets departments get the benefit of this equipment Motor vehicle fund charges them for that If we're not doing a lot of road jobs the equipment isn't getting used There's no charges to generate revenue in that fund the upside is we have older equipment But you know, it's a low mileage one-owner beauty. So we'll get a longer life out of it The downside is we're not generating revenue So without that revenue the expenses continue for the maintenance of other equipment and the salaries to pay the mechanics To do that work So we've been actually pulling out of those fund reserve balances in the motor pools of fund operations So it's been a combination of lower revenue because of less usage But still higher maintenance costs for the things we're doing down there and continuing to fund five mechanics If that answers your question it does thank you all of them and then after an alderman kath is next. Thank you, Chairman Dave Dave with the with the new trucks. I was still looking at blue bags and clear bags. Yes, and with we privatize Same deal will I'm assuming that that that would be worked out, but the the if we would go out to privatize an RFP and get those proposals is based on the exact same service that we currently provide However, there is room in their proposal if they have an alternative method that is cheaper Are more efficient that they would like to provide to the city there that they have that ability to add that to their proposal Hammond Thank You mr. Chair. I think a couple things and again just in the interest of playing devil's eye at first off You know the sunset in my opinion is is a check and balance it prevents a fee from being a lifetime fee Now again future council say, you know, we still need that money They can they can certainly do that and again the debate is is a public debate again versus You know things that sit on fees that sit out there for ever and ever and ever with no discussion ever to follow Secondly, you know right now it's about seven dollars and sixty one cents For us to pick up garbage We had a five dollar fee that goes to twelve sixty one and from the estimates we heard Privatizing would be somewhere between nine fifty and ten now again Just to kind of throw out Just to kind of give you an idea where the numbers are at now There's also some intangibles that we can't can't ignore obviously we privatize garbage We sell our equipment. We're out of the business and if rates go up in the future We'd somewhat lose control over that because it's cost of reentry into that is very it's very high so And there's not a lot of players in this marketplace at this point So I just I guess a couple thought a couple foods for thought on that issue Thank You alderman Hammond Alderman Samson is next. Thank You mr. Chairman Just so I can rationalize this what some of the opponents to privatizing garbage at 950 to $10 a month Say that if you privatize you lose control they can raise your rates And you have nothing to say about it What's the difference between what we're doing and what this proposal is right now? We're we're going to right now propose whether it's a short term or a long term whatever Fee of an additional $5 that takes us above and beyond what it would have been to privatize it So we're just as bad as those private companies who are just raising their rates. So what's going to change next year? What's going to change the year after that? We're going to keep voting. I'm going to say well, we need the money So let's let's just add a fee. Well, it's only $2 here. It's only $5 here So we're no different than that private business would be if they're just going to start charging a little bit more every single year So at some point we're we're we're still Trading water here. We're not really we're not really doing anything different. We either stay in the garbage business as we are We don't either way it sounds to me like it's going to cost more every single year whether we're doing it or whether some private company is doing it Thank you, Oliver and Samson Oliver and Heidelman Thank you chairman Well, I'm really happy to hear that we're not thinking about privatizing garbage because quite honestly I can't support that But the other thing I can't support is the fee I don't know I heard it somewhere must have been here tonight It was a fee for a user. Well, if you use it, then you should pay for it So am I going to get an option not to pay this fee by not having my garbage picked up by the city should plug it Because I quite honestly I'd like to make arrangements myself rather than pay the $12 So I do you have are we to be responsible elected officials are we all are we going to give these people that option So they don't have to pay this fee or is it basically going to be a mandate by the city should plug in just to pick you're going to pay The fee that's it because like I said Somebody very distinguished to just said this evening if you use it you pay for it Well, if I'm not going to use this service and I have another way of getting rid of my garbage Then I don't want to pay that $12 Thank you all urban Heidelman all urban vernacular and you're next. Thank you mr. Chairman I guess I'd like to clear up some misconceptions on the numbers Theoretically garbage costs us 750 right now in our tax levy. We aren't giving that back. That's going to stay the same So if we privatize garbage, we are adding $10 to that your private garbage theoretically would then cost 1750 so when we throw those numbers around make sure we're talking about the right things Theoretically, this would be an additional $5 should be $1250 compared to 1750 not the $10 that we're talking about so this is about half of what it would cost for privatizing And that's that's what I'm getting to is I think we have a responsibility to give the best deal possible This is certainly a lot less than privatizing and that's why I I support this but don't support Privatizing is we can we know the quality that we are offering We know we can do it cheaper than private industry and we're going to charge half of what they would that's why I'm supporting it Just a you're absolutely right. I was just comparing the true costs So you're absolutely right. It's not going to reduce the levy Oliver and Samson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Just if we're going to discuss the folks who actually physically use the services right now. We're proposing here By attaching a $5 fee or whatever even privatizing. We're only talking about the people Receive a property tax bill. We have a lot more rental properties out there two three four family water bill Whatever the bill is met. They don't get it It's different than it's different than your tax. You don't pay trash on your water bill Well, that's where this new one would come either way you're talking about a person who receives a water bill now And that's not every single person who uses the service physically if you got a two or three unit Property I've seen a whole bunch of two family properties with one water meter So the person receiving the what the bill to the water meter is the owner of the house So you still have two tenants. You're not really realistically Charging the users of the system. You're charging the person who either receives a tax bill or a water bill Now that person's going to determine how they split that up It's up to them, but you're not really charging the users of the fee I've got a two family behind me and they've got 10 or 12 garbage bags every single day every single week They let that they line up So they're using the system, but there's only one bill that comes to that property and that goes to the owner They're not they're not taking responsibility for using the service So there's is there a way then to charge The actual users of the system rather than just and that's going to spread it out over more people using the service May generate a little bit more revenue because there's more people paying to use the service rather than attaching it to the taxpayer or the water bill payer You charge the people who are physically using the system. Is there a way to do that? I think that that's where the 17,500 households come from is that's the 17,500 homes are the collection Rout that are that is currently being collected. I think it would have to probably go. That's true What are utility bills? So that's not that was my 17,000 living units. That's 17,000 Houses no, that's 17,500 homes that are serviced now correct Stops stops. So if it is two families, it is But who gets the bill but who gets the bill on that four plagues the water bills are all separate If you have four water bills But if you don't have four water bills, you're missing you're missing people I don't think there's that many places that don't have for there's a there's a lot of two families And there's probably some three families out there would imagine they have one or two water meters So you're not you're not truly addressing the billing factor to the actual all the users of the system I think the billing would have to go through But they're but they're using the service they're paying for the service They're paying or I'm sorry They're using the service that the city taxpayer or the water bill payer is is paying for They're throwing their garbage out and they're not actually paying for it You can argue that but directly they're not that is the intent of this is that the users that are using it Whether it's a duplex or not I think that would have to go through city engineering to figure out the logistics of how that billing needs to be done to make sure of that But that's where that comes from is the stops that are currently being made by the garbage trucks It would be five five dollars per household that is currently getting that service So that's that is the intent of that I've said I think that would have to go through city engineering to get the logistics To make sure that we have those addresses for billing purposes Alderman Hammond you had a Well Alderman Samson to your point in looking at how other municipalities if you really want to let you know users pay it You know some municipalities have gone to tags you buy tags you pay for you know buck and a quarter two bucks a tag And that goes on your bag some bit some municipalities you have to buy the bags from them At a buck you know two bucks whatever a number is for a bag. I mean you certainly can Again, that's certainly an option and then the more bags you have I've got a family of five I can guarantee you we generate more garbage than than a single person And that's certainly a way to do it those that generate more get by the bags and that's how you do it Again it's going to be difficult to generate or to estimate how much revenue you're going to generate from that because I don't think we've ever did a bag count In the city of Sheboygan But again, you were asking earlier other other ways to do it and buying tags buying bags However, you know on a per bag or per tag basis I think we have Alderman verse. He is next. Thank you two things I can add with that It was big take was one of the one of the scenarios that I actually called the city manager to rivers on how they do it They've been big tagging since 99 actually 1990s when they started their big tagging That's how you get all the fair users the people producing the garbage and I have a family of seven So obviously I produce more than the lady two doors down for me It puts up one little grocery, you know bag that we talked about many times over every other week So that is the most fair way, but yes, you can't gauge on how much revenue you're going to break And the second part to the 17,500 I can go right down my block and count nine houses. I have one water meter, but they're two families That's one stop So you're not you're not billing. Yes Nine houses on my block here on the back of Michigan said two family homes one water meter They're producing twice the garbage. I am some of them might not but now you're building that one water meter that price So you back to the who's going to pay for the proper amount You you put it on that water bill now a little lady down the street pays the same as the two family And how do you come across it being a fair across to all of them to ever see what they were paying for each one or 250 a tag and that's for a 40 gallon bin or bag All of them in van Akron. Is this a new lighter? Is this from before? No, but I'll take it Just Just to go back to that the 17 five Is from Department of Public Works. That's the number they gave me. That's the number of stops. They make that's not I'm not talking about the billing side of it I do agree that that there will be a logistical issue to work out there making sure that the 17,500 homes that currently get service are the ones that are getting billed I think through city engineering and in making sure we have those addresses that are getting billed Whether that's through the the water service or through a tax bill or how that each home is getting that bill I agree there's a logistical issue that makes sure making sure that the homes that are getting the service are the ones receiving the bill But let me say that that's the number that was given for the number of stops. They make currently that's the 17 five How we make sure we get that they get the $5 a month bill that everyone is getting I think is something we have to make sure we we figure out Alderman Carlson is next and I think the mayor has some comments Alderman Carlson your first Thank You chairperson I guess I I can support privatizing the entire garbage service for a number of reasons I don't agree with just attaching additional fee just because I mean we're not changing the service but we're going to charge More money for it privatizing it sure we're not going to lower the tax level I understand that I get that 110% I own two houses in Sheboygan I'm going to have to pay for garbage pick up at both houses regardless What we were simply what I simply want to do is take that $1.6 million and pay for other services Because otherwise we can sit here and chip away all day long Right now City Dispatch we're saying $350,000 for next year No one wanted to make a motion on the library I can do that next I'll be the bad guy That's a hundred that's $150,000 the savings from police department possibly $150,000 The savings from police department possibly $150,000 that's still nowhere near the one million dollar hole we're looking at So yes tax levy is not going to be lowered I get that no one's trying to pass it over as lowering the tax levy We're simply trying to take that money using it for other services so we don't have to cut Dispatch library police department The fire department what have you we don't have a lot of options here And once again I fully understand that we're imposing an additional fee so we can pay for other services And the fee might go up in three years but our fee is going to go up in three years That the cost to run our city is not going to go down anytime soon So we can make the argument that in three or five years they're going to raise the prices but so are we We're proposing that right now by just adding $5 on to the same service So that's where I stand Thank you Alderman Carlson Mayor did you have some comments Thank you Mr. Chairman I'd just like to on the garbage issue a couple of things Number one the original if garbage is privatized it will be contracted with one company My fear in the city of Sheboygan is that if you give people the option the so-called option Okay I don't want to have my garbage picked up our alleys are going to be filled with garbage So I don't see that as an option and you know at this point So I think that should be clear and tags are another issue If we charge per bag per tag in a city this size I think what's the population of two rivers that's significantly smaller than Sheboygan I think we may run into the same issue The last thing we want is our alleyways being filled with garbage And that's you know that is the last thing that we want Whether garbage is privatized or whether we remain doing the service and charging a fee for it I myself you know believe if the private sector can do it government doesn't belong doing it I mean that's my own personal feelings And I agree with Alderman Carlson on one thing I mean if you keep kicking the can down the road if you're going to charge a $5 fee And then you sunset that a few years down the road it's going to come right back again Cost of doing business is never going down in the city It never gets any cheaper it always gets more expensive So if we're going to go out we're going to buy new garbage trucks We're going to stay in the garbage business and charge a fee My fear of that also is I mean the next person that may be the mayor of this city You know we used to have something called a stormwater fee Generated $1.6 million a year It's easy to run for an office and say I'm going to get rid of this fee Very easily done The problem is how do you replace that revenue Because the cost of doing business never goes down It never does So I think that the council needs to make some strong decisions And not kick the can down the road and say okay we filled the gap this year Because as we know I mean we've got all these retirements in 11 we have to cover We've got this deficit in 12 and we've got it again in 13 So I mean the decision needs to be made It's a tough decision to make but it needs to be made But you know it's got to be made And to take bits and pieces I don't think it's the way to go at this time That's my opinion, thank you Thank you Mayor Alderman Van Ackerman one more time I think that's a new light again Yes, yes Just to get back to some of it after our last meeting I sat down And again just comparing the differences between Us supplying the garbage service and the private side Supplying the service it's we can do it for 1.6 And private is saying that they can do it approximately for 1.9 We know the quality of service we provide We're not sure of the quality of service that we're going to see down the road And then we get back to the cost factor Three years from now or five years from now when that When that contract is over and we no longer have the ability to higher Excuse me to higher garbage people to come back Or to buy new trucks or to even compete with any Bids that would come in at that point That certainly concerns me that you could see those costs go up Extremely higher and we'd have no other option I think again it's our responsibility to make sure that we're supplying The service as efficiently and as cheaply as possible And the city is the way to go about that We're the ones that are doing that even when you add this $5 Or beyond we're doing it for $12.50 a month rather than Theoretically $17.50 a month We're doing it cheaper and that's the facts of it That's why I support doing this I don't support the fee in theory But until we make those structural changes And decide what services we no longer are going to be Supplying to our citizens These are some of the tough choices we're going to have to make Thank you Alderman Van Akron I haven't made any comments on this garbage issue yet So I'm going to make a couple of them First of all I've heard loud and clear from my constituents I haven't heard from one constituent that is in favor of Outsourcing garbage and I'm usually a big fan of outsourcing But in this case I'm not a favor of outsourcing it But I'm not going to support the fee Because I haven't been convinced that we need a $5 fee There's money in the motor vehicle department right now To purchase those trucks We're going to be replenishing the motor vehicle fund And there may not be a need For additional vehicle purchases in the future I think Mr. Amorio touched on that Hypothetically if we become creative in the public works department And we outsource some of the parks work with lawn mowing And a lot of those services That's going to mean in the future We're not going to have any capital outlays for those services So I haven't been convinced that we need a fee And I'm not going to support this motion Of keeping the garbage in the city with a $5 fee But I would support a motion that would Keep the garbage pickup in the DPW department Is there any other comments before we take a vote on this? Alderman Carlson I guess I'm going to go back to this list real quick We hand over city dispatch to the county That's going to anger a lot of people Not too many people are going to be happy about that We cut library funding How many people came up here tonight and said Please don't cut our funding That's not going to make people happy We cut the police department Our city is going to get filled with criminals I mean that public perception That's what's going to happen We cut the fire department The town's going to burn down Public perception No one's going to be happy with any cut we make We need to look past the fear of the garbage service Turning to garbage for lack of better words In three years I don't foresee that happening Just adding additional fees That's going to upset a lot of people Raising taxes That's going to upset a lot of people Once again Bigger picture here We can start whittling down the stuff As we go But we need something to plug the hole first To get us through at least the first year Then we can start cutting other things To look to 12, 13 and 14 and beyond Right now We need something more than just a bandaid We need a giant bandage Because nothing we do is going to get us past 2013 or 14 Until we see revenue grow in the city Which is not going to happen anytime soon Or fast enough We need to make the biggest cut we can do right now Once again We're not If you're here to make everybody happy You're in the wrong job And for me District 8 I've received one direct phone call And one direct email I've received every email everyone else did For garbage But once again in my district alone One phone call And one email I think the initial shock, yes But once again We're choosing to take that $1.6 million To pay for other services such as Public safety and protection Library services for the kids So Thank you Thank you Elmer Carlson Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor I believe Do you I think the motion is to Alderman Resler Was to keep garbage in DPW But Impose a $5 monthly fee Is that your motion? Yes And we have a second And we have a second Okay No further discussion Please call the roll Okay Beld Aye Boran No Carlson No Decker is excused Hammond No Hammond Aye Heidemann No Coss No Kittleson Says no Says no We're not going to outsource garbage We're going to pay a $5 fee, correct? Matachek No Resler Yes Samson No Van Akron Aye Vanderweel No Versey No Ten noes And one, two, three, four Motion Motion fails Motion fails Okay, I will make a motion to recommend to the council that we do not outsource garbage Second Any discussion? Alderman Van Akron To go back to what you had to say about You're not sure whether or not we need to impose a fee But at the same time We're not going to support outsourcing garbage I guess I'm confused on how we're going to close our budget gap That's why we're here That's why we keep having the same discussions over and over again Trying to figure out how we're going to solve this budget problem If we continue to vote everything down This is going to take a long time I'm all open for ideas And we can't seem to come together to get one to pass We have the same budget issues We have the same budget numbers I'm all, you know, for some of the people that haven't spoken up And thrown some ideas out I'd certainly like to hear where you're going to come up with the money Thank you, Alderman Van Akron Alderman Carlson, you're next Thank you Just to go along with Alderman Van Akron Once again, I personally am looking for some suggestions Because we're looking to Alderman Hammond here Who listed a few things But I don't see any other ideas from anyone else Obviously, I'm strongly for privatizing garbage And I'll throw some other stuff in there too But we need something big and then a bunch of small stuff So what's out there? That's what I'm asking Alderman Hammond gave his opinion Not that he may or may not support the four or five things that he listed But he's the only one out here throwing out ideas Besides just adding an additional fee to service already in use Thank you, Alderman Carlson Alderman Cotth is next Yes, thank you Chairman Well then, if I could discuss the merit raises There's a half a million dollars for merit raises Is that if we've got 37 retirees And not everyone gets a merit raise Can we take some money out of that That's budgeted for merit raises Mr. Modial Is that an option? Could you step up to the mic please? Thanks I'm kind of confused We have a $17 million payroll in the city And we've got a 2% raise budgeted So if you do the simple math That's $340,000 for raises Now, in that $17 million We've already negotiated two contracts So we'd have to back out some of police and fire So we'd probably have roughly $175,000 Of non-bargaining unit raises Built into the city Was there not a vote at some point For a half a million dollars budgeted For merit raises? Two and a half percent was the number Is that $500,000? Two and a half percent on $35 million I'm sorry, on $17 million pretty close Okay, so there's a half a million dollars In merit raises With the 37 retirees Which is more than we anticipated And not everyone is going to get a merit raise Is there some money that we can pull out Of that half a million dollars? Well, it's not a half a million anymore It's now about $340,000 And of that $340,000 Roughly half of that is through union contracts So we can only save half of that If we gave no raises out Okay, a few more questions then As far as the clear water compliance fees That are brought in About $600,000 that you're looking at Adding to, so we have a good bond rating Would that extra, what, $25,000 Be added onto that? Because that's not in the budget yet either No, we would add the clear water fee Into the budget and that would reduce Some of the deficit we have Okay, do you have any ideas That you could throw out Because we're putting heads here With garbage Any ideas that we could save The money? Well, I think all of the ones That we've talked about We've kind of said no to I mean, we've talked about Closing a fire station And we said we weren't going to do it There was some talk about Reducing hours in the city From 40 to 35 I personally have an issue with that Only because we've asked Our employees to contribute 10% This year out of their paycheck And by taking hours from 40 to 35 We take another 12.5% away from them So in effect, we'll take 22% away From our employees And these are the ones that we really care about Want to come to work every day And do a good job So other than that I don't know what else we can do In cutting services We've talked about all of them And we've rejected all of them The disappointing part is Is that at some point Regardless of our position And regardless of Making sure we do the right thing We have to do the right thing for the city The goal in the city is to keep us neutral And that neutrality is about a million dollars It's not about, I think, as Alderman Carlson said About getting reelected It's about what's doing What's right for the city We can all say we get calls every day About people who hate taxes Or more taxes I believe if we have the ability In the city next year To face the tax levy That would be the cop out But we don't have that So now what we have to do Is put fees on them Or cut services out And that's really the dilemma That you face These are policy decisions I have to execute those decisions you make To make sure that we do it operationally But the policy decisions are yours To make in what they are Very conflicted in the way We're looking at these things And we're very divided on what we believe in And until we unite on the council To get a majority vote We could be here the rest of tonight And tomorrow as well as on the 28th Because we're going nowhere fast Alderman Hammond is the only one That's put forward recommendations Nobody else really has You keep shaking your head What were they? I didn't hear any from you What are they? Do you have a list? I got shot down Let's go We talked about them I mean, let's stop kidding around This is serious So those are the decisions you have to make Mr. Motio, if we did go to a 35 hour work week What would that save? Probably $200,000 For the people that we could affect We'd seriously have to talk about public works And it probably put us either on Five, seven hour days Or four days in close on a Friday But again, the impact to the employees Is 22.5% I understand Just ask the question I do Alderman Van Ackler, you're next Alderman Hammond, one of the Ideas that you threw out there tonight Would be a maintenance type Fee for maintenance of vehicles Can you expound on that Give some explanations as to how that would work And so on Again, it was essentially to If we decided to stay in the garbage business As Director Motio Or Chief Administrative Officer As Jim mentioned That with the garbage truck replacement And other equipment that needs to be replaced They would pretty much delete the motor vehicle fund If you look at how that budget works Even though we got 1.1 going in We've got expenses going out So it's not that at the end of the year It's at $2 million now It's going to be at 3.1 at the end of the year Revenue coming in and expenses going out And those revenues Are under expenses by about $400,000 So what that says is We're going to have about $2 million left in that fund To buy those things As I mentioned earlier, at some point Chief Herman's going to want a new fire truck Not because he likes new toys It's because, again, there's a useful life to that equipment And so you're probably looking at Chief, I'm just going to throw one number out Of your half million to $750,000 for vehicles That's going to deplete that fund, it's gone So having this equipment fee Essentially allows us to At least pay for the garbage trucks Over the course of, depending on how big the fee is Two to three years And yes, we would have to note for that Those garbage trucks in the short term But again, be paid off Again, it's the only way I can see Keeping garbage inside the city Can you just expand on how that would be billed out Per household? Again, I thought We can split hairs on the two families And all that kind of stuff I don't think there's a way to Given our structure Short of going to every door and handing them a bill To be able to do that The two means we have Is property tax bill and water utility bill Are you going to miss somebody? Absolutely, we do now So again, I would say My preference would be on the property tax bill But if it was on the water utility I'd be fine with that too Mr. Chairman, if I may just mention one thing You want to step up Mayor so everybody can't hear you? Just regarding addresses And fees, thinking of two families With one water meter Of two family home with one water meter There's still two addresses So it's a pretty easy way to Determine how many units are in any home That's been broken down into two and three apartments You're going to have an ABC Nobody shares the same mailbox So that would be a pretty easy way to track How many units are in each home If you're looking at Any fees per dwelling unit or per household So it's probably a pretty easy explanation Thanks Mayor Alderman Versi, is this going to be on garbage Or are these other proposals? Because we have a motion on the floor And a second not to outsource garbage Go ahead, vote on that Is there any more discussion on the garbage issue? I got a new light here for Alderman Samson Any other discussion on garbage? We have a motion and a second not to outsource garbage And that means not charging And not charging That was already voted down So this would be strictly Not to outsource garbage We have a motion on this Belt I'm sorry, just read An aye vote means that we will not outsource the garbage That's correct Correct, okay Belt, it was aye Warren Aye Carlson No Decker is excused No Hammond No Heidemann Aye Coss No Kittleson is aye Maticek Aye Racler No Samson No Van Akron Aye Vanderweel No Versi Aye Seven ayes and seven noes And one excused Excuse So it's a tie Ocean fails So it'll go to the council with no recommendation That's on the garbage What about the budget? We're still short money Alderman Versi is next on that Thank you Okay, let's add some numbers together Okay, we talked about Conservative and DPW That's $270,000 What nobody has brought up tonight again Is the fire department That's $340,000 The library, $100,000 PD, $150,000 Dispatch, $380,000 That's 1.24 Okay, that's just those Now throw garbage in there That's 2.84 That's closing all of our gap this year All of our gap next year And we could potentially Say a year or two down the road Decrease taxes in our city How happy would people be when Look at that, your tax levy's going down But we made up these differences We've lived with the changes They're not that bad The sky is still up there Nobody's burning the streets There's not pedophiles Overrunning our streets There's not gangs everywhere else That's what it is Those are hard numbers That we just talked about tonight But we like to shoot these down And throw another one out Then shoot another one down We can't keep doing the band-aids These are hard numbers right in front of you Without garbage, that's 1.24 With garbage, that's 2.84 Why are we sitting here Bantering back and forth About a little bit of this A little bit of that These are hard decisions, yes But these aren't hard numbers to look at This is simple math Simple math I don't understand What we keep doing Even without the garbage Which was just voted down Going to council That's 1.2 But there again That's not going back to the fire department Which was counted out of that That's $340,000 So DPW, fire department library, PD Wherever that 150 came from And then dispatch being 380 Which we agreed on already What is the issue Why are we not meeting this 1.24 I don't Why can't we come in agreement on Yeah, it sucks We can't raise taxes What's funny is People that are calling us now Saying, well, I just raised my taxes Well, when we can raise taxes They're going to be calling us Saying, don't raise my taxes It's no different than What we're doing right here This is raising your taxes All those people that call us And say raise my taxes Just to fund my services Well, okay, that's what we're doing Well, this is how we have to trim Like anybody who lives with a budget Which I hope, well, 90% of the people Out there have to live within a normal budget If you have less money coming in You're going to cut some of your services That you provide to yourself You might cut your cell phone bill Your cable bill, whatever That's what we're doing Not that I'm comparing our police department Fire department to cable and telephone But these are hard numbers we're looking at Why do we keep throwing suggestions out And Oliver Collison and Jim I have brought up I'm the only one who brings up The fire department for some reason I'm the bad guy But everyone wants to shoot it down But they're savings Police department, they're savings I don't know why we keep looking At these same numbers every time we meet But we don't make any decisions Nobody wants to vote on the library Nobody wants to vote on the fire department Nobody wants to vote on anything here Those are numbers And these aren't even cutting Major services without garbage in there That's 1.2 million dollars And what are we facing for next year? 1.6 worst case scenario Okay, now throw your garbage in there You have 2.8 Now everything through 2013 is now covered Am I wrong on my simple math here? I've got Oliver and Collison Correct me if I'm wrong I'm just going to call you chief Because it's easier The $270,000 saving for DPW Is already factored into your $1,035,000 Correct So you got to take that $270 out of there Just because that is a big number And then second, just because I've heard it twice tonight We already have a recommendation to the council On Monday for privatizing garbage So that's not dead in theory So it's still there So that's one option we still sort of agreed on last week We just happened to vote on it again tonight For some reason We voted to not Tonight Alderman Samson Did you have No, I was actually going to Just follow up with the Alderman verse I think we got to make those kind of decisions And we need to open up the discussion again About the fire department And those We're not going to dictate which station I think he's going to close Or if that's going to be one of the options But I really think we have to go back To these issues that have Bigger or larger savings to them And we have to reconsider Everything that we have to We're still looking at Just barely covering Not even covering so far this year Based on what we really agreed to Alderman Carlson, did you have something? I guess I'd make a motion that we cut the library Funding by $150,000 Second We have a motion and a second to cut the library Fund by $150,000 Any discussion? Alderman Carlson We're accused of micromanaging all the time So I guess at this point that It would be up to the library board to decide If they're going to literally cut services Or if they're going to take cuts and pay To have you This is one time that we can say We're going to do a blanket cut And let them decide what type of services Are important to their department Thank you Any further discussion on the motion On the library? Alderman van Akron Thank you Chairman I know we went through this In finance committee at length And I certainly had some pointed questions there As we are doing in Pretty much every city department We are doing some restructuring We are doing some trying to find ways I think this is one way that the library Can do some as well Whether it's through restructuring Of their management Or of their new materials Like I said I know we went through this In finance department Their new materials budget is approximately $410,000 a year Of that approximately $60,000 a year Are spent on movies, DVDs And entertainment CDs I think there is room In fact Director Winkle has indicated There is room to make possible cuts And I would hope that they do The best they can with what the city Gives them to keep the hours And the operating hours open The way they do however again All departments are looking at restructuring And trying to find ways to make things more efficient I think it's appropriate That the library do the same Thank you Sharon would you be Prepared to share a few thoughts with us If there was $150,000 cut Do you have any options Without cutting your hours For example if you could just give us Maybe some scenarios before we vote on this Well again even though Alderman Hammond telegraphed A possible cut at the last meeting Where he spoke I don't have any hard figures With me tonight I think that when you get into The magnitude of $150,000 We probably will be looking At service reductions As said earlier We're kind of running out Like every other department is Do you want to cut materials By $150,000 If it were a short term situation You might be able to do that For a year and not too badly Damage your ability to continue To serve the public in the future But I don't think we're talking About a short term situation Do you regularly want To reduce your materials expenditures By this amount No I don't think so So we would need to look at a balance In my opinion And again it's the library board That's going to decide this In my opinion As I discussed with the finance committee Of the library board very recently I think we would look at a balance We meaning staff Making the recommendation to the board A balance of reducing funding For materials and then reducing staff Which reduces services I can tell you that the requests For services are going up And that requires staff But again The city has to live within its means So we may not be able to Protect that if you will And respond to the increase In services So just a From 2008 to 2011 There's a 4% circulation increase This is looking at mid-year figures For each of those years And then from 2008 to 2011 There's a 21% increase in services And that pretty much goes back to the staff So Is it going to be devastating To the people in the community For those who can change When they come to the library No And we know from past times When we've needed to cut hours of service People have been able to come to the library At different times If there are people who Schedules don't allow them to make a modification Then they'll be shut off at the margins And they won't be able to continue to use Library services in person Sharon, I think somebody mentioned earlier tonight That you're being funded at about 7% less than maintenance of effort If we were to fund you by two maintenance of effort What is that dollar amount? If we were funding you to maintenance of effort Like we have in the past How much more would you be getting for 12? I will need to get another sheet of paper I'll need to get that from my staff If you haven't, then I can check Okay Alderman Carlson, did you want to make a comment? Sharon's getting in? The first question is I'm guessing just like any other good department head You have all your services prioritized By most important to the least important So I would assume you're going to cut The least important services So if that's not ours You would cut, I don't know, having the newest Edition of the Transformers movie I run the risk of micromanaging But I don't see that as an important library service When I look at a library I think of a place to go and learn To do research to study To use the internet for those purposes To find jobs So that's me micromanaging But I'm assuming you have a list, correct? What was the first part of your question When you gave examples? You have a list of the most important Service you need to have Which may include expanded hours And the bottom tier So in theory you would cut the The least important before you would cut hours I'm guessing We do have a mission And we do have roles that we serve In the community We do have initiatives for any given year In terms of what's the least important Service to the most important service I will give you an example When we look at hours of service We know what the pattern of use is For people coming into the library And we base that on checkout use So within the question of What services would you reduce We know that Friday is the least used Day on an hour by hour basis Which is one reason why in the past When they were funding cuts Friday service was eliminated So we actually kind of look at Each of the services And trim each service Based on observed use Or predicted use Do we actually say that It's more important for somebody To be able to come in to use the internet To look for a job That it is for someone to come in And do a report for school We don't do that so much We try to serve all of our audiences Whether it's by purpose Or whether it's by age range Is it more important for a senior To have large print books Than it is for a young child To have a video that helps them Learn shapes and colors And alphabet That's a difficult decision to make Again we would try to serve Each one of those audiences To the best of our ability Probably pulling back a little bit In each one of those That's our approach at this time Follow-up? I guess going back to what you said If this was a short term I guess just for the next year Wouldn't that allow you to Ammon your services For the next year's budget to better plan? If it were a short term I don't see any indication that it is But we don't know I'm just asking a question If you can survive on $150,000 less That gives you a whole year to plan For next year's budget, correct? Naturally every year We evaluate the resources that we need In which we need to staff the library Renew the collection Offer internet services Offer programs I'm not quite sure I guess the thing I'm trying to get at Without actually saying it But I'm going to come out and say I'm talking salaries That's one thing you've never discussed here And the salaries That's a big chunk I think it's $1.5 million out of the library It's more than that Well we have addressed salaries We have our staff on furlough 1.9% reduction And we've had that in place since 2009 But I guess I'm more so talking about pay cuts Pay cuts Across the board I'm not aware that other departments Are engaging in pay cuts at this time If I understand that there's going to be A salary survey done next year At the beginning of 2012 Naturally the library board will look at that We've always at the library based We've had a benchmark system Where there were certain library positions That were benchmarked to schedule A Which is the salary schedule In effect currently For city hall employees Who are currently represented By ASME Local 1564 And so by keeping that benchmarking The library salary schedule moved As did schedule A So that we didn't survey Comparable libraries Comparable libraries are municipal libraries And again this linking took care of that situation In the method we had For assigning values to various positions Or types of work So I'm not aware that a pay cut is in order Simply because the people work at the library We don't have a general salary increase In 2011 As was the case for comparable city employees So we've already addressed that somewhat Even though it was a double bump Pay increase for schedule A employees It would be a 3% increase For them heading into 2012 And the library staff did not receive that increase So I don't know to say that we're not addressing salaries I don't think it's a fair representation Of the actual situation Sharon do you have the answer to that question I asked a few minutes ago Well I think this is what you were asking for The 2012 funding is 7.8% below What the maintenance of effort level A funding would have been for 2012 And that's a difference of $203,464 And what did you do to address that reduction In what we would have given you for maintenance of effort What adjustments did you have to make In staffing or services One thing we did at the beginning of 2011 Which was alluded to in some of the comments Is that we did restructure the way we provide Reference service which is an important part Of adult services at the library So there has been restructuring that we've done We reduced the reference staff complement By two full time equivalent positions And reference services are not now available In all times the library is open There's no reference librarian available To address reference questions on Monday through Friday From 9 until 11 a.m. And we have been relying on use of an online Or virtual reference service during that time As a backup that was being funded by the state of Wisconsin That service is no longer going to be funded Starting in 2012 There's a group of libraries looking at How we can continue that But then the libraries involved will need to pay Some fees in order to continue that backup Virtual reference service So in essence then for 2012 Because we're not funding you at maintenance of effort You're being cut $203,000 already Plus your staff stepped up to the plate With another $100,000 for the Walker bill So in essence you've had a reduction of $303,000 for 2012 If I understand those numbers correctly If you factor in maintenance of effort funding Which that requirement is no longer in place I know it's no longer there But you're not getting the money That's correct and we have made adjustments As I've described So there has been a restructuring within the library And we did reduce staffing We reduced reference library and staffing Any other questions for Sharon? Thank you, Sharon I think we have a motion Let's see, Alderman Coth Thank you, Chairman Out of the phone calls I've received And the emails I've had Actually most of the calls were in reference to They'd rather pay more for garbage Than cut the library So I'm going to suggest something Before we vote on this library As far as we're 1.18 million short And we have 1.6 million already for garbage So if we took the 1.18 Out of the 1.6 million To cover the 600,000 And everything else We would still be able to leave the library alone And not take 150,000 from the police And not close a fire station We could actually subsidize That money that we took out of the garbage By charging $5 a month On the water bill See what I'm saying? No And we can call it a new one I know what you just said Run that bias again, please Maybe it's just getting late But can you go through that math again? Okay We've got 1.6 million dollars for garbage We keep the garbage We've got 1.6 million Okay, we are short And this is something that 1.18 we're short, correct? Or not 1.135 You're not talking about the general fund Plus the 600,000 The 600,000 to go in the general fund But what are we short? 1.35 Just for next year, 1.35 million Between this year and next year 1.12 Is 1.03 Whatever we need If we took that out of the 1.6 million For garbage, we took that out And then we would subsidize the garbage Back in On a water bill So you're talking about outsourcing garbage No She's basically talking about using Having a fee again Three or five dollars to She's saying Basically the fee would cover The budget gap Correct That was my motion originally Hey, let's just take five dollars We're moving off the water bill And pay for what we're short Why not just shift it around A different way and charge it Towards the garbage Because most of the calls I've gotten Were I'd rather pay more for garbage And keep the library Just a roundabout way of doing it Thank you, Alderman Van Akker I would agree But as we talked about that Is kind of what we just went through A little while ago and it was voted down You know, we seem to be kind of going in circles I think the 150,000 cut to the library Is reasonable considering that We are looking at all of the options I myself do have a priority list Of what services city provides And I don't want to seek cuts to Public safety sectors and closing fire departments And putting people's lives at risk Or jeopardizing their safety On my priority list Is one area where I think that a cut Can come from. Is this going to solve All of our problems? Absolutely not However this vote goes We're still going to have some other Things that have to be done Going back to the fee that she just mentioned That fee alone would bring approximately A million dollars to our situation And would solve our problem Is it 1.6? No, it's a million It's a little bit short of that But we get us to where we need to be But as far as the library goes Again, we're looking at cuts in every area And these are the tough decisions We were all sent here to make I think it's time we start making them Oliver Hammond? Thank you I think we need to kind of look at The basics of financial statements We can either increase revenue Or decrease expenses ladies and gentlemen There's no, that's the answer And if we're again unwilling to look at Any cuts but unwilling to look at Any increases to revenue The math isn't going to work out ever When it comes to this Now again, as I mentioned earlier These are extremely difficult cuts to make Some of it is we're paying for the sins Of our forefathers, fully admitted But again, either increase revenue Or decrease expenses Only two ways to get here Any further discussion on the library? We have a motion and a second To cut the library funding by $150,000 Call the roll please Billed? Aye Foran? No Carlson? Aye Hammond? Aye Hammond? Aye Heidemann? No Koth? No Kittleson says no Matacek? No Racler? No Sampson? No Van Akron? Aye Banderwheel? Aye Versi? No Six yes, seven no's Motion fails Alderman Versi, did you want to Continue with some recommendations You have on your list? I want to take it up on Monday We got hours yet, I'm not even home yet Bring it back, actually I'll go about What Alderman Carlson said To the beginning of his Recommendation for the library And I'll do it with the fire department We always are asked for direction And when we give direction it's micromanaging So actually as council what we're Supposed to be doing is just Some of the talk tonight is Here's your budget, you make it work It's not us doing it It's not us doing the closing Of the station or laying off employees Or doing whatever, you have to work In that budget, this is your budget That's what we're supposed to be talking about And as far as budgets cuts go There's any, actually has A few of those suggestions up there Back to the 340, so I guess My recommendation is to go back To the recommendation, one of the Scenarios that the chief gave us Which was him closing that gap Of the 340, but I'll put it out as A general fund cut of $340,000 to the fire department That's my motion Second General fund cut I just want to make a correction on the value The 340 would be a full year It's 240 for salaries But we only have three quarters of the year Salary in, so it's actually Probably $50,000 for Heatlight and utility, so it's 220, not 340 220, 230 Part of that, you're saying That the scenario With the 340 was closing a station Right for about 70 and the rest was wages Is that what you're saying? What we said was, it'd be the impact Of three people plus the station Closing costs for one year But the way we've budgeted the people In order to save money The people that retired We're not bringing them on until April 1st So we really don't have 25% Of the savings we thought we would Have because of the way we budgeted That's all Well I guess if I could just add To that then you don't bring back All six that are going to be retiring I mean that's simple, you don't have the money To hire, you don't hire, you bring back And you're not laying Anybody off because you have the retirement Same thing with DPW, you're not laying And you don't have the retirement Same situation here But my motion is I'll correct it to the 230 Just say you have $230,000 less to spend For 2011 So there's my motion It's 230 not 340 Is that still a second? If I could just clarify The 230 Is still not bringing back The full six that retire 4, 6 So the 230 is including All six or 3 Is 230 Alderman Heidemann I think you were first I'll get to you Alderman Van Akron No that was for something else Alderman Van Akron Okay, I guess we'll go over this again And I want to say it's Probably the third or fourth time In the last couple of weeks that we've had I will give you credit for Creating someone that is bringing up the ideas But I certainly can't support Increased response times Increasing public safety risk For the financial situation we're in I can't support Having people, whichever Fire station would end up closing Having people again Their safety being put at risk So that we can solve our money problems That is the facts that will happen We've gone over this time and time again And it gets voted down time and time again But again I do give Alderman Versey credit for being active In throwing out some ideas as to how We're going to solve this problem From my count it's myself, Alderman Hamann Alderman Versey, Alderman Carlson And Alderman Racer that are the only ones That have posed ideas as how are we going to solve this problem I'm running out of ideas If someone has them and if I'm not Giving someone credit for throwing out these ideas To solve this problem Forgive me maybe I forgot But we are getting nowhere And it just appears that That's how it's going to stay I'd like to hear the ideas as to how we're going to solve this issue Chief could you step forward please I got a question for you But I'm going to call on Alderman Versey first Let's just go back We have to look at financial Not every time we talk about a service We have to pull it at the emotional side of everything This isn't the emotional side of things These are facts Financial facts And tying emotional things into everything Isn't the way you're going to get anything done And in that fact we might as well Hire 500 people And then the emotional side is all taken out of it So I mean that's what you have to look at Is take the emotional side out of things Think rationally Think strategically with your money I mean that's I'm sure you don't run your house On the emotional side of things I know I don't even with five kids Financial so I mean that's The way I'm looking at it Thank you Alderman Versey Alderman Belt you can go ahead and I'll Ask my question I want to ask Jim Amodio a question Alright well let me ask the chief The question first then I'll call Jim back up Thanks Alderman Belt Chief if we Said that we were going to cut $230,000 From your budget What would you have to do I mean are there some Peripheral services that you provide Other than you know going on Calls that you could make some cuts Is there any possibility there Or again what would you do With the $230,000 cut Well those peripheral services Really are ones that we do that I can't put a price tag on because We're there anyway It doesn't really cost us a lot of money To go out into the schools to put on Our fire prevention programs Our building inspections It's something that we have to do But I really can't put a cost On to how much that costs for us To go out there and do that because we're here already Anyway If we're looking at cutting 3 employees That's closing a station We're at the bare minimum now Running 2 people at station 5 And again I think We talked about The circle map that I've shown you all Those circles Evenly spaced in this city Around the stations because there was a lot of Time spent deciding Where do we put the fire stations in this city So if we're going to close one That's going to cause ripple effects And I already heard Miss Johnson Tonight say well let's not close a downtown one Let's close the one on the far south side Well if we do that We saw what happened last year The public outcry We have no firefighters On the other side of the railroad tracks I live right on those tracks That train comes by all the time And really the real concern for me In closing a south side station is When that other station is out on a call There's nobody else on the south side Of the city of Sheboygan So that's really the main concern for me And again if we close a downtown station We've got that hole in the center Of the city where we do have The most of our calls And the downtown station And the station 3 station 25th street those are two busiest stations So if you close one of those That causes a ripple effect Of now we can't cover all the calls In the center of the city From those stations So we're pulling in from the other stations To cover those calls Which leaves those areas empty So as I said there's ripple effects To closing a station so I think you can't just make that decision In a one night conversation That needs to have as much thought That we have to build a station To make that decision Chief I heard a discussion And I don't think it's a discussion I had With you or somebody else That with the downtown station Here with the weight of the trucks And the equipment and the age of that station That there may be some foundational Concerns as you go forward With that station is that true We did have some concerns When we bought the rescue pumper That was one of our heavier vehicles That we could come in and do An engineering study for us Because the last thing we wanted to do Was back the truck in there And have it fall in the basement That is the only fire station in the city That has a basement underneath the apparatus floor All the rest of them are on grade So it's the oldest station in the city Obviously it's going to have some issues As we move forward Thanks Alderman Van Ackeren did you have a question For the chief Thanks chief Jim if you want to come back up I believe Alderman Bilt Has a question for you Overall with the city budget We have What is the percentage that we're short Right now About 3% About 3% We got a million dollars over two years On 35 million So if we go back to the Mead library The police department, the fire department Public works in transit To tell them all to cut their budget By say $100,000 to $200,000 a piece That would cover a shortfall Sure So long as it equaled a million dollars But then you wouldn't really know What services wouldn't be provided Because this is just Taking a backdoor approach to saying But then we're not micromanaging Either we're telling them You got to go back and we need money from you I don't care how you do it But this is how much you got to come up with But then once we do that Then we can't by the same token Listen to constituents complain About the lack of service that was cut That's correct It can't be both ways I mean that's just a suggestion Out there To get this moving here Nobody wants to raise a fee Nobody wants to put a fee on it So that means we got to cut The department by $200,000 If that's Across the board That's everybody That takes all the Well I'm not going to say it's going to take all the emotion Out of everybody because I know that some of the guys Are going to have a concern about the fire department Police department cutting their budget But I mean we got to move on here I got to go to work in a couple hours I'm not going to get any sleep tonight As is I got to be at work at four So we got to move this along I'm going to call on Thanks Alderman Alderman Heideman One second I got to the Question for Administrative Chief You'd have to say 85% of our budget Is wages and benefits for our employees It's about 78 to 80% this year 80% okay I don't know how we're going to get around Cutting anything in the city If it doesn't equate to personnel Wages, benefits Some of the departments have done a great job As far as compromising Giving us money Back and stuff like that through negotiations And I appreciate all those efforts But obviously It didn't meet the target that we needed to get To keep this city where it needs To be I guess for any lack of I would support Alderman Belz Motion To go across the board Not micromanage Not say we're going to determine Which service you have But put that on the department heads And the people that actually work in the city As opposed to having Joel Heideman decide whether or not I close a fire station or whether I give up garbage Garbage or whatever it is So I think I'd like to see it As we did with the star resolution in the past Across the percentage Across the board percentage On the city departments So we can at least get something started this way Thank you Alderman Heideman Alderman Belz did you want to make a motion to that effect? You've got a motion on the floor I've already got a motion on the floor Now the motion on the floor now is for the Just for the 240,000 General fund cut to the fire department $230,000 Versi and who second Who made a second to that $230,000 $230,000 Is that it? $230,000 Any other discussion on that? No further discussion call the roll Belt Warren Carlson Decker Hammond Hammond Heideman Koth Kittleson says no Maticek Racelor Samson Van Akron Vanderweel Versi 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9 no's Motion fails Motion fails Alderman Belz did you want to make a motion on your budget? Proposal? Make a motion that We go back to the Mead Library Police Department, Fire Department Public Works and Transit Tell them they need to cut their budgets by 5% Second Why not? What's that number per? That's not going to happen That's even across the board If your budget is $2,000,000 it's 5% of whatever your total budget is Mr. Amodio Do we have a second? I want to find out what that is Let's find out what that is Jim, could you tell us if we passed this Alderman Belz motion of it across the board cut of 5% for the departments he mentioned what that would save us Not off the top Jim Can I Just in the PD that's $600,000 from the PD That 5% Just throwing a number at you $600,000 from the PD, actually more Okay Then let's go across the board That's five departments $200,000 a piece that they have to cut out of the budget PP&S is about $21,000,000 budget this year So if you took 5% out of that it would be $1,050,000 We'd be there Say that again Jim PP&S budget is $21,000,000 of the city's budget of $35,000 So in Freddie's example if we took 5% out of those two departments it would be $1,000,000 But then you're going to have the police department fire department I mean you got to take $1,000,000 we talked about this it's 13 or 14 jobs We've already got 37 people that retired and we're trying not to replace all of those we probably saved 10 or 12 that we won't replace next year But the real issue is if we leave it up to ourselves there's not many nickels and dimes in departments it's people you don't have services so we just have to be careful what we wish for here Alderman Belt originally we were talking about a 3% across the board for every department was that your original thought? It was originally 5 but if we go across the board it would just say $200,000 out of each budget Those are significant budgets each one of them so that gives us a million dollars that's 5 different departments I mean everybody's going to have to bite the bullet here somebody's going to have to either we're going to go after one department and just chew the snot out of it or we'll spread it across everybody and everybody's going to have to bite the bullet Mr. McDonald I saw you raise your hand did you want to make a comment up here? I guess before we start making statements about just cutting $200,000 when I started here 10 years ago we received $545,000 from the city of Sheboygan for our services our budget today right now is set at $511,000 we're $30,000 less than what we were 10 years ago the budget that I've submitted is 20% cut what it was in 2011 so I've already cut 20% and that's going to impact the federal and state dollars so to cut another $200,000 we're going to cut our services in half and close the door but if you want to do that then you're going to start paying back the federal government for the 80% that they own of everything we have what department is that? transit any questions for Mr. McDonald? thanks you have something done? not yet okay Alderman Belt now originally before you said 5% you said 3% across the board Jim said 3% Jim said 3% is what we were short he asked me what the percentage yeah we can't really do anything with transit because of the federal funding again I guess unless we want to close the doors well then now we're down to 4 down to 4 departments I need 250 from each okay now theoretically 250,000 each Alderman Samson you're next thank you Mr. Chair there's some departments that came in at budget or at what we requested and then somebody was taken away and there's some departments that came in above so there's increases in at least two of the departments that I know of the police and fire library came in they were requested by Jim Amodio at the beginning of the year and I think some other departments may have done that too I don't know exactly how everybody else came through but there are departments that came in above 2011's numbers and that's based on just how some of the employment issues came out but there are increases there so if we can't touch transit really I thought the 150,000 for the library was a bit excessive I have no issues but we're whittling this down I don't know if there can be some other percentage or some other dollar number that we can take from each of the departments that we can so that everybody is going to share in this the fire department with the concessions that what the union made are budget neutral we got one agreement from the police department their management union or whatever it's called the patrol the suggestion that Alderman Hammond made earlier was $150,000 cut to the police department but my understanding from what Mr. Amodio said that if they would have ratified the patrol officers would have ratified their contract that would have been $230,000 in my mind just about every department in the city stepped up to the plate except for the patrol officers $230,000 that we were anticipating tonight and they didn't ratify the contract and if it goes to mediation or arbitration we're not going to know until January but I think in all fairness as much as I hate to make a cut to the police department those guys didn't step up to the plate everybody else did so I'm going to make a motion that because of the fact they did not step up to the plate hopefully this might get them back to the table because I certainly don't want to lay anybody off in the police department but I'm going to make a motion to cut that budget for 2012 by $230,000 Mr. Chairman I don't know if Feldman Belt actually made a motion with all of that or not I don't think there was a second there was no second okay you want to go back I don't think that's enough Chairman since there's no second on this I just want to backtrack a little bit so on Monday we have on the agenda privatizing garbage service $1.6 million we also voted tonight city dispatch we threw out a number 350 let's go low that's $300,000 $1.9 correct potential savings next year Alderman Versey here is talking about keeping motion out of it we can certainly try to do that but it looks not going to so the decision we have privatized garbage it's going to irritate everyone it's going to irritate me like I said I own two houses I'm going to have to pay for two houses it's going to go away people are the anger the outrage whatever word you want to put on it's going to go away after a while city dispatch that's going to irritate some people yes I get that might cause some problems but they're going to have some time to try to sort it out and fix it once again $1.9 million we try to cut the library the world's going to end we cut police or fire the world's going to end also sure that'll go away after a while too but the second there's two house fires and we can't take care of that it's going to come right back in our face the second we cut the police department crime even goes up 0.1% that's going to come back in our face library once again children will not be educated my daughter uses a library so it's not that I hate the library I'm just trying to make some smart decisions here in the long term so I bring it back city dispatch and garbage it's going to hurt it first just got to rip the bandaid off it's going to go away $1.9 million and then going forward next year we have a city administrator he can work with the department heads to try to whittle down these budgets year after year but sitting here trying to cut 3% 5% I think it's a little late in the game because no one expected this taking garbage out of DPW that's going to be easy they're leaving I mean they're losing how many guys director or manager whatever 20 people there will be no layoffs in that department that's going to be the easiest fix we will not lay off anyone we could possibly even sell our trucks and get some more money out of this city dispatch yes we're going to have to keep some of the dispatch I understand that of them and racer we're never going to be able to give it up fully but that's still $300,000 that we could potentially save to say that there's not going to be any savings I think that's a bit extreme there will be savings so we could even bump it down to $250,000 from the $350,000 so that's $1,850,000 and then we can work from there next year but sitting here trying to take $200,000 $250,000 out of each department that's going to get us nowhere and like I said it's too late in the game to expect the library to cut $150,000 out of their budget or $250,000 out of the police department that's too much to ask right now thank you Alderman Carlson next we have Alderman Ben Akron I will certainly agree with some of that and disagree with some of it as well as far as on the motion just to clarify your motion on the police department was there a second there's no second so going back to garbage because again that seems to be the focus of where we've been at for the last two weeks I think we do need to make a decision one way or another and when you compare the quality of service for the cost I think you have to look at again operating cost 1.6 compared to the private sector of 1.9 we can control the quality of service we're not sure the quality of service we're getting that we know that down the road the costs aren't going to skyrocket and that three years from now who knows where that private industry cost could be I think it's about being responsible if you attach a small fee a small monthly fee you can make up that difference Alderman Racler's proposal of $5 a month to control the cost of garbage is approximately a million dollars is it 1.6? no, but it's a million what is our deficit hole? it's a million and that's also then putting that money back to make sure we're at the reserve fund level that we need it solves our issue does it solve it long term? absolutely not but it certainly solves it for this year and it's certainly something that's reasonable again, if we privatize garbage and send it to a private entity we are not only making people pay for their garbage service but we are giving them the worst deal available period, it is not cheaper than what we can do it for it is the worst option we have financially wise it solves our budget problem by making them pay for it that's our solution I don't think that's the right way to go thank you next we have Alderman Belt I just got a quick question for Alderman Carlson you want to privatize the garbage but you don't want to put a $5 fee to keep it with the city is that correct? that's correct but you want to put a $10 fee out there to privatize it because the cost of garbage is not going to go down it's going to keep going up you are correct we will have that staff, we will still have the maintenance on these trucks and the cost of garbage pickup on a private site is going to keep going up and we won't have any control over that you're just making assumptions at this point and once again I go back to my original statement $1,035,000 is our hole anywhere close to meeting that so let's be conservative here once again $1,850,000 not only would that meet our goal we could also put some money back into the reserve fund and possibly have a surplus a surplus is not a bad thing I'll tell you, the city doesn't want us to have a surplus they wanted the budget balanced the city doesn't want us to cut police or fire or the library either they also don't want us to privatize the garbage all the phone calls I've had in the last two weeks have been you cannot privatize the garbage I probably had 20 to 30 phone calls nobody wanted me to privatize the garbage thanks Alderman Bilt let's see who's next here Alderman Carlson you are next, did you have anything else I pretty much said it next we have Alderman Coth thank you Chairman what if we did both what if we charged fee for service again garbage even at $3 a water bill instead of the 5 or the 10 or the other numbers that would give us $630,000 and then as far as the remainder took it out of somewhere else I mean it sounds a lot less $370,000 are you saying keep the garbage with the city but then go to the fee well I'm certainly in favor of privatization but not at $1.9 million and we don't even have that dollar amount so if it's going to be $1.9 million then no I'm not in favor of privatization then let's keep garbage Alderman Hammond you're next I hadn't talked on the garbage thing at all yet because we were already sending it to council so I didn't think we were going to have this discussion I took in a lot of phone calls too and instead of actually just listening to what everybody else had to say I talked it over with them and really wanted to see what the fields are and the big concern that they have were the unknowns do we do the bin system do we use the tag system do we have to buy the bags what are the questions that are there this is why you bid the things out this is why you find out what those companies don't have those numbers in front of us right now yet you locked them into a five-year contract I'll take five years at $10 a month I'll do that all day long five years from now I'm sure the city is going to be charging more for garbage than we are right now too the contracts may go up who knows maybe they don't we don't know that we can plug that hole now we need to look at things that we need to look at and start on in a big hurry we're looking at eliminating the city dispatch we privatize the garbage we finally get our undesignated general fund shortage fixed which protects our bond writing we cover the deficit for the entire year we got it and we've got a jump start on the mess that we're going to be dealing with in 2013 and to me a fixed bandaid okay got me it is, slapped the bandaid on it we got that problem fixed and we stopped the bleeding for the time being but it gets us on the road where we can have them forbid somewhere along the way maybe fix the tax levy thank you thank you I guess just to clarify do we have a motion on the floor or a second okay I appreciate that I will then make a motion to again go over a fee establishment for $5 a month per household at the same math that we've gone over about 5 times now which will generate approximately $1,050,000 which will cover our $1,030,000 hole all the way through 2012 we will have to figure out how to solve our reserve balance we'll solve this year's problem and we'll solve our next year's problem I think that's a way to go about this again when you go back and look at garbage in this instance, private industry cannot do it cheaper than what we do it so to sit there and say not only are we going to make people pay for their garbage but we're going to give them the worst of the two options I can't support that second what was a dollar amount $1,050,000 per month per household approximately $1,050,000 to solve our $1,030,000 hole so that's staying with garbage that's staying with garbage in-house DPW $5 a month okay is there any we have a motion and a second I thought I might have wore you guys down my nose we have a motion and a second to the garbage sure majority of my phone calls the same thing as constituents they do not want it privatized I have heard a few that said they would be willing to pay a fee others have said they haven't but I think that's one thing we have to buy a bullet is put the fee on there but keep it in-house I've even been stopped at Target shopping by people that have said that they do not want the trash revolving previously not to privatize the trash so I feel that we should definitely keep it in-house and put the for the time being even if we may perhaps have a sunset date on it I guess the only problem I have before I get to Alderman Versey is that I guess if we're at $7 something now plus $5 that's over $12 a month then it's going to cost more for the city assuming we get some bids from one of the people that are bidding on it for $9 a month it's not because we're not giving them $750 back it's going to cost them $1750 rather than $12 I'm trying to give them the best deal possible I don't want this but this is where we're at so privatizing would cost theoretically $1750 this fee would cost $1250 you're right, forgot about that thank you, good point Alderman Versey you're next we can go to all right I got Alderman let's see I got Alderman Harmon again I told him in Van Aker and I hear what you're saying about the best deal possible the one thing I am hearing over and over and over again every time when it comes to if we got to privatize this just put it on my taxes we can't do it if they're planning about paying the money they just want to be able to write it off on their taxes we cannot do it there's not a single person that I've talked to who says they're not willing to pay the fee they just want it on their tax bill we can't do it you're trying to find a solution to the whole thing that isn't going to fix the problem you're making the number sound oh my god end of the world awe-inspiring and it's not that bad every one of them every one of them that I've talked to has all said the same thing they're not opposed to the fee they're not opposed to paying for it they're opposed to having a separate fee because they can't have it on their taxes it's the same thing so we're going to throw out another fee in there which becomes a quick Band-Aid fix leaves us a big gaping hole that we're going to be staring at another year from now we can actually start moving this forward we can start restructuring and getting these things going and we can do it one fell swoop with a recommendation that we've already sent to council I ask a question thank you chairman can I ask why can we not have this on our tax bill the fee it's not possible can I ask nancy it's not deductible it could go on the tax bill but it's just not deductible thank you call the question second that I'll light on before you thank you I'm trying to understand this logic here right now it costs us 1.6 we're going to charge them another million so in fact garbage service is costing us 2.6 million dollars we privatize garbage service it no longer costs if you want to put that 1.6 isn't paying for the privatized garbage service we're simply using that to pay for the library the police department and the fire department so it's not costing the taxpayer $17 it's not costing for other services so the logic there I don't understand but instead we'd rather charge them 2.6 million dollars for the same service call the question okay we've got a motion and a second keep garbage in house and for a $5 fee please call the roll belt I Oren no Carlson no Hammond no Heidemann no kath kittleson says I matacek samson van akron van der wheel bursi I I 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 I'm going for alderman decker I know him pretty well yeah 7, 7 motion feels alderman raceler all right seeing as how we don't even have the bids in for the privatizing I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn until Monday and hopefully try to resolve this on Monday we'll have the bids in then and we'll have a little bit more guidance on what they're actually going to be we got from 5.30 to midnight on Monday next Monday we can do it all again I got a second Mayor did you want to make a quick comment one last motion just some food for thought you know there's a lot of questions about if garbage is privatized and the type of service that would be offered in the garbage providers that we've spoken to the idea is that they bid on the exact same garbage service that we are providing right now in other words the same clear bags the same blue bags the same routes the same days of the week nothing changes in that bid I know that there's a lot of people that are talking about privatization but they're saying I don't want things to change because change is a bad word you know everybody knows change is like a four letter word even though I think there's six I said five once but I think there's six letters in that word so I mean the idea was the idea is that it would be seamless as far as days of the week of pickup blue bags clear bags being able to co-mingle recyclables etc I never thought that there would not it would be a seamless change with the exception of of course there would be a fee thanks we got a motion and a second to adjourn was that we are adjourned all in favor opposed we are adjourned thank you everybody happy Thanksgiving next week