 Okay, we'll call the six regular meeting of the common council order Sue would you call the roll, please? Bowman? Here. Berg? Here. Boney? Here. Serda? Excuse. Graf? Excuse. Manny? Here. Montemare? Here. Perez? Here. Peterson? Here. Reignflesh? Here. Segali? Here. Stephan? Here. Vanakren? Here. Vanderwiel? Here. Wonderman? Excuse. Warner? Here. Thirteen? Here. Corms, President. Alderman Warner? Thank you, Your Honor. I move the minutes of the last common council meeting of June 7th to be approved and that the same stand is entered on the record. And how about the special one also? And from the special council meeting on Thursday also. Okay. We have a motion to second before us that the last council meeting and the special one be approved and the minutes be approved under discussion. Are you not all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman Vanakren? Would you leave us in a pledge, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Steve, confirmation of appointments. Everybody submit the following appointments for your consideration. Community Health Insurance Advisory Task Force. Ellen Schleicher. Jason Borden. Ed Surick. Jeff Squire. Michael Collard. Jeff Herman. Greg Wegemann. Michael Lanzer. And DPW Union Representative. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are you not all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. I just note that that will be subject to action on 573 as the actually creating committee. The other one is Michael Schrader to be considered for appointment to the board of contractors examiners to fill the unexpired term of Mark Winkle, whose term expires 430-06. Signed by the mayor. That can be completed. I've moved to approve the mayor's appointment. Have a motion before us in a second. Any discussion? Not all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Steve. Public forum. Candice Teetson. Candice, can you give me your name and address, please? Candice Teetson, 1235 Indiana, Amnus, Sheboygan. I know that it's on the agenda this evening. One of my bartenders is going to be died of liquor license. I am requesting that the council reconsider it due to the fact that he has improved himself within the past four years while he has been in my employment. Things that he did do were in the past probably eight years ago. Also, right now he's a very trusted employee, which is hard to find in the liquor business and as a bartender. He's also very a hard-working employee. He is working a full-time job, plus he works for me part-time. He also is making an effort to change his life by paying his fines that were addressed, whereas some of the things and issues where the licensing committee is thinking that they should not grant his license. I need him because he is a good employee. So I would ask you to please reconsider denying his beverage operators license. Thank you. Thank you. And Renee Susha? Renee Susha, 303 St. Clair Avenue. Thank you. Tonight I'd just like to make a few comments relating to the June 17th resolution that's being voted on tonight. I'm not sure what the number is. It starts off talking about a resolution authorizing the appropriate city officials to execute amendments to the development agreement. More specifically, I would like to focus on the legal fees that will be now paid by Great Lakes. If you remember back to May of 2003, that's when this council or the previous council agreed that they signed or passed a resolution saying that legal fees should not exceed $120,000. Well, down the road, the legal fees managed to climb about a quarter of a million above your cap. And due to the persistence of the Sheboygan Citizen Action Group questioning and filing complaints with the district attorney, with this common council, ultimately a special audit committee was formed and looked into the problem. And everything initially came out looking okay. It wasn't until we heard the wisdom of Judge Willis' ruling when he stated that there is no signed contract. So there is no illegal activity going on here. But he went a step further and said that the city does not have to pay this bill. He took it even a step further and said that even if the city wanted to pay this bill, he quoted a state statute that points out that the finance director cannot sign a check without countersigning a contract. So that kind of brings us to tonight's resolution. And I want to thank the alderman for their negotiating skills because they turned this situation into a winning situation for everybody that's involved. The Sheboygan Citizen Action Group was right in challenging the legal fees and they wound up saving the taxpayers almost a quarter of a million dollars. The city wins because they got Great Lakes to pay the bill for them. And Great Lakes wins because they will get the necessary changes to the development agreement by paying the bill. So in closing, I want to encourage all the alderman to read the transcript from Judge Willis' ruling. It really did have a lot of words of wisdom in there. He's a former city attorney for Manitowoc. One of the things that he pointed out is that a lot of things hinged on the way that the May 2003 resolution was written. That resolution only authorized city officials to sign a contract. And I'm sure that when the former council approved that resolution, you were all under the impression that there would be a contract signed. You didn't realize that by authorizing it, that did not mean they had to do it. Judge Willis said that it is common verbiage in resolutions to say that things are authorized and directed to happen. If you say it's a directive, it must be done. So if you take a look at tonight's resolution, you will notice that it's another resolution only authorizing appropriate city officials to do something. And I would just like to suggest that in the future that the alderman make sure that the proper verbiage is written very clear. It would be such a pity to waste your time in closed door sessions and at other meetings and doing research at home to come here to pass a resolution that's only authorizing something to happen, which means it might or might not. So let's make it perfectly clear. Let's see if we can try to change the image of City Hall. To a certain extent, it seems that the image of City Hall is kind of down here in the gutter. But let's put it up here where things can be done ethically, legally and legitimately so everybody can benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Steve, would you like to respond to that? Not really. No? Let it go. Okay. Okay. I disagree. I don't think City Hall is down in the gutter. We are very, very upfront people. So I would disagree with that. Development authority. Yes. We need to redevelopment authority to call roll. Re-development authority. We need a forum present with the only member of apps that you can consider who is excused. Thank you. Hold on, Stephanie. Seeing as how we have representatives from Great Lakes here tonight, I guess first I have to move for suspension of the rules. On which one are you going? On which one? 623. No, not 623. No. That's not circled right. 656. Do I have a second? Are there any objections to suspension of the rules for 656? Okay. None. Proceed. Would it be appropriate to take S5-1 along with it? If you want those as separate states? That would have to be separate, I think. Okay. Correct. I'd take them separate. Yeah. I guess I would move to authorize executing consent and connection with the proposed transfer of all interests in Blue Harbor, resort condominium.llc. We have a motion before us in a second. Under discussion. Perhaps the attorney would want to address this. Okay. Exactly. This is the one that was just on our desk tonight, right? Correct. Hold on a second. Alderman Prez. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question. Given the input by a community member here, a quick question to Attorney Plein. Do we need to say authorize and direct it or is authorize sufficient? I think authorize is sufficient. You want to make it totally mandatory so there's no discretion on whether anything gets acted on. You can have documents that say authorize and direct it. But I think providing a little discretion sometimes is beneficial. It may be a reason why you get too closing and you may not want to close on a particular document. If you're directed to, you have no discretion on the matter. So then by saying authorize, we could come back and look at it again. We could do whatever we could, maybe not even sign it, is that what we're saying? The intent would be to sign the document, yeah. But we don't have to say authorize and direct it. I asked that because I think it's a very good point that it was made. We always say authorize but never said directed as far back as I can remember. I guess my question is do we need to start doing that or do we not need to start doing that? Well, my advice to the council is I don't think you need to do that. If you choose to do that, that's within the council's discretion. But I don't think it's necessary and I think there are situations where you're going to run into problems. If you do that, when circumstance arises where for some reason it makes sense not to finalize the document. If an official is directed to do that, there's no discretion then. So they would have to sign it even if it may not be in the best interest of the city to do that at that point. So I think that's why you've got elected city officials that should have some discretion in making some of those decisions. I think you're authorized to execute the document and it's especially where it's something where it says substantially in the form attached or something like that. There may be some wording change that you run into the problem where is that substantially in conformance with the attached document or not. If you're directed to, there's no discretion. You've got to sign the thing. If you're authorized to and the wording changes a little different but it's in the best interest of the city, then you either make that call as to whether to sign it or not. And I think you want to give your elected officials some discretion on taking final action on some of these things. Council doesn't wish to do that. That's your priority. Now, would you explain the document? This is a request by Great Lakes to change the ownership status of the condominiums currently. The Blue Harbor Resort Condominium LLC was created as a limited liability company to basically build and own and sell the condominiums that are part of the Blue Harbor project. For reasons that Mr. Emery, who is the CEO of Great Lakes, perhaps could explain tonight to the council, Great Lakes is requesting to change the ownership interest in the condominiums to the principal shareholders of Great Lakes. There are seven principal shareholders who would individually own the condominium LLC, the ownership interest of the condominium LLC. Again, the purpose of that entity is to build and sell the condominiums. Once that's done, that's basically what you have left is sort of a shell entity. I think Great Lakes could explain the rationale for wanting to do that. Our feeling is that it's a reasonable request. It's not going to hinder the city in any way, and it's for purposes that Great Lakes has as part of this project and their corporate structure nationwide, that it's necessary for them to do this. Perhaps Mr. Emery? Any motion to open the floor? All in favor of the motion? Aye. Opposed? Please. Thank you. I'm John Emery, I'm the CEO of Great Lakes Companies. Be happy to explain to Steve, it's even very simply the legal entity that was set up to develop and construct and sell the condominiums was a legal entity tied into or a subsidiary of the Great Lakes companies. The condominium sales, quite frankly, have gone fantastic. We expect to close the sale of, i.e., sell all of those condominiums within the next 30 days. And so several of the motions or the two motions that are related to Great Lakes tonight both involve the final sale of those condominiums. They're all built, they're all within three weeks, we'll have certificates of occupancy, all of them, and then within a week after that they'll all be sold. What the city attorney and Great Lakes have worked on is the entity that developed those condominiums is owned by seven partners including myself. As they're sold, those interests all get dispersed. And so what we needed to do, part of which is in relation to we're posting a $2 million letter of credit long term to support the occupancy taxes on the condominiums, is we need to give our banks the collateral for that $2 million letter of credit which I think goes out, I forget how many years it goes out, but it's a substantial amount of time. All this is doing is taking those net assets of the sale proceeds and distributing it to the people that own the entity. And so really, this would have been done, we would have thought 12 months from now when we thought the condominiums were originally going to sell, but they've sold much more quickly than they thought we would, so we're ready to get them sold and distribute it out. There's absolutely no legal effect or change to any of the cities collateral with us or any of our guarantees with the city. In fact, our guarantees are personal in addition to being corporate, so it really is a disbursement of those assets if you will. Thank you. Oh, John, before you sit down, could you just clarify one thing? Sure. Why did the company decide to pick up the legal fees? Could you clarify that please? Absolutely. The company picked up those legal fees because the legal fees for this project, they came out of the complexity of the project. I do appreciate the Citizens Action Committee's comments, by the way, as well, that this is a project that's been very successful, but it was terribly, terribly complex. The complexity of the project is due to the project being there. It's not the city's complexity, it's the project trying to work within a lot of city guidelines, a site that had a lot of environmental challenges, lots of issues. I'm sure most of you have been there. I was talking to some of the earlier properties actually already running very well. The condos are getting ready to be sold. That complexity, we view as a project cost. As developers, there was no question in our mind that that's a cost of the project. If the city had come to us, when that cap came out, the condos were not even definitely going to be built. They were an option. Great Lakes had an option to lease that land from the city and build those condos. We weren't even sure we could do it. They weren't sold, they weren't reserved. That's what drove those legal bills is the complexity through no cause or fault at all of Great Lakes or the city. It's a project cost. That's a 50-some-million-dollar project down there. I assure you our legal bills were over budget much more than the cities were. Unfortunately. A successful project, that's the way it's a 50-some-million-dollar project. We're very happy with the way it turned out. As you can tell when you walk through it, the great thing about Great Lakes, that project opened the day it was scheduled to open from a planning a long time ago. That's because we just don't stop. When you do that a lot of times, you will drive your cost up a little bit. What would the cost have been if we missed the golf tournament and didn't get the project open? What's the cost of that to the condominium buyers and to the resort and to the city and occupancy taxes? The way we look at it, that extra $230,000 was getting the project open on time effectively and time for this summer. June 8th was our grand opening event down there. It's a long explanation of why we're paying those fees. Working as a team, we overcame all those issues. Absolutely. We could not have done this without the help of the city and the council. I mean, that project is a partnership project. There's no doubt about it. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. John, could you give me your last name, please, for the record? Absolutely. It's Emery, E-M-E-R-Y. Thank you. Okay. Would you call the roll, please? If there's another discussion? Okay. Call the roll, please. Oh. All of them to go? Yeah. I'd like to ask Mr. Emery about your advertising. My husband and I had the chance to go to the state of Washington. And on the way back, I started to look for billboards and all that, that were saying blue harbor and things like that from, like Milwaukee and from Madison and up and through Green Bay to see if there were any signs that would, you know, announce blue harbor. And I haven't seen anything. And I was thinking what that's really a disservice to blue harbor that you're not advertising something like this on the billboards that say come to Sheboygan and see blue harbor and the water parks and everything. I would, I would absolutely check on that when I go back. I know that we had over a million dollars in our marketing budget just to get the resort open. A lot of that was spent on TV and radio ads in Milwaukee and Chicago. I'd be happy to check on billboards. A lot of times take time to get because there's just not that many of them. A lot of times where you want to be and see, have to wait for somebody else's lease to expire. And then you go and typically we are a very, we use a lot of billboards because we, we go after the retail leads or customers. So I'd be happy to ask the question when I go back to the office. We are as motivated as anybody in this room. Because I think it would be nice to say come to Sheboygan and see blue harbor and you know and appreciate what the city has done and what you have done. And it doesn't seem to be any of that. You know and I saw all these billboards as I was going, you know, through all the states as my husband traveled, husband and I traveled by car and you saw all of these different things being advertised and I was looking forward to seeing something when I came into Wisconsin and I didn't. We were, in fact in Washington state you may be able to see something in the next year or so that will help you understand. So we're looking out there as well. But did the city of Sheboygan, there's a Toyota commercial now that says Sheboygan in it. I don't know what the city did to get in there, but it was the most amazing thing the first time I saw that commercial because I was thinking of blue harbor, but I do appreciate your comments and we are happy to take them. We're a, you know, local company that's built this business up, but if a consumer isn't getting it, I love those comments, so I'll go back and check on it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All in many. Thank you, Your Honor. Just a quick comment about process with legal language. If we simply say with the word authorizing, it might be appropriate for a report to come back to the council if, in fact, when something is authorized, it's not signed. Fine. That should handle the situation. It's fine. Alderman Warner. Well, thank you, Your Honor. Just for blue harbor. John, I believe we saw some really great commercials on TV. I think you're doing a good job on that and look great and turn on the TV and you have blue harbor and Sheboygan advertised. It's nice to see you. Great. Thank you very much. If you read USA Today last week, they mentioned the convention center blue harbor in there and the statement is if the United States would have created as many jobs as the area in Sheboygan County has in the past year, they had four billion jobs created, something like that. So we're doing a good job. That's fantastic. I'll tell you, the conference center facilities are absolutely fantastic. We're so pleased to have that facility to work with down there. We couldn't be happier about it. Thank you. Okay. Another discussion. Would you call the roll please? Berge? Aye. Bonnet? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Peterson? Aye. Rindflash? Aye. Segal? Aye. Stefan? Aye. Vanakren? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried. Alderman Stefan? Aye. Vanakren? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried. We have a motion to second before us. S5-1, under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Bonnet? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Peterson? Aye. Motion carried. Thank you, John. Have a good evening. Oh, excuse me. Oh, re-development authority. Oh, re-development authority. You need to take the vote still. Yes, please. I've found motions as well. I believe Carol's got the good point. The re-development authority resolves here that authorizes a full review of the authority officials to execute these various amendments for the two of our reserve planning documents resolved that the appropriate re-development authority should be purified on the right execution bound documents related to the two of our reserve project. First amendment to the development agreement. Second amendment to the kind of many groundings. The first amendment to the south pier district. Which one is the one for Teetza? Which one is the one for Teetza? Six, seven. Thank you. Then, Mike, you also need to have the re-development authority take action on the consent to approve the consent document also. Any discussion on that? Any discussion? All in favor of the motions? Six. All opposed? No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The motion to adjourn the I cannot adjourn the council. That's right. Thank you. Take care. We will just go with consent. We'll just go with consent. Okay, Alderman Manny. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to pull document 630, RC by Public Protection and Safety, recommending entering into an agreement with the Chaboygan area school district relative to providing the public school system with local school liaison officers from the Chaboygan police departments. Totally supportive of the agreement. You want to put that on the floor? Is there a motion? Yes, please. Motion. Okay, go ahead, under discussion. My question is the dollars. I'm totally supportive of the program but believe that we in fact pay more than 50% of the cost in effect by virtue of the fact that students from the schools, both middle and high school, are from beyond the city and so we're paying for part of them unduly. I'd like some conversation about that. Okay, we'll get to that. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. This resolution regarding the school resource officers was discussed in Public Protection and Safety, committing meeting this past Wednesday and it passed unanimously in that committee. This continues a school resource officers program and it's at the same level as it was last year with the city paying 50% of the costs and the school district paying the remaining 50% of the costs. I believe this council has been given a wealth of information regarding the value and impact of the school resource officers program. The ability and availability of these officers in our schools is very important to the health and safety of our children. With the changed world we live in, it is very important that students have access to law enforcement officers that are in tune with them and their surroundings. The facts across the nation speak for themselves and this program, the school resource officers program, is not only needed but critical in this day and age. We have had many discussions about the financing of this program. Every year, the same issues come up. The even split has worked out but there's a feeling that the city taxpayers are paying a disproportionate amount of the cost since they pay both the city costs and part of the school costs. That is something that does concern me and I'm sure it concerns others. The school district's budget runs from July 1st to June 30th. Alderman Ryan Flesch is on the Public Protection and Safety Committee and he appraises us of that. So we're on a little bit tighter schedule here and we also have Alderman Perez here who's president of the school board and he can maybe shed some light on that. But the feeling in the committee is that we need to move this forward. There's not enough time to impact their budget at this time and I do think it is something we should look at. But as all contracts go we can always look at making some changes if necessary. And I guess I would ask all the person Perez as president of the school board that perhaps he can help us out with this by bringing this issue back to the school board. I recommend we pass this as it is. But to bring the funding issue back to the school board and to discuss the equity in funding that city residents pay a disproportionate amount of those costs. They meet perhaps they can find some answers and if they can't do anything about it this year perhaps they could do something about it next year. So I think we should pass it along with everything else. It's a good program. It's very well needed in the city of Suborgan. It's helped hundreds if not thousands of kids over the years and this council saw the presentation to the committee the whole by the school resource officers. You know the value, you know the impact they have on the students and their lives. If we can get prevention in there ahead of time I think it's very, very important. So thank you. I'm going to press. Thank you Mayor. I guess I'd speak in support of the program itself being that we have the support of the school. We have support of the police department and we have what I consider to be a perfect example of shared services and when we get a good example of shared services we always seem to want to question who's paying the nickel more and the nickel more than the other person. That's why we never have shared services. You're never going to have an equal split. It's just not possible. It's not financially possible. And quite frankly this is why we've never been able to share anything because it's always who's paying more, who's controlling more, who makes a decision, who doesn't make the decision. But I know this is the second time I hear that the school district doesn't pay an equitable share or equal share. Nobody has bothered to talk to our superintendent or assistant superintendent of finance to get the correct numbers. We're all up here conceiving numbers to satisfy our own anxieties and nobody has the right numbers. People have numbers but nobody has bothered to double check them and I invite anybody who has some concerns call the school district, let's sit down, talk about it and end this because all we're doing is creating little stories and fantasies but this is an excellent example of shared services. Don't do away with it and then talk to me about shared services with the county when you have a good example here. A little one but a very effective one and one is less a long time and one that we need. Well, my friends, when they had the presentation up here on Commedia Hall remember we asked to get some kind of info back I think it was from Principal Calabrese on how the program is working and some of the statistics. Do you remember the kids were helping them? Assistant superintendent of Human Resources. Okay, we never saw that. Do you have that? Can you get it to us? I can get it to you. Thank you. Okay. Alderman Steffer. I guess I kind of found the middle. I agree with both sides. I do see it as a valuable thing and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but we pay and then the school board pays 50% back you know so I mean it is an example of sharing but I think it's not really up to them. They're paying their half. It's probably incumbent upon us to work out a deal with the town of Wilson, the town of Sheboygan or whatever you know if it's 50-50 their 50% is covered because they're getting their school taxes from all those people. It's really incumbent upon us to and I guess that could ask Attorney McQueen. I guess I'd be all for passing this tonight and then you know figuring out what it is and then see if we can work on an equitable agreement with the other municipalities but I really don't see it as far as in the school board side they're paying their 50% to us so it's really an issue with us and the town's and stuff but I do think it's a worthwhile program. Okay, go ahead Alderman Sraab. Thank you Mayor just a quick question. Being that this item and the next item deals with the school district, Steve do I need to abstain? There's no monetary interest at all but I am president of the school board. Okay, thank you. I will abstain. Okay, Alderman Peterson. I think Alderman Sraab, I'm the one that raises the question. The only issue I have is we pay half the cost and then the school board pays half the cost but the city taxpayers pay 70% of the school district tax so in fact we're paying 85% of the cost and I'm not sure, I don't know the proportion of students that come out of the town of Willstern, the town of Sheboygan but I think that's the question that's worth asking and it just seems to me that you know we should pay our fair share I think right now for what I know perhaps paying more than our fair share, agree with the program we'll support the program but I'm just have a question about how it's funded. You know maybe we could utilize our officers wiser, throw this out food for thought, Alderman Perez, Alderman Warner, I guess both of you guys are sort of leading discharges. Maybe look at rotating our officers, we have four liaison officers. I know it's a number crunch, we're trying to get people on the street, officers on the street, utilizing one a day per week out on the street that would solve some of our problems with having officers on the street too and rotate it through the schools if it makes sense, you guys might want to discuss that to Alderman Stephan. I don't know, the deputy chief is here, he could probably address that but I actually did talk to a constituent the other day who told me that exact same thing they had a burglary in a garage you know that was not on school property but it was two blocks away and the liaison officer was doing it just because he was close by and he was there. So I know they do do that in certain cases, you know they do, I don't know if it's a set number or something but they do take calls that are in that area even if they don't have any relation to this. And that's good, we should be doing that. All right, okay, we have a motion before us. This is consent agenda, we're doing it separately, call the roll. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Same. Peterson. Rineflesh. Aye. Segal. Aye. Stephan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonnet. Aye. 12 ayes one abstain. Oh, I'm sorry, did I miss you? I, Manny, sorry. Let's take 631 right away also. Recommending accepting the drainage easement for the Shabuigan area school district for drainage purposes in, under, and along part of their property, Alderman Bauman. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd move that the report of a committee be put upon its passage and the resolution be put upon its passage. I'm sure that the report of committee be accepted and resolution be passed. Second. We have a motion to second before us. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please. Perez. Aye. Peterson. Aye. Rineflesh. Aye. Segal. Aye. Stephan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonnet. Aye. Manny. Aye. Warner-Stain. Motion carried. All right, back to the consent agenda. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. I move that all our O's be accepted and placed on file. All our C's be accepted and adopted. All resolutions, substitute resolutions and ordinances be passed. Second. Moved and seconded, all our O's be accepted and filed resolution, substitute resolutions or substitute ordinances, excuse me. Our C's be accepted and adopted. And ordinances be put up under passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. I do have some comments on 620 and 621, if I may. Yeah. Your Honor, these two documents deal with the increase in ambulance service rates by Orange Cross Ambulance. And I think it needs to be pointed out that Orange Cross has raised its rates 18% in a year and a half. Right after we signed the contract, they shot up 8% in five months later. And another 5% on July 1st of this year. In fact, and we really can't stop it because that's the way the contract is written. In fact, Orange Cross rates have risen 39.7% in the past seven years. 31% in just the past four years. Now that their rates are among the highest in the state, I hope they do not raise them again this year. I think we must seriously consider this when the next opportunity comes up to make some substantive changes to the service and the contract. It's working great in manner to walk and it would work great in Sheboygan. Thank you. One month, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question about 612. Okay. About wood burning furnaces. Now, the way I read it, tell me if I'm right or wrong, no longer wood burning stoves allowed in garages or anything like that. Is that what you mean? No, all in a moment. Thank you, Your Honor. This basically does state that as an outdoor furnace, in other words, something that would be placed in a person's yard and they would put like a eight hours charge of log inside and the heat would be transferred into the home. This is the type of thing that you mainly would see in rural communities out in rural areas, more so than in a city setting. So it is not referring to a wood burning stove in a garage? No. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, great. Go ahead. Alderman Montmire, 612 is actually just directing a public hearing be held. The document, the ordinance is a zoning ordinance that requires a public hearing. So that won't be acted on tonight, the document itself. Alderman Steffen. Yeah, I'd like to have some discussion and answer some questions on 622 and I guess 623 goes with it. Those are the documents from the Skybox Sports Public requesting what I understand to be a tent for the PGA event and they have a tailgate party. And I guess, am I correct in the way I'm reading this is that we're kind of like moving forward but we're not giving final approval until they get the permits? Because I'm concerned obviously in the past, the bid district does similar things with events. The Liars Club does, but all the money goes to charity. Now this is a private enterprise making money and we should close down the street for them. I mean, you look up and down Michigan Avenue and Indiana Avenue, every bar owner's gonna be here saying, yeah, I wanna put a tent up that week too. And I just think it's gonna be a very slippery slope and are we prepared to say, no, we're doing it for this one but we're not gonna do it for this one. We're gonna do it here and not here because a lot of those streets have exact same situation where they have a bar in the corner and across the street is a business that maybe has front access and doesn't really need to side of the building. I mean, I don't know if the business on the other side was even consulted. That's what I'm mostly concerned with is the church behind this building. I don't know how that's gonna affect the Sunday morning traffic if they have a tent up Saturday night. I know they're limiting it till 10 o'clock. I guess I just wanna know how far down the road we are with this process. And I guess I wanna hear from the council because I really think if you approve this one, you know, Katie bar the door because they're all gonna come and ask you and I don't know how you can pick one and say, that's okay here, but we're not gonna do it with any other ones. Okay. That's my concern. Alderman Baldwin. Thank you, Your Honor. I also had concerns on the same two items, 622 and 623. And as an example to where it states that they wanted to erect the tent and close the street. I mean, does this mean that they're gonna put holes in the pavement? I mean, how are they gonna get this tent up without poles and supports? How would they repair the holes? I mean, are they calling diggers hotline? Is there all questions that would need to be answered too? You know, when it's time to put up this tent if they would be given permission to do so. Okay. Alderman for us. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Alderman Stefan. That's the exact question that was asked in the licensing committee is what happens when the next 100 people come in and want to close streets too. But while we're at this, I see that the licensing committee approved it. So did public protection and safety. But then we go back to the VFW of post-1230. Licensing committee approved it. Public protection denied. What in the world happens now? And what is a rationale for agreeing to one and denying the other when they're both asking to close down part of the street? It doesn't make sense to me. Would somebody explain that to me? Alderman Warner. I think in regards to the difference between St. Clair Avenue and the Skybox and VFW, we wanted to approve the VFW one in public protection and we could have approved it and sent it forward. But when they applied for the block party permit, the ordinance would not allow them to have a block party on a major thoroughfare, which Union Avenue is. So rather than pass it to the police and make the police chief deny the VFW its block party, what we did is the committee said, look, it doesn't make any sense to give them permission to close the street Union Avenue, which is a major thoroughfare and under our ordinance not allowed to be closed off for such an event, we bit the bullet and denied it. I'm a supporter of the VFW and if I could have, we would have. In the case of the Skybox, the issue that came up there in our committee, the first item on there and Alderman Bonnay can speak on that is actually an extension of premises for their license, so that they can have adult beverages on the street, but they have to have a secured area for it. In public protection and safety, we looked at it as it's a unique event. The city hasn't been through anything like this before. We've never had a PGA coming here with the Blue Harbor resort there before or anything this size probably going all the way back to when we had Bratwurst days. And I think this is gonna be much better run than some of the problems we had back in the 50s and 60s with Bratwurst day. So we looked at this as a unique opportunity to kind of test it. Everyone has to come in first. If it's a bar, they have to get an extension of premises to have adult beverages outside. The next thing they have to do is they wanna close off the street is they have to come to public protection and safety and get permission to do so where the traffic sergeant and the police department and fire department looks at it and says is it gonna impair public safety or anything like that? And that's why you can't have it on a major thoroughfare because that is for emergency vehicles. That's why they're designated such. In the case of the Skybox St. Clair Avenue and that little piece from 8th and 9th, they have, and in each one of these instances when they have a block party, they have to end at 10 p.m. And they also have to get permission from all the people that are impacted. The church, the people that live in the apartment, the bike and ski across the street it is. All those people have to sign on a dotted line and say okay, if they don't, there's no party. And in this case, we did suggest that it was a little different only because of the PGA coming to town. And we thought, well, if this can be a test case, we'll see if it works, we'll know. And that's sometimes how we're trying to be a little flexible. If something is a problem, we'll know about it. And the police department actually does have the power to turn them down and shut them down. And as far as the street closing and anything under police powers if need be. So the city's pretty well protected that way but we really wanted to let the VFW have theirs also and it just didn't work out that way because of that major thoroughfare. You can't have them on A Street, you can't have them on Calumet Drive, you couldn't have them on Taylor Drive, North Avenue, Gui Avenue, Superior Avenue, probably Seaman Avenue, probably most of the snow emergency route, 7th Street. So it's issues like that. Alderman Warner, before you sit down, I did have an opportunity to speak to the VFW today and they do have alternative method of trying to work this out with us. So I wish you'd take another look at that for this. And we did talk to, I talked to former older person, Weninger, whose husband is involved with that VFW post 12, 30. Exactly, it's here this evening. And she called me after he called her and told me what their problems were that they were looking at some other issues. I think you can work that out though if we sit down with them. There could be something out. They're gonna look at extending it on to their sidewalk and using a parking lot. They have a relationship with the church over there. I believe it's St. Paul's, I wanna say, I'm not sure. I think so. But they're working it out. So hopefully they're gonna have a good event there also. I just think that because of the special circumstances we should let this see and how it goes and if it works out, it works out. And if not, we'll know. Well, this is gonna be a unique summer. You're gonna have a lot of people here and a lot of things going on. So let's try and make everything work we can. Make a gel. It's gonna be a learning curve for the city as well as everyone else out there. And we wanna allow responsible business owners to take advantage of it. One problem that they had was the 10 o'clock closing time they originally wanted to stay open until 1 a.m. Well, you can't do that with a block permit, which is probably good for some of the neighbors and the people who would have to listen to the music until 1 a.m. Then we'd have the same issue. We have events wanna stay at the lake front or in Kiwanis Park until 1 over 1. And we'll go through that again. So I think this will work and we should give it a shot. All in my press. Thank you, Mayor. I'm all in favor of granting permission. I voted in favor of both during the licensing committee. I think it is a unique situation and I think we should allow that. I'm all in favor of being less restrictive when it comes to unique cases like this. But I guess what I was asking is what are we gonna do when one committee says no and one committee says yes. Do we vote against the committee who said yes and vote in favor of the committee who said no or which prevails in this case? We have one committee licensed in saying yes. We have public protection saying no. Alderman Winnie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Me honor if I may. And when we did this, I wasn't aware of what Alderman Warners said that the main thoroughfares aren't allowed this particular use. We did have Assistant City Attorney Chuck Adams here and he never made any mention of it himself. So we just assumed that that was okay to do. So that's what we came from. Thank you, Mayor. I don't believe this is an issue because what was addressed by two different committees are two different issues. What was addressed by my law and licensing committee is strictly the question of the licensing function, not the public protection safety issue which was addressed concerning the thoroughfares and addressing issues on that. So from the licensing function, that's what we were evaluating on whether it was something we would permit whether or not concerning the closing of the streets. I think that was a distinction between the two. I mean, that's the reason why you have a dual referral. Thank you. Before we move on to Steve, do you have any comments? Oh, well, I just, I would say in answer to Alderman Perez's comment about what does the council do if you've got referrals back and opposing recommendations from two different committees, that's why their recommendations to the council gives the full council the opportunity to discuss the issue and decide which way to go and what the issues were that were addressed in the various committees and why they said this and that. That's exactly what you're doing tonight. I'd also mention that VFW document is on later on tonight and I believe that event is gonna be the 3rd of July or something and if anything's gonna be done it will need to be done tonight unless you want to hold another special meeting and I know you all love special meetings. That's all. Alderman Rainnflash. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess first, the VFW issue. I don't want it to sound like we just came up and said no, we won't do it. There was a lot of discussion within that committee meeting. We offered some suggestions at that point in time. Hopefully they were amenable to those suggestions. I agree that we did want them to hold it certainly supportive of the VFW but it wasn't just cut and dried, no thank you and there's the door. It was something that was a lot of conversation and a lot of ideas being thrown out about how they could do it but also what we came down to on the street we simply couldn't do it being a major thoroughfare. Second of all, in terms of the issue for the skybox, private businesses making money versus events that allow charity. We're gonna have hundreds of thousands of people coming in this year for one particular event for one particular weekend. The establishment of the city of Sheboygan I don't think have any idea what's gonna hit them and how much opportunity they have arriving at their doorsteps. My concern is that we don't have simply enough space for a lot. So yeah, there may be a lot of people kicking the door in to wanna do the same thing as well but that's what we're lucky to do. We're lucky to make the tough decisions of who can and who can't based on sound reasons, based on fair reasons but I wanna create reasons why businesses do locate in the city of Sheboygan and not the town of Sheboygan or the town of Wilson that we do show that we are able to provide them with solutions to make money as well. As well as fitting in our neighborhoods as well. So I welcome some of those other people who are also like to make some additional money from the groups coming here to witness the PGA. I look forward to hearing their presentations. Thank you. Alderman Sugali. Yes, I am all agreement with the PGA but also it's listing here the tailgate parties. I'm going to be requesting Green Bay practices and now is this also going to be pertained to their tailgate parties that they can corner off streets and things like that? I know it says it's being under investigation and then exceptions and modifications are being investigated concerning the tailgate parties but what are they investigating? Is it going to be the same as what the because there are many bars in this town that hold tailgate parties on pack or Sundays? So I mean, are we going to give them something that we don't give to the other bar owners here in town? Thank you Mr. Mayor. Go ahead Alderman Warner. Actually Alderman Bonne could probably answer this just as well as he's chairman of that committee but we did talk about that issue in public protection also. So if Alderman Bonne would like to explain the issue regarding tailgate parties and it's on their premises property they own it's in a parking lot, it's not someplace else. Thank you. The way we evaluate was going to be on a case by case scenario. I mean it was not going to be a carbon launch across the season and there were some legal aspects of it in fact is they'd have to cordon off and not allow miners in there all the way through the entire season if it was strictly upon based on the pack or season and they couldn't even let a miner walk across the parking lot if you go by the guidelines and state statutes. So from that standpoint what we're looking at is a case by case and they have to apply each individual time. Okay. Alderman Van der Rohe. Thank you. As far as opening up the floodgates we have enough check and balances in place that we can open up the floodgates and just handle each case by case. We have lawn licensing, we have public protection, safety and we have the block party ordinance and each one has their own tool that I don't think will have a problem with this. Thank you. Thank you. Back to Alderman Ringfleisch. Just to clarify the packer Sunday issue within public protection and safety. The issue at hand was do we agree to let them apply for change of premise regarding their land that they own they wanted to do their businesses on and Bonning just as discussed said a lot of legal issues that they're looking at but the vote on the public protection and safety was do we think are we gonna allow them in terms of public protection and safety? We think it's a good idea if they want to go right ahead but still another committee has to go to before it's approved. Last one Alderman Order. Speaking back to the other two documents now that we get back to. Which ones? That was 622 and 623. All right let's the end though it's concerned to Jen ago. So I wanna make sure I'm not speaking on this too often. Right. The thing is is that's the committees are set up that way as Alderman President wanted you can have this problem on the floor sometimes that's because that's really what you want. You want those checks and balances and then you want people arguing committee committees to come with some resolution that they think is right and come to this council and get everybody on the council or at least a majority to agree with them. And I think that is a very important part of it. We have some tonight that are going to three committees that they're going to, I think there's one to public works public protection and transit and then so you can have a lot of different things. So you got one going to a commission and two committees and there's other ones on like that and we do have that all the time and it's probably healthy. Okay. There's another discussion. Would you call the roll on? I just wanna talk about the motion on the floor. This was just talking on consent. Consent agenda. It's still on consent. Anyone else on consent? Okay. I think we talked consent to death already. So we'll move on. Take the roll please. For the consent. For the full consent. Okay. Peter Sen. Wren Fleisch. Aye. Senali. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Van Nakren. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. And Perez. Aye. Thirteen. Aye. Okay. That excluded 624, 25, and 26, which we're holding and we took care of 631 and 32 separately. No, 631 and 30 separately. Through 35 to be referred. 636, will I over till July 19th. 637 through 54 to be referred. 655. Okay. Hang on a minute. 655 Alderman Stephan, authorizer and tating outside legal counsel to represent the city in a matter of Cynthia L. Preder versus the city of Sheboygan and authorized payment for said services. Alderman Stephan. I would move the resolution to put upon this passage. We need a suspension. We need a suspension, sir. I guess I'll request a suspension then. Do we have any objections to suspension? Not proceed. Why would we need a suspension? Of course, I have no idea. Some attorney could probably do it. Alderman Rennfleisch, perhaps good. Okay, sure. I mean, I can explain it, but this was brought up at risk management committee. And that's what I was going to next, Alderman Rennfleisch. Actually, I buzzed in to make the motion for suspension. Oh, okay. And then I was going to re-affirm my, any questions to the attorney, please. This is a lawsuit that we were served with. It's an accident at an intersection where they're alleging that the city was negligent in failing to prevent sign being obstructed by leaves from a street tree. And it felt that sooner we could get outside counsel. You've got 45 days in which to answer the complaint in order to get the outside counsel on board and get an answer filed timely. It was important to have the counsel suspend the rules so they can start on as soon as possible. Okay, so that's... This is the same law firm that we typically use before handling our insurance claims, Olsen-Cloak, Gunnerson and Conway, Sheboygan Law Firm, who's served the city well in the past on a number of cases. That's your explanation for suspension. Okay, now. We'll put the resolution upon the present. We have a motion before us in a second, under discussion. Did you act on the suspension? Was there any objection? No, he just questioned it. No, is it? Okay. That's fine. Okay. All local, please. All right, run flesh. Cigali. Stefan. Van Akron. Vander wheel. Warner. Baumann. Berg. Bonet. Manny. Montemayor. Perez. Peterson. 13 eyes. Motion carried. 657 by Alderman Stefan, Berg, Manny and Montemayor, establishing the monthly premium equivalent rates for the medical benefits, medical benefit plan effective for January 2005 coverage. Alderman Stefan. I would move the resolution to put upon his passage. Move to the second resolution to be put upon his passage under discussion. Alderman Rainford. It's probably a very small thing, but for the result of monthly premium equivalent rates for the medical benefit plan, that will be charged to retirees in Medicare. We need to correct the typo or leave it as is. It'll be a typo correction. Thank you. Okay. To another discussion, would you call the roll please? Stefan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vander wheel. Warner. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Aye. Peterson. Aye. Rindfleisch. Aye. Sagali. Aye. Thirteen ayes. Motion carried. 658 and 59 will lie over. 660 through 65 to be referred. 666, by law and licensing, recommending denying beverage operators license 6355. 666. Based on failure to include all relevant convictions, on his application, and the concern with his long record that may indicate a habit of law breaking. Alderman. Aye. Thank you. Make a motion to accept and adopt the report of committee. We have a motion before us in a second. Under discussion. This is recommending the denial of beverage operators license number 6355 for James Schrader, based on failure to include all relevant convictions on his application, and the concern with his long record that may indicate a habit of law breaking, in essence, habitual. Okay. There's a gentleman here. Speak. Is James Schrader here? James Schrader. Okay. Mr. Mayor. James Schrader's not present. Okay. There's not a discussion. Would you call the roll please? Van Affron. Aye. Van Der Wiel. Aye. Warner. Warner. That was an aye. Bowman. Aye. Berg. May. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Aye. Peterson. Aye. Rindfleisch. Aye. Sagali. Um-hum. Stefan. Aye. 13 ayes. Motion carried. 667 and 68 will go together, and that is by law and licensing of public protection and safety, and one's recommending to pass the ordinance, I believe, and one's recommending to file. VFW post 1230. Alderman Rindfleisch. To avoid confusion, I'll ask for a division of the vote. Pardon? I'll ask for a division of the two items, mainly because an aye vote and I won't say denial on the same event as saying we approve the same event. I think for the record, it might show a little bit clearer. May I ask you something? Is that Alderman Rindfleisch? Has anyone spoken to the VFW about changing their request of not using the street, but using the parking lot, sidewalk, and other? We discussed that in the committee, but I'm not sure if anything had come back from that since then. Okay, I believe there's some discussion we should have before we deny anything tonight, so hang in there. Okay, Alderman Poulney. I was gonna make an motion in honor to open the floor to the representative of the VFW. I believe they have a proposition. Second? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Gentlemen, will everyone step up the microphone? Good evening, council. I'm Jerry Winniger on 2021 Camelot Gullward. I'm involved in the permit that we requested permission. However, we did not know of the ordinance. What we have decided we could do, which we still have to have permission, is go to the parking lot and the sidewalk, and do our same thing. However, we still have to have permission for the sale of beer. So not nobody, we'd have to be fenced in, and we would be on the street, off the street, and we wouldn't be blocking the street. This is our second, I mean, our alternative plan, not the one that we originally planned for, but we could work with that if the council would approve of that. Okay, hang on a minute. Alderman Perez, you had your late calling, did you want to talk to us? Well, is he done? I'll speak when he's done. He's done, chair? Go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I agree with Alderman Rindfly that we divide the questions, but I would ask that we consider vote and no against denying, and an effect granted, but perhaps maybe referring that back to committee, so that the VFW has an opportunity to come before us. Pardon me? They don't have time. They don't have time? We don't have time, Alderman Perez. Yeah, that's a good question. Then I would ask that the council would consider voting down 668 and granting 667 as a divided question. Okay. Alderman, you guys are playing games at those late. Alderman Van der Wilk. Thank you, Your Honor. I don't see a problem granting the change of premises for the liquor license, because we did grant it to begin with, and it's just different than what we thought at that moment, and everybody here was on the committee that granted it the first time, would agree, I am assuming, to grant it for the parking lot and the sidewalk. So we can have that discussion right now. We don't have to send it back to committee. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. Alderman Stephan. Well, I have a question. If they just want to change the premises, they're not closing the street anymore, does it even go to public protection safety? Or it's just coastal law and licensing, right? I'm not sure. Do you still want to use the sidewalk, Alderman Warner? We can amend both of these in the past. That was my motion I was gonna make. Yeah, I was just gonna, we talked about it. I was gonna make the motion on both of them, just to leave the part that says to include the street. And I think. You're done. And you're done on 667 at least. And 668 you could vote, like Juan said, yes, I don't want to know on the other one, but then they're both the same thing. So I'd make a motion to amend both document, or I'll amend 667 to delete the words to include the street. Okay, and I believe that's what you wanted. Okay, we have a motion before us in a second under discussion. Alderman Warner, you're still. That's what I was gonna suggest. Okay. And that way they still have the extension of premises. They just have to, we have changes to sidewalk. Okay, thank you for cooperating this evening. Thank you, mayor. Okay. Thank you, council. We need a roll call, go to roll please. This is on 667, the amendment first. Yes. Okay, excuse me, Vanderweal? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bowman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Peterson? Aye. Rindflash? Aye. Segal? Aye. 668? Now we have to vote on the motion for 667. All right. This is the final motion as amended. Okay. Bowman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Peterson? Aye. Rindflash? Aye. Segal? Aye. Stephan? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderweal? We're coming in, gentlemen. Yes. 668, lead the file. Right? No. You don't have to. We have to change something. Oh, that's right. The same amendment to 668, delete the part that says, and we gotta modify it more, but delete the part that says request for street closure. It's probably all we need to accommodate a block party permit would be required. Okay. Delete the part that says the request for street closure. That would be the amendment. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Under discussion Alderman Montemayor. For 668, then we have to vote no because they're recommending denying. Accept and adopt the report. Okay. Okay. So you've changed it from denying to. Right. Okay. Okay. Alderman Rindflash? I just want to clarify that his request to change, to amend it to change for the street closure or remove that, also then says that we approve. Yes. And that was done. Correct. Okay. Would you call the roll please? This is on the amendment. Yes. Berg? Hi. Bonet? Hi. Nanny? Hi. Montemayor? Hi. Perez? Hi. Peterson? Hi. Rindflash? Hi. Segali? Hi. Stefan? Hi. Motion carried. Alderman Warner? I would just ask Steve, if we're deleting, we actually have to delete that whole part, the whole end of it because we don't want to file this document and deny anything, but should we be replacing in their language that says to allow them to use the sidewalk? Does that mean we don't alter the curb? That's fine. That's fine. That works. We need to add that verbiage is what I'm saying. So you need to make another amendment. Okay, so on that, I would move to amend the document to add the words to allow them to extend out to the sidewalk and to the east and west of their property lines. And you still have to obtain a block party permit. Be north, yeah, east and west. I don't need to obtain a block party permit. That's fine then. No. Okay. I thought if they take the sidewalk, they're gonna have to. I don't think so. Just if you're gonna close off the street, I don't know. Okay, we have a motion before us in a second. On amendment. Go ahead. This is on the second amendment. Second amendment. Palman. Berg. Bonet. Mani. Montemayor. Perez. Peterson. Rinflesch. Sagali. Stefan. Van Akron. Vanderweel. Warner. Thirteen Eyes. Motion carried now. Motion to pass as amended. Move. Second. Is there any discussion? Can't you tell me what you called her all in one more time? Sure. Berg. Bonet. Mani. Montemayor. Perez. Peterson. Rinflesch. Sagali. Stefan. Van Akron. Vanderweel. Warner. Bowman. Thirteen Eyes. Motion carried. All right. That should do it. Again, thank you gentlemen for coming in. 669 by Public Works, recommending filing documents submitting a communication from classic cruise lines, requesting a permanent dock in Sheboygan South Pier for the summer of 2004. Well, it works. Alderman Ballman. Thank you, Your Honor. I promise that this will not take as long. I'd move that we accept and adopt the report of committee and the reason for that is that it's actually being moved into redevelopment. We need a second. Second. Okay, we have motion to second before us. Do I hear any discussion? If not, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. 670 by Law and Licensing, recommending suspending Class B and Class B alcohol license in 1972 held by Three Gems, Inc. for a period of 23 consecutive business days to commence the first day after July 1st, 2004, that they will be eligible for issuance. Alderman Ballman. Thank you, Your Honor. Make a motion to accept and adopt the report of committee. At first you need suspension, I got on here. Why do we need a suspend? No, that's the suspend license. Oh, okay, okay. I'm sorry, go ahead. That's okay. We need a second. I make a motion to accept and adopt the report of committee. Okay. We have motion to second before us. This is for Three Gems, which is at 2607 Superior, is Christopher Dimmoff. Present? Christopher Dimmoff. Your Honor, Christopher Dimmoff is not present. That's okay. I have a motion to second before us. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll? Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Aye. Peterson. Segali. Aye. Stephan. Aye. Van Nakren. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bellman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried 671 by law and licensing, recommending the nine beverage operator license 5602 based on his failure to include all relevant convictions on his application. I'll move Bonet. Thank you, Your Honor. Make a motion to accept and adopt the report of committee. Second. Moved in second to accept and adopt the report of committee under discussion. Brandon Doyle present. Brandon Doyle. Brandon Doyle is not present, Your Honor. Okay. We have a motion to second before us. If there is no other discussion, would you call the roll? Montemayor. Aye. Perez. Aye. Peterson. Aye. Rinflesh. Aye. Segali. Aye. Stephan. Aye. Van Nakren. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried 672 by law and licensing, recommending the denying beverage operator's license 256 based on his failure to include all relevant convictions on his application. Thank you, Your Honor. Make a motion to accept and adopt the report of committee. Okay, we have a motion to second before us under discussion. It's Jamie Farre present. Would you like to speak on your behalf? Your Honor. Your Honor. Jamie Farre's present is denied the opportunity to speak before us. Alderman Segali. I have a question on this concerning the fact that you do have someone here that is standing by him and saying that he is trying to make the best and trying to correct his life and everything. And isn't there some way that there could be something that could be done that would help him through this, that he would still be able to do something bartender-wise and to help this Cindy Tietzan out. He's trying and I guess I feel that we should not be the ones to try to deny him to get his life straight. Alderman, do you want to answer? Thank you. Alderman Segali. May I ask the City Attorney's Chair question, please? May I speak of his record, since it's public record, in what we've been, is support documentation in the committee? I think if it relates to the rationale for denying the licensee. The basis for the committee making the decision it was, I mean, we, in the last 10 years, he's had 21 convictions. He's had several, even within the last couple of years and continuously every year, 97, 98, 99, 2002 and 2003. We've taken a very firm position in the committee to looking out for the benefit of our constituents. And habitual offenders has been something that we've looked over very heavily along with. This is not affecting this situation. Another emphasis in the committee is drug usage and other drug paraphernalia that is not, isn't relevant to this case, but that is another major focus we've taken on, probably more so than it ever has been in the past. The committee was unanimous in this decision in denying this beverage license. And as a chairman, I support the committee. Okay, Alderman, no. Okay, Alderman Warner. I think we went through something like this some time ago and I can remember it was a young lady who had the same situation. And what we told her at that time was, if you can stay clean for six months or a year without doing anything, maybe you could come back to the cleaning and then reconsider. But you have to look at the overall public good. And when an individual has a record like this, perhaps they're in the wrong profession. We have to be very careful who we allow to have these licenses. They are a valuable thing. We realize that it can impact a person's ability to make a living. And so that's really one of the most difficult things. Being chairman of public protection and safety, we have the licensing function in there for three or four years. And Alderman Van Der Willys is quite familiar with it also. It's not easy to make these decisions, but the committee looks at that and when you have a habitual offender, that is something that you can consider in denial license like this. And you just really have to be careful. But unfortunately, sometimes you have to pay for those mistakes you made. And sometimes you have to pay a little longer than you would like to. And I think that's the kind of situation we're in. If the individual would stay clean for a year, 12 months in one day, I think it's something I could reconsider, but I would go with the committee's recommendation. Alderman Van Der Willys. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess it's a question from Mike Warner because I don't know if my memory serves me right. He can still 10 bar, he just can't do it by himself, correct? Can't close. So we're not totally taking this job away and it's important to remember he can reapply. And if he's been clean for six months, we will consider that. Alderman Bonny. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Alderman Van Der Willys. Took exactly what I was going to say away. He is able to function as long as there's a license bartender on the premises. The other aspect here is I do hope, if he had had a lapse in time, I mean, it's right up to 2003, there are three convictions even recently. And I do hope he does reapply and I hope to see a long period of time when she's not getting in trouble with the law and being convicted. So from that standpoint, I'm very empathetic, but we have to go with what we have in documentation. I do appreciate having character witnesses come to our committee. I think it's very important seeing the character because sometimes the record doesn't always speak to what the person's doing with their life. And I hope that he is doing a lot with his life and we do see him come back because what she has testified is true. I think it would be very advantageous to have him be part of this licensing function. Okay, Alderman Scali. I would just like to know, you know then giving him the option that if he stays clean one year and one day, whatever that he can reapply. There's no written rule to that effect. It's a point of the judgment of the, it's an individual by individual case that we address these issues. You know, if there's an individual that comes to us with a series of very serious offenses, would it make a relevant, I mean, if you were serving on that committee, whether or not it was a year and day or five years in one day, would you want that person deciding whether or not your children or your grandchildren or your cousins or aunts or uncles are served in that establishment and they're protected under the guidance of that licensed person? I mean, that's a judgment call that the individuals have to make on the committee in looking at the records. Because sometimes there are not a lot of offenses, but they're very serious offenses that are relevant to a license. I mean, we had one of the other people we just denied here did not have nearly as long of a record, but all the instances were relevant to the license itself. But there was only like five violations or convictions. So I say it's a case by case scenario. I would say if he does come back to us after a period, after a year or so, and he's still got the shining character witnesses state that he has changed his life. He has not been in trouble with the law. Then I'd say, yes, I would hope that he would come back to us, but I won't make a carte blanche statement. That's a policy because I think it'd be wrong to set a policy based on that because it's a case by case. Okay, as we move on Alderman Warner. Not very quickly, they can always reapply in any instance you can reapply all the time. That's not something you can give them an option to that's their legal right to reapply. They can be denied over and over and over again, but they can reapply. The good thing is they do background checks and if the gentleman is able to keep himself on the straight and narrow for 12 months or 13 months, and he comes back and replies, they're gonna see it because it won't be anything there. And that's all the evidence you need to say, yeah, let's give him a shot. And if he makes a mistake out there again, well, they can always revoke it. What'd you call the roll please? Peterson, Ryn Flesh, Sugali, Stefan, Van Akron, Van Der Wiel, Warner, Bowman, Berg, Boney, Manny, Montemayor, Perez, 13 eyes. Motion carried. 673 by strategic fiscal plan, recommending encouraging the state legislator to maintain Wisconsin's traditional constitutional value provided for by allowing municipalities in Wisconsin to better take care of the needs of its residents, businesses, and other institutions, including medical institutions and educational institutions. Alderman Stephan. I would move that we accept the report or committee and put the resolution upon its passage. I request a roll call vote please. Okay. Yes, sir. We have a motion and a second before, so under discussion. Alderman Warner. Yes, sir. This is something I did prepare something for. Okay. I guess I support this resolution. I think that the state should allow local units of government and their citizens to make the decisions that impact their community. Who best to decide what is important? Should Madison decide what the needs of Sheboygan are or should Sheboygan decide her needs? I think Sheboygan should decide her needs. I believe it is very important that we, as a city, maintain local control. Local officials and citizens are best suited to make the decisions on their needs and how they want their communities to live and to exist. I do not think it is local units of government that have created Madison's problems. I think they did that themselves. We need to have a say in every aspect of our community. And I think this resolution clearly states that. We should pass this and send it to the governor of the state Senate and the state legislature. And let's get back to local control of our future and I'm sure it will be a bright one. Thank you. If there's no other discussion, we, oh, Alderman, great pleasure. In general, I agree 100% with what Alderman Warner said. We talked a lot about this in the past year that the problems that we were having with our budgets, we didn't create necessarily. It's something that the state created with their fiscal irresponsibility in the past the buck to us. They withheld our shared revenue, yet we managed to pretty much balance the budget last year and with a deal without a tax increase last year. And the challenge is to be greater this year. I think the problem is on the state level we need to fix it on the state level. I think we did our duty and we should pat ourselves in the back for doing it last year. What I disagree with him though is I don't think we were elected here as a body to represent our local constituents at a state level. I think if they themselves feel strong one way or the other, they need to contact their state and representatives as well as national representatives as well. I know my constituents when knocking door to door talk to them, I talk about my local issues here and that's what they voted me for. They don't know my state issues. They don't vote me for my state issues. So I'm gonna vote no on this, not because I disagree with what Alderman Warner said. I do think that we did our job and it's not fair for us to pay the penalty. But on the basis that I have many constituents that may agree with it and I'm not going to cover up what they're saying and their rights to speak to their representatives. Okay. Alderman Montemire. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I say amen and double yes to this one. That was, T-Board is probably the worst idea that has come to us for a long time. And I think we as a city should say to Madison, no way that's bad news for the whole state, especially for our city. I see chief over there shaking his head. How many meetings we attended to Madison on that one, right, chief? You bet. Okay, if there's no other discussion, would you call the roll please? Runeflash? No. Sigali? Hi. Stefan? Hi. Macron? Hi. Vanderwheel? Hi. Warner? Hi. Bauman? Hi. Berg? Hi. Bonet? Hi. Manny? Hi. Montemire? Hi, hi. No, I can't do that. Pavez? Hi. Peterson? Hi. 12 ayes, one no. Motion carried. 674 to be referred. Matters laid over, 553, 573, excuse me, by Alderman Stephon authorizing the appointment of the study committee to address the concern of the rising healthcare costs for employers and employees in both private and public sectors. Alderman Stephon? I would move the resolution to be put upon its passage. Move to second resolution to be put upon its passage under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Sigali? Hi. Stefan? Hi. Van Akron? Hi. Vanderwheel? Hi. Warner? Hi. Bauman? Hi. Berg? Hi. Bonet? Hi. Peterson? Hi. Renfleisch? Hi. 13 ayes. Motion carried. 549 and 550, I think we've taken both? No, maybe not. 549 by Alderman, Graf, Stefan, Manny, and Montemire authorizing a transfer of funds for a police department community policing donation. Alderman Stephon? I would move the resolution to be put upon its passage. Can I take 550 also? You may. I would move the both resolutions to be put upon its passage. We have motion to second before us for both resolutions under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Sigali? Hi. Stefan? Hi. Van Akron? Hi. Vanderwheel? Hi. Warner? Hi. Bauman? Hi. Berg? Hi. Bonet? Hi. Manny? Hi. Montemire? Hi. Perez? Hi. Peterson? RC by Public Works recommending filing communication from Tom Hansen regarding a tree in front of his residence that needs to be taken out. Can be accepted. Moved in second. The reported committee be accepted and adopted under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. 676, RC by Public Works recommending entering into an agreement for public improvements between Lee Reality of Sheboygan, Inc. and the city of Sheboygan for provision of public improvements in the settlement at Lost Creek Subdivision. Alderman? Alderman. Thank you, Your Honor. It moved that we accept the reported committee and pass the attached resolution. Second. Moved in second. We accept and adopt the RC and passed resolution under discussion. Hearing none, what do you call her all? Stefan? Hi. Van Akron? Hi. Vanderwheel? Hi. Warner? Hi. Bauman? Hi. Manny? Hi. Montemayor? Hi. Perez? Hi. Peterson? Hi. Ruinfleisch? Hi. Sagali? Hi. 13 Ayes. Motion carried. 677, RC by Public Works recommending entering into agreement for replacement of monitoring walls in groundwater sampling at the Harbor Center, South Pier District. Go ahead, Alderman Baldwin. Thank you again, Your Honor. I've moved that this reported committee resolution be put upon its passage. Moved in second at the RC be accepted and adopted. Resolution be put upon its passage under discussion. Hearing none, what do you call her all? Van Akron? Hi. Vanderwheel? Hi. Warner? Hi. Bauman? Hi. Berg? Hi. Bonet? Hi. Manny? Hi. Montemayor? Hi. Perez? Hi. Peterson? Hi. Ruinfleisch? Hi. 678, we'll go to Public Works. Steve, other matters? 679 is an ordinance granting Joseph Holman and Sons Real Estate Corporation as successors in assigns the privilege of encroaching upon described portions of North 8th Street and Wisconsin Avenue located at 804 North 8th Street the city for the purpose of having an outdoor seating area. City plan. 680 is communication from charter communication regarding new channels being offered on their digital cable service. And then that will go to finance all of them in month, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, before we adjourn because I know it'll happen quickly. When is our next meeting? Tuesday the 6th or Monday the 12th? Tuesday the 6th. Thank you. Welcome. Move to second day adjourn under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye.