 Okay, we'll call the 22nd regular meeting of the Common Calls to order. Pat, would you call the roll please? Bowman? Here. Berg? Here. Bonet? Here. Doyle? Here. Graf? Excuse. Manny? Here. Greenflage? Here. Stephan? Excuse. Van Akron? Here. Vanderwil? Here. Wongelman? Here. Warner? Here. Weninger? Here. Thirteen present. Forums present. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the minutes of the last Common Council meeting be approved and at the same stand as presented on the record. Moved in a second that the minutes of the previous Council meeting stand approved. Under discussion. Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Moved. Motion carries. Betty, would you lead us in a pledge of this evening, please? A 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. Thank you. Okay. We have one hearing this evening and that's rezoning property located at 1221 Sinclair Avenue. Any interested parties wishing to be heard? Any interested parties wishing to be heard? Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I move the hearing be closed. Right. I move to second that hearing be closed. Under discussion. Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. The second hearing will be on a later agenda. The documents are in finance and it will be coming out, I believe, probably for the next meeting. So then we'll have a public hearing on that. Resonation, Steve? This is a letter to the mayor dated November 25, 2003 from Paul F. Elkner, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, advising that Don Mershberger, member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, is tendered as a resignation due to a move out of the city limits. And she's got some recommendations as far as moving alternate members around. Signed by Ms. F. Elkner. Gee, that would be accepted in the file. Goodbye. Submit the following appointment for your consideration. Richard Lindy, to be considered for the Board of Appeals to fill the unexpired term of Donald Mershberger, which expires April 30, 2004. Further recommend that first alternate member, Mark Winkle, be moved to full membership. And the second alternate member, Brian Versey, be moved to first alternate. Richard Lindy will serve as second alternate, signed by the mayor. That will lie over. And Jason Borden, be considered for the citizen's advisory committee on community development to fill the unexpired term of Sean Severson, which expires April 30, 2004, signed by the mayor. And that will lie over. Public forum, Pat. Renee Susan. Excuse me. Susha. Thank you. Since only one elder person was able to attend the special audit committee meetings investigating the ethics complaint, I felt compelled to speak tonight to share some of my observations with you. As you know, this council passed a resolution last May stating that the city should enter into a contract with Corals and Brady not to exceed $120,000. The special audit committee concluded that the $120,000 amount was not a firm cap. They are trying to say it was the amount left over from a previous resolution that you passed to appropriate funds for professional services relating to the project, such as the design of the building, the pedestrian bridge, previous work that the DNR had completed, and $50,000 for legal fees. It is my opinion that there is some fuzzy math going on here. I suggest that someone recalculate these numbers. Now, I'm not an accountant or a lawyer, but my addition and subtractions leaves the amount left over from the previous resolution much higher than the $120,000. But the more important part of the May resolution is about the contract. The question that the special audit committee and the district attorney never addressed is, where is the signed contract? Without a signed contract, there is a problem here. How do you expect the finance director to pay the bill? According to the state statute, no contract is valid until it is countersigned by the finance director. We cannot countersign the contract until the mayor signs it first. Again, it is my opinion, but it appears that the finance director is being set up to be the scapegoat for this entire situation. My second observation has to do with this investigative committee trying to tie financial gain to the situation. The audit committee didn't have the depth of knowledge necessary to bark up this tree, but since they brought it up, there is a lingering half of the $1 million in room tax out there that is unaccounted for in 2005. And until the missing money is accounted for, you cannot rule out personal gain. I wonder why the special audit committee wouldn't let the proxy for one of the people who signed the complaint speak. The chairman would not even allow his written statement to be read out loud for the record. Was the voice of this person squelched because he is one of the former city attorneys and he might have the knowledge and proof that what happened here was both unethical and illegal? It was generous, however, for the committee to allow the other person who signed the letter to speak. During the questioning of this person, someone's hidden agenda was definitely exposed. This was supposed to be an investigation into the misconduct of some city officials. But the first three questions that the chairman asked Marge Segali were, who are the members of the Sheboygan citizen action group? Are there any aldermen in your group? And how many members are in your group? The last two questions that she was asked were, who are the officers of your group and who runs your meetings? These questions have nothing to do with the ethics complaint. But since the audit committee and I'm sure some people in this room are so curious about this action group, why don't you come to the next meeting? The meetings are open to the public. Everyone is welcome, including the aldermen. The next meeting will be Wednesday, February 18th at 7 o'clock. The address is 1427 North Tenth Street. We meet in the lower level of the old St. Nicholas Hospital building. You're all welcome to come. Looking into the future, I hope to see things handled better. After looking at how Blue Harbor was pushed through, I hope aldermen ask more clarifying questions and are brave enough to amend resolutions if necessary to make them crystal clear. For example, tonight you're going to approve a $3.1 million water reservoir. To my knowledge, it has nothing to do with the installation of a new water intake pipe. Hypothetically speaking, if there's an investigation down the road into the installation of a $6 million water pipe, will there be an investigative committee that concludes that your innocent actions tonight, authorizing the new holding tanks, actually improve the installation of the new water intake pipe? We'll have Joe Trubelitz here when we get to that document. I believe he's here. He can clarify that. It has nothing to do with the water pipe. Okay. Aldermen Warner. Now thank you, Your Honor, on the consent agenda. I move that all our O's be accepted and placed on file. All our C's be accepted and adopted in all resolutions. Substitute resolutions and ordinances be passed. Moved and seconded. All our O's be accepted and filed. All our C's be accepted and adopted. Resolutions and substitute ordinance be put upon their passage. Under discussion. Aldermen. Thank you, Your Honor. Regarding document 2211. Yes. I did a separate vote on that, but I would just like an explanation regarding the benefits to the city and to the project of passing such a rule. Okay. Thank you. Open the floor. Tom. Tom's here for speaking on that. Could I have a motion to open the floor, please? To move. Tom Schaefer. Tom's either. I'm sorry. Who's making the motion? Okay. And the second. Who's second? Okay. All in favor? All in favor. All in favor. All in favor. All in favor. Thank you. I'm Tom Schaefer, Director of Development for the Great Lakes Companies. If you could ask any questions you want to answer, and I'll answer them for you. Just a clarification of changing the agreement, what's the benefits both to the project, why is this change necessary, and the benefit to the city? By way of background, when we were negotiating the development agreement months ago with the city, our plan for developing the Blue Harbor condominiums was to be able to begin sales on those very shortly after the resort started construction, and we anticipated the sales process would take quite a while, and under that scenario, we did some pro forma work and concluded well, boy, we probably won't ever have more than half the condominiums, plus or minus, under construction at any given time, and what happened is through some delays in our paperwork, delays in legal work, we actually weren't able to start marketing the condominiums until, I believe it was October, rather than June or July. So the bad news was we got a late start. With the set of this body here, we were able to get our foundations in before the winter really got hard, and that was very helpful. The good news has been that the pace of sales has gone much better than we actually anticipated, and it has led to a point where for us to be able to deliver the units during the course of the summer, they'll actually all be under construction at the same time. So we'll actually have more capital being invested in the property any one given time that we originally anticipated. What we're looking at right now is if we're able to keep moving on the clip that we're moving on right now, we anticipate having the first buildings delivered probably right around the 1st of June, the last units in the middle of July. If we were forced to stay within the somewhat arbitrary cap that was originally put in place, a number of the units wouldn't be completed until the summer has been passed and the PGA has been passed, and clearly the resort, investors in the resort, purchasers of the units would like to be able to capture some of that summer income. So that's really why we're here asking for a modification. Tom, where are you at with the sale? Do you have a number tonight with you? You know, I was not able to track down Dave Shavly Director of Sales today, but I got an email from him as of Friday. We had 73 deposits down for 64 units. Those were, you know, refundable deposits, and I believe 39 non-refundable, 7% real estate sales contracts executed with deposits. So the best of my knowledge, the community I got from Dave's were passed halfway, and they're coming in pretty quickly. We've had a lot of interest. Good to hear. Any? Call them in person. Thank you, Your Honor. May I address the question? Yes. Just a question, and it's a very simple question. And I'm not really into the subordination and so forth. Is there any risk to the city at all by increasing the subordination amount? You know, I'm kind of the best to kind of answer that and tell you the truth. I know that, you know, if there's more money subordinated, then that has to have an element of risk to it, I would think. But you also have more capital being invested and more. So I don't know that I can really answer that. Steve may even have a better idea than I do. Well, whereas that's really the two sides of the coin, you know, there is what you're agreeing to when you subordinate is you're saying you'll step behind the rights of the first mortgage lender in the event that there is a default in the event that the first mortgage lender doesn't get paid, the money is loaning out. Here, it's not a matter of whether or not to grant us a subordination. It's whether to increase the existing level, which is $10,500,000 to roughly $16 million. So it's a matter of degree, I guess. You're farther behind if there's a default. As Tom mentions the good news, the flip side of that is that it's an indication that a lender is willing to lend $16 million for the condominium portion of the project. And you're going to get the condominium built faster and therefore on the tax rolls sooner than if the lender wasn't able to lend the full 10.5 million or $16 million up front. And I don't believe that the lender M&I Bank will close the second part of the loan unless we agree to subordinate to that full amount of their lending. We have closed on the first phase the first 32 units and their loan was $8.6 million, so we're subordinate to that amount right now. However, they didn't close and they didn't lend the money until there were commitment from Great Lakes to have 24 hard sales for the bank to loan Great Lakes enough to build 32 units. And they're going to do the same thing on the second phase. They would only lend based on, again, having 24 sales for 32 units, the final 32. So that's the risk that you're farther behind, I guess, the M&I's loan, but on the plus side you get the development faster, you get the tax base faster, you get the project done, totally done. It's amazing to me that Great Lakes has been able to sell that many condominium units for the prices that they're asking in the time that they have done. I think one positive too from a collateral standpoint is that the cost of developing the project is somewhat front-end loaded because you have infrastructure, you have to bring in engineering costs, fill streets, architecture fees. So actually the first half of the units cost less than the second half of the units. So on terms of a subordination per unit, I believe that the city would have less risk exposure by having more units built, I believe. That's why I think that the condominiums are 16 separate buildings as opposed to the hotel that's one building that were with the condominiums as far as you're not likely to have a mass catastrophe with all 16 units that are segregated or problems with all 16, like you would with one large hotel or something like that. So the chance of there being some deficiency in property value or something like that on the whole condominium project would be at least theoretically less likely to happen. The value would still be there if something happened to one or two of them or there was a default as to one or two of them or they didn't sell or something like that. I don't know, I guess that's about all the comments I have unless there's other questions. All the more I appreciate your follow-up questions. The risk really is though between now in the construction phase and when they're sold. When they're sold, the risk is then on the owner of the condo's shoulders, is that correct? So really we're expanding our risk up into the point that they're sold to the buyer. And as Mr. Sather has indicated, the sales are there. Now they've got non-refundable deposits. Does that mean that somebody couldn't walk away? No, somebody buyer could walk away. I guess it's encouraging to hear that they've got in effect a waiting list of more people that are interested in the units than there are actual units so that if some people for whatever reason chose to forfeit their refundable deposit and not buy that there may be other people there waiting in the wings. So the likelihood of a lot of unsold units is probably pretty slim. Hold on one more. I guess thank you Tom for your explanation and Steve for yours. I just think it's a great sign that the condominium project and the Blue Harbor Resort itself is going according to plan and things are working off very well there. I think it certainly indicates that there's interest in the entire project out there and I'm glad to see things going well so hopefully we keep moving along. Just a more personal matter for us is we've been trying to deliver as many of our promises as we can. We're trying very hard to make this project work as best we can. Just on a personal matter it's important for us to get these delivered as quick as we can and get them up and get them generated for the city and for the resort and for our investors and just to show that positive momentum that there's a lot of interest in this project that's someplace worth coming. It's a little more less pecuniary but it matters to us. All of them any? Question? Thank you, Your Honor. Question and a comment. How much is the non-refundable deposit? They would be averaging over $20,000. And the question then is that I called and inquired to get some information about the project and the condos as investment vehicles and there were 57 spoken for about 10 days ago. The number is now 73. That's my understanding. 10 days that's the difference. Does no other discussion? Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Pat, would you call the roll? This will be for the whole consent agenda. Byrne? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Manny? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rinfeige? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderveel? Aye. Wongerman? Aye. Warner? Aye. Weninger? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Hfظ to be referred and Oliver Mauman, he would like to make a correction. Yes sir, what is your honour? 23, 24 and 25. I would all just like to have referred the public works instead of public protection and safety please. Don't need them. That's fine. Okay. 23. 2226, we'll hold for 2234. Oliver and Weninger. Thank you and I would like to take 2226 Okay. Hang on a minute. Okay. Hang on a minute until we get to 34 and then we'll take them together. Okay? Okay? So, I'll get back to you. Hang on a minute. 22-27 through 33 to be referred. Alderman Bowman. One more time, please. Document number 22-28, I'd also like to have referred to public works instead of public protection and safety and 22-31 to public works instead of public protection and safety. Alderman Mooney. Thank you, Your Honor. Why is 22-29 going to public works? Isn't that a plan commission type document? I believe, why is it going to public works? Why is it going to public works? He has been dealing with the encroachment on that and public works been working with him on that, Betty. Okay, thanks. Setbacks and stuff. All right. Okay. Okay. Now we got that clear. Now we'll go to Ingrid. 22-34 along with 22-26, authorizing into a contract for the 2004 Bond Council Services. Alderman Wininger. I make a motion suspension of the rules. We have suspension of the rules. Is there any objections? Hearing none, would you proceed, please? I make a motion to file the RO 22-26 and pass the resolution 22-34. I move to second to accept and file the RO 22-26 and pass the resolution 22-34 under discussion. Hearing none, Alderman Rainflash. Just a quick question. Who was providing the Bond Council Services last year? Is it the same term? It was a new thing. It had been fully enlarged over several years. Last year it was Quarles as part of the Boo Harbour project. And Rich got some quotes from both firms. And maybe he can address this, but the Quarles was lower, almost half as far as their charge. I know that wasn't the recommendation of the finance director would have preferred, I guess, to stay with full and larger, but the dollar amount spoke in favor of Quarles. Just another discussion. Would you call the roll please? Boonee. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Manny. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rainflash. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Berg. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried. 2235 by Alderman Graf, authorizer retaining outside legal council to represent the city in a matter of Gary Van Ass versus BR Associates. Alderman Winninger. I make a motion suspension of the rules. We have a request for suspension of the rules. Is there any objections? Hearing none, would you proceed? The resolution be put upon its passage. Moved to the second resolution be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Doyle. Aye. Manny. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rainflash. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Wenninger. Aye. Warrant to the resolution be put upon its passage. Moved to the second resolution be put upon its passage. Under discussion. There was discussion earlier on that. Joel. You want to explain that? Three million dollars for the water system. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. Revenue. water system, Revin O'Donne, please. Where did she ever get that idea? Thank you, I'm Joe Trubla, the Water Utility Superintendent. The project at hand has been in planning for about two years. And what we're actually adding is a coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation facility we affectionately refer to as CFS. And this is a facility similar to treatment process we already have at the plant. We simply need to add more structure. The structure we're currently using was constructed in 1929, in 1939, and some in 1959. This project is being funded by a safe drinking water loan that the bonds are underlaying the loan from the state. And council did approve, they authorized the Water Utility to accept the loan about nine months ago. And the matter at hand now is the final detailed bond resolution. This project has nothing to do with intake icing or any of that matter whatsoever. And Joe, this is part of planning that year, planning in stages to upgrade the system over the next five years or so? Yes, in order to qualify for funding, this project was evaluated by the DNR, and it ranked number three out of 26 for funding this year. The DNR does a priority scoring based on the effect on water quality and the need for the project. Again, it has nothing to do with the freezing of the pipes, you said. Nothing to do with freezing up intake. Thank you. Any other questions? Call the roll, please. Many. Moody. Perez. Rinfeige. Van Akron. Vanderweel. Wongamon. Warner. Weniger. Baumann. Berg. Bonet. Doyle. Thirteen eyes. Motion carried. 2237 will lie over. 2238 through 40 to be referred. 2120, White City Plan Commission, recommending amending the zoning of property at 1221 Sinclair Avenue, Alderman, Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. Move to second. We accept and file the ROA in order to be put upon this passage. Under discussion. First, you are from the convergent residential to rewild the city of San Francisco. This property has been purchased by the need for a rehabilitation center from White. And the property is currently vacant and in full condition. The rehabilitation center expects to be able to determine if the parking lot for its employees in the office will be directed to the rest of it. This will help with some of the parking issues in the neighborhood and wealth. And if someone is aware, if there were someone who had to travel several times to get that parking, they could come and call the protection station. So they don't have to go to the street. This will help with some of the problems. We have all the information that's needed around the community, all of them were informed of the property, of the property, so they don't have to call the county. If you do not have anyone, come and sign up for me to be on the right foot, don't call the county. OK. Under another discussion, would you call the roll, please? Moody. Perez. Brinflage. Van Ancron. Vanderwill. Wongerman. Warner. Woninger. Bauman. Berg. Boney. Doyle. Manny. Thirteen Eyes. Motion carried. Resolution by Alderman Wininger. Manny Perez accepting addendum to the 2003-2004 contract with high AFF local 483 firefighters. Wininger. Wininger. Thank you, Your Honor. Make a motion to resolution. We put up on its passage. Moved in second resolution. We put up on its passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Perez. Brinflage. Van Ancron. Vanderwill. Wongerman. Warner. Wininger. Bauman. Berg. Boney. Doyle. Manny. Moody. Thirteen Eyes. Motion carried. Resolution, 2129. Resolution by Alderman Groff, Stefan, Doyle, and Boney authorizing transfer of funds for pledge contributions to the Meet Public Library Foundation for the third floor expansion project. Alderman Wininger. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to resolution. We put up on its passage. You want to take the next one too, Wininger? And take 2130. Yes. Resolution 253-03-04. Second. Okay. Is there any discussion on 2129 or 2130? Hearing none, would you call the roll? Brinflage. Van Ancron. Vanderwill. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wininger. Wongerman. Warner. Wininger. Bowman. Burr. Boney. Doyle. Manny. Moody. Perez. 13 ayes. Motion carried. 2135. General Ordinance by Alderman Wininger, Manny, and Perez amending ordinance which adopted the revised City of Sheboygan Compensation Program for non-represented employees so as to correct the amount of contribution for 2004. Alderman Wininger. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to general ordinance. We put up on its passage. Move to the second ordinance. We put up on its passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Van Ancron. Vanderwill. Wongerman. Warner. Wininger. Bowman. Burr. Boney. Doyle. Manny. Hi. Moody. Hi. Perez. Hi. Rinfeisch. Hi. 13 ayes. Motion carried. 2241 will lie over. 2242 will go to finance. 2243, Public Protection and Safety. 2244 will lay over. Steve. 2245 is communication from Kurt Jaeger. Relative to the proposed year-round opposite parking. Public works? Public Works. 2246 is a communication from Gary Messick relative to the proposed year-round opposite parking. Public Works. 2247 is a communication from Tom Ross relative to the proposed year-round opposite parking. Public Works. 2248 is a communication from Betty McGinnis relative to her observations of problems between various older persons. Harassment committee. Probably, I think so. Harassment committee. It was requested. Harassment committee. That's a special harassment committee. Probably, Tom. Okay. Sorry about that. That's a special harassment committee. The investigative then will come back to go to ethics board. Yes. I don't remember. Okay. 2249 is a communication from Joe Sheehan and Al Calabriza of the Sporganary School District relative to the police liaison program. It goes public protection and safety. 2250 is a communication from Steve Jacobson, president of the Festival of Trees relative to the use of the Sporgan Armory. Public Works. 2251 is a communication from Midwest Communications, Inc. requesting permission to hold their return to the beach for the July volleyball tournament. Public Works. 2252 is a resolution authorizing entering into a contract change order for providing and placing clay soils as directed on areas of the South Pier District and providing and placing six inches of topsoil in areas of the South Pier District bid number 2265. And that wasn't the public works. Alderman Warner, hang on a minute. Alderman Warner, you had your light on. Yeah, I just want to remind everybody on the council that there is a committee. The whole meeting is coming Wednesday, February 18th at 6 p.m. in the council chambers. And it's going to be a training session on the city of Sheboygan's Ethics Code. The instructor will be Carl Beesing, Sheboygan County Corporation Council. And move it in second to adjourn. One question just to clarify that. Mike Correction, the Rassmann committee. You would rather Ethics Committee because I was requested. Okay, then it'll go to Ethics Committee just to make sure it was requested to go to the other one, but that's fine. Ethics Committee Ethics Board, excuse me. Ethics Board. Okay. All in favor? Opposed?