 Pat, would you call the roll, please? Bowman? Here. Berg? Here. Bonet? Here. Doyle? Here. Graf? Here. Manny? Here. Montemayor? Here. Moody? Here. Perez? Here. Ruinfleisch? Here. Stefan? Here. Van Ackeren? Here. Vanderweal? Here. Longerman? Here. Warner? Here. Weninger? Here. Sixteen present? Quarms present. Alderman Graf? Here and I would move the minutes of the previous council meeting from August 18th and the special council meeting from August 25th. The approved is entered in the record. Let's move the second at the meeting. Minutes from the regular council meeting, special council meeting be approved. Under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Pledge allegiance. Alderman Warner, would you lead us please this evening? 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. Public forum can. Ben Coonert? Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you tonight. It seems like deja vu. I mean, it repeats every year. We're back to a budget crisis again. This year, it's a little bit different since with the state's fiscal problems, the city is looking at a million dollars off the top of their budget even before they start. Thanks to Doyle's hard work in balancing our state budget, considering he started with a budget with a $3.2 billion deficit. He slash what he could gave the republicans a budget with a $500 million deficit. Republicans supposedly said they made the cuts they could. They ended up with a budget with a bigger deficit of $1.1 billion deficit. Thanks to Governor Doyle's and his fiscal responsibility and his veto pen, finally in probably over 10 years, the state finally not only has a balanced budget, a truly balanced budget, but a budget that has a $200 billion surplus. But now, thanks to Governor Doyle, the ball is in your court. He gave you the access to raise the property tax if we need to. And I say if, as in a big if, as in there's a lot of taxpayers that say, we hope you don't need to because we can't afford to. Before the city starts adding on all these fees, which is nothing but a tax, and be honest with you with a lot of the fees and suggestions I've been seeing, we're looking at double digit tax increase. And that's something I don't think the taxpayers and my membership could afford to let alone tolerate. So before we actually look at tax rate increase and before we start looking at fees, I think we have to take every city budget, every department and put it on a Microsoft and see how we can work wiser, work better. And share things. I attended a meeting the other day and it was a piece of equipment, a $50,000 piece of equipment. It seemed like a piece of equipment that could be shared with other departments. And I was asked, well, does another department have that or could it share? And I got a lot of body language out of the answer. They said no, by the way, it sounded like they never really checked. Which kind of says something to me that maybe there's a lot of things in these department budgets that are never really checked. Granted, there's loopholes and some departments have stipulations. This fund has to be spent on that. But you know, if there's a will, there's a way to overcome every one of those stipulations. So I request, and I think a lot of taxpayers out there request, and send a ball to you and say, hey, it's your responsibility. Go through these budgets with a fine tooth comb. And find what can be shared. And you know what? If we have equipment and personnel that's underutilized, hey, maybe that's something we can share with other communities that are facing the same problems. Over the next few days, when you're looking at the budgets, I notice one of the biggest things is health insurance. I ask you, I beg you, please come on the wagon and say, hey, something's gotta be done. Either we have to take this under state or federal control. But there's gotta be something done to stop this double digit increases in our health insurance and our health costs. I'm sorry, when you see these same businesses that say, we have to have these increases to stay alive. And you see their CEOs are making billions in profits and in wages. You almost wonder, they're making money off of our health. So in closing, I ask you, and I beg you, please do what we can. It could be weird things. It could be something unthinkable. But there's gotta be ways that we can cut our tax dollars before we start doing double digit increases in our taxes. Granted, I'd rather spend a little more money in our taxes to ensure that our streets are plowed, our fire department is well-staffed, well-equipped. And you don't have to wonder if you're on a waiting list for when you call a police department. But we also have to be fiscally responsible and say, hey, to our taxpayers, we're doing what we can. Please help us. Thank you. Thank you. I just want, just so that the audience knows that it is basically the duty and responsibility of every alderman to review all the budgets once we get the budget book and look at any ways to reduce expenditures or to create income. And we've been doing that ever since the city has been here. This year, we might have to look at it with a little sharper pencil and maybe a magnifying glass in some cases. But I'm sure it will be done by the majority of council members up here. Thank you. That's it? That's it? Okay. All of them, go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor. I would move that the Consent Agenda, items 11-1 to 11-22, that all ROs be accepted in the file, that all ROCs be accepted and adopted. We passed the resolutions and the two general ordinances. It's moved and seconded all ROs be accepted in the file. All ROCs accept and adopted resolutions and ordinances. We put upon their passage under discussion. Alderman Prez. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to pull forward 11-22 for an explanation and a separate vote, please. 11-22. Seller and grievance done. I don't know what we're doing here is removing one person out of four. And the savings is $26,000 in wages at $10,000 in free benefits. So having four there will be ending up with three at the right moment. I'm sorry I was watching him. I didn't know he was coming to see me or what. It was like with benefits, over $36,000 savings. It's three employees plus myself. And my next question would be, and I recall as I know I was absent from that particular meeting, but I'm also asking for the public benefit and the rest of the Alderman, I believe there's an increase in salary for those people? We will be absorbing one job of 40 hours between the other three girls and myself. And I think they should be compensated because their duties will be greatly increased. And if we want to continue with the services we have. And I realize, Pat, that you have an excellent, very competent staff, very dedicated, it's just that I'm not hearing, they can't do the work I'm hearing will do it if you give us a raise. Their job descriptions right now do not require them to go over and above what the job description says. It's hard to put. They have a way of finding newer, better, faster ways of doing things. And I had to convince them that we could do it with three people instead of four. They weren't sure of this. And I said, I think we can because we have the know-how to do it. This is an incentive for them to continue that. Our office duties have increased immensely. And if they wouldn't have agreed to this, I would have to hire another person to replace them. I understand that. I guess I just wanted to make it clear that there's going to be a lot of other employees in other departments, particularly in public works that are going to be absorbing a lot of our duties without additional salary and benefits. And during good times, I'd be thrilled because your staff obviously deserves it, but these are not good times. These are bad times and I will have to vote against it. Any other discussion on that one? John, did you have anything else to say? Alderman, your light was blinking. Is this for this one? Okay, I'll get you there. Alderman Reinflush. I guess some other clarification. Not specific to your office, Pat, but as we asked the other departments to also reorganize and absorb other duties, are these class grade adjustments also happening as well or are they taking on without the class grade adjustments? I haven't been part of that in the finance committee and I'm just looking for clarification to see what direction this council as a whole is going towards other departments as well. Ed Zurich or Ed? I didn't hear the question exactly, but are you saying that we're making class grade adjustments in these positions or what? Right, is that something as we're looking at reorganizing all the departments to find savings, are we doing class grade adjustments up to increase salary or what is the standard that we're looking at setting? Well, that's all part of the bargaining agreements that each position has a class grade, as you know. In this particular instance, it's a lot clearer than most because it's a very small department where if you have 120 people, like we have in DPW, we have eight openings there, their job descriptions are probably a little more open than you would typically see, but in a small department like this where you're reducing one complete head count and passing all the work on to other people, it's a clearer situation, so we are changing the grades and they will be assuming duties that they don't currently have. Do you have a question for Ed Alderman-Creston? Yes, Your Honor, thank you. Did that happen with the library? I know the library had to do a lot of restructuring to get people additional duties where those funds shifted to those people that have absorbed additional duties? Well, number one, the library is not part of our bargaining group. They're non-bargaining individuals and basically sharing what they have to answer. I think it was basically reduction hours, but I really can't say for certain. To follow a question on my early question, so even though this department is smaller and it's more obvious here, to some degree in other departments, there are salary increases to absorb some of the lost labor done, but overall savings results is what you're saying. Correct, okay. I'd like to say one more thing. When I took over this position, I had five employees and now I'll be going down to three, so that's how much I have decreased the expenses in personnel in my office and still end up doing more work and is laying more and more on their shoulders and I just feel very strongly that they should be compensated. Okay, Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you, Your Honor. I had talked to Pat today and we had talked about what the girls down there go through and they sacrifice a lot and they deserve a raise. And I would like to give it to them, but because as a symbolic gesture, I just took a 2% cut, I won't support this. Thank you. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. Just a question, what percentage increase in salary are we talking about here? I didn't figure out my percentage. It goes by the grades on the union scale. So if they went from, there's only two of them that are union personnel. One went from grade eight to grade nine. One went, actually she's going from grade three to grade six because it's not a change in the grade of her position. She's being promoted to a different position, which is three grades higher than what she is at right now. And the one that is non-union is going one step higher. It was a 05B going to an 06, whatever that means. I have no idea what the difference in salary is. It's, one of them is a difference of $54 a payday. One is $45 a payday. And the one with the big jump is $116 a payday. But then again, it's from one job position to another job title. That's why it's a bigger jump. Alderman Grof. Thank you. This all becomes effective, including the increases January one. January five. January five, okay, of 2004. Yes. Now in addition to that, are all these people eligible for, do they have a contract ready for 2004? Two, well I guess the union does. They have a contract whether they get this or not. They're going to. But I mean, what raises included in that for? I don't deal with that. I have no idea. Well, for number one, for the non-reposition, there is no budget or I shouldn't say planned increase. Right. 404 at this point in time. But the other two will be getting 1.75 in January. And then another 1.75 in July of 04. And then in addition, if this would pass, in addition to that, they'd get whatever this increase would be. So that 1.75 would be on the new range or the new salary. Great, correct. Correct. Okay. And then one other question that I had is the person that's, there's going to be a person retiring, correct. And that's also effective January five. January two. January two, okay. And I had one more question, but I forgot what it was. Somebody else has a question. I think Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. I guess I'm wondering in these positions, there was some talk in labor management meeting we had on, I believe that was the 14th, 14th or 21st, whatever it was, of August, about taking a 0% increase for employees. That was one union idea that came up. And another one was that people would hold off on a 1.75% increase for the year or half of their increase. And I guess, Ed, my question would be, would that affect these two individuals also if we did do a wage freeze across next year? For my understanding in discussion, this is among the unions was each group has different proposals in terms of what we're going to do in 04. The understanding I had was that they were going to forego the 1.75 for January. And their recommendation was to put that increase, in effect, the end of 04. But again, there's a number of different proposals floating around at this point in time, but I'm sure it's subject to change. I guess, Your Honor, then they would be subject then, Ed, to the same thing that any other decision was made as this union represented employees. Whatever the unions decided on and the council agreed to, these two employees would be subject to the same. That's correct. They're in the bargaining unit. I guess when I look at it, if you're getting a promotion, which is what these are, you typically get a raise. And yes, sometimes you can get a double raise when you're getting a promotion. I think it's unrealistic to think that you're going to promote somebody inoculum or raise, assuming extra duties. Sometimes you do that for a period of time before you actually get a raise. It happens in private industry all the time. And I don't have a real problem with this. So, this is my thoughts. Thank you. I might add that this group here, too, because it's a bargaining unit, there is a change in our job description. I think it's Pat pointed out that the duties that are being added on to them, they don't necessarily have to do it. It's subject to bargaining. And they have to be voluntarily accept additional duties and additional work. And it's a natural step. So they haven't bargained a better program for them themselves, they're simply following with the contract states that any event these duties would be added on, they would fall within that grade. Yeah, and if I'm going to go off, do you have a question? That was my third question. In your job description or position description, you don't have the phrase it says, and other duties as assigned? Well, we do, but it's still subject to bargaining. I mean, that's kind of a catch-all phrase. But when you get to specific duties, and Pat might want to mention that, too. It is a catch-all phrase, but I would venture to say that if you added some pretty strenuous or regarding more knowledge or skills that you accept them excited to bargain. And duties and responsibilities of the most, I'll get the title, like the licensing clerk and the election clerk, their specific duties are subject to bargaining. Additional duties besides their jobs. Elections clerk doesn't just do elections clerk. She does the council synopsis. She runs all your documents for you. She does all claims in the office. What I'm saying is just because they have a title doesn't mean that's the only thing they do. They come all the time. She's behind you. Well, I'm a chief now in management, but I did spend a lot of time in the union. I guess maybe a little education here will help everybody make a decision. Basically, Wisconsin labor law allows for a negotiation of the impact of a change. In answering your question, I'll turn it around. If there was one new type of a situation that was brought to that individual to take care of something and maybe it took 20 minutes of her time that week, that could be maybe siphoned in and done with that job that's due to duty. But when you eliminated a position and that job is going to be spread amongst two or three employees, it's gone beyond the reasonable scope of what an arbitrator is going to rule and saying what's fair and reasonable. When you go through reorganization and you downsize, it is very common to negotiate the impact that it causes on the other employees. This union employee, all these union employees had the right to negotiate that. If the city did not go negotiate them, they would file agreements and arbitrator would come in here and rule. And in the case of you getting rid of one employee and not sharing a little that money to reorganize, you would lose the case, in my opinion. So it is already Wisconsin law. You must negotiate the impact of changing working conditions and I'll give you an exception. An exception, I'll give you an example. About eight years ago, the Subwayian firefighters decided to go into EMS and first respond, a duty that they had not been doing before, even though EMS is in the scope and realm of firefighting. The firefighters came in and negotiated with the employer saying what do we want to do? So we don't want to raise costs to the city. We will take an EMS day off, in other words, one day off a year in lieu of doing the additional duties of first responding. That was a negotiated impact of taking on that additional responsibility. That's law. The unions are there to protect their positions on that stuff. And I guess they are discussing, I think, this week what offer they're going to come forth to offer the city to try and help the situation for 2004. Any questions? Alderman Perez, you have a question? Actually, just a final statement from the owner. Thank you. Again, I wasn't trying to get labor unions involved. I wasn't trying to say Pat's staff is not doing a great job. They obviously are. Pat does a huge, huge job for us. All I was saying is that there's people that are taking hits out there and assuming additional responsibilities, whether by union contract or not. I don't know what, one of the instances we had the public works for management was having to come up and step up to the plate. They wanted to get paid more. Sheller and grievance told them no. And there's been other instances where that happened. So a voluntary, and I believe Alderman Montemire has already said, a voluntary gesture on people's part, I'm not hearing they can't do the work. I'm hearing I'll do it if you pay me more. That's what bothers me and that's what concerns me. But I'm not against the staff, the city clerk. I think they're doing a wonderful job just that these are tough times and we need everybody to tighten their belt. Alderman Stephens. Well, I guess I just wanted to comment. You know, you're adding, when you figure the numbers, 25% of the workload in the office on these three women, you know. Clearly, even if the cost were to save and you weren't saving any money, just getting rid of a body would save you the healthcare cost that we're all talking about. That's the big thing. Now we're also saving dollars. You know, how are we gonna ask our employees to share with us if we're not willing to give them a little stuff to sacrifice a whole lot? You're talking about giving them an extra 2%, an extra 1.75 in a grade or whatever. And they're doing 25% more work because when you had four and you got three, you don't have to rich kebberhard to do the math there. It's pretty, you know, it's not a small change. It's a pretty significant change in their job duties here. And I think, you know, somebody mentioned, yeah, you know, if you've got 100 people in your department and you work, you know, two or three short for a while, everybody, you know, works through vacations, pulls an extra shift or something. That's one thing. When you ask somebody to date and dial to the 25% more work, either you had a terrible situation at the beginning that they didn't have any work to do, or, you know, certainly you've got to compensate them. And I said, you know, I think this is the kind of thing we want our management people to look at with the labor unions, with and on, you know, even if they're not in the union, look at ways we could save money. We're saving money with this deal. Is somebody getting more money? Sure, the one girl went from three to six. That sounds like a lot. But she's doing the job of the person who's five and is retiring. You know, if she didn't do that, she'd go to the five and we'd hire somebody else at the three. You know, so it's, yeah, you can look at it and say she's getting a bigger raise, but not when you consider that the person at five is the one retiring. So I think this is exactly what we want from our employees and management. Alderman Orner, last call. Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I guess, I agree with what Alderman Steffen said. I support the ordinance change. And I do that because we've asked our departments to reorganize when a person retired. That's what we've asked them to do. And in this case, it's saving the city over $25,000 in wages and benefits. We seem to keep forgetting that simple point with three other employees taking on more work, which is a good thing. But yes, they should be compensated if they're moving up in class grades, besides the fact that that's part of the contract. We as a council and a mayor have asked a lot of department heads and employees to step forward and come forward with ideas. Forward with ideas and cost-saving measures. And I think this is evidence of that. This is a good move, and I thank Pat for doing her work in her department, which we reorganized it. This is what we've been trying to do. Lower the amount of city employees through attrition, save money by not having as many people employed, save health care costs, and still get the job done. If we're asking people to do more work, of course they're gonna have to get paid a little more. I don't think it's an obscene amount they're getting paid as it is. But when you call the city clerk's office and they need something, you want someone to be there. And I don't think Pat could do it all herself, and I think that her department is working very hard at this. And I think if we're gonna move people in class grades, they should get the raises that go with it. Alderman Van Aker. Your Honor, it's $36,000 we're saving, and the cost for a year for these three people is about $6,000. So I would say that's a great savings, and I will keep on doing it that way. Thank you. Pat, Alderman Groth. Thank you. But I think Pat could do it all herself. I know she could, but we'd burn her out. No, she could not, it's going too well. Just for that reason, I will support this. And the other thing is, with this, I don't know if you, if I misheard or what, but my staff, I look at my staff, and they all will go the extra mile when I ask them to, even if I don't give them a raise, which I can't do, but, and I'm wondering, your staff, I know, at least are working at least 105, 110%, and they're still willing to do some of this, and looking at these things, finding cost-saving measures, even if we wouldn't give them a raise. It is true, we have done this over the years. On their own, they have cross-trained in my office. Council Clerk doesn't just do council work or licensing, other ones know basically her job also. Not as in much detail as she does, but they are cross-trained. If someone, I had one sick today and one on vacation today, so I had two girls left, and the phone's ringing, customers are coming, and I didn't have to go and answer the phone once. I didn't have to answer your customer once. They were able to handle it. It's a slow time. Next year's a presidential election. We're going to be swamped. We're going to have three employees. You know, it goes in spurts. It's not the same every day, but they always have gone over and above. They have taken on more things than what their job descriptions already say on their own. But you can't keep on doing it. Okay, with that, I will support it. Thank you. Okay, Pat, would you call the roll please? Berg. Aye. Bonnet. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Graf. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemare. No. Moody. Aye. Perez. No. Vanakren. Aye. Vanakren. Aye. Vanderweel. No. Wangeman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Weninger. Aye. Baumann. Aye. Klohe. Aye. Four noes. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Alderman, Wangeman. Thank you, your honor. We're talking about studying in our library. It's made some pretty good choice. Yeah. And she'd like to give her story as to just exactly what's being done in the library. Chair. Did you want to call this document out? Pardon? Did you want to call this document out from the consent agenda? Yes, 2016, I'm sorry. Item number two. We're not going to have a separate vote. I was remiss. Well, thank you. As was referred to earlier in the evening, the library has experienced a series of reorganizations during my tenure. And I'm sure there have been some before that. And each time we did look at increases and responsibilities to see if a change, an increase, and pay was warranted. And at times we did increase pay or make a promotion because of major changes in work responsibilities. At other times, we didn't because the changes weren't considered to be major. But people are always looking at better ways of doing things and taking on more responsibilities that do not substantively change the nature of their work on a daily basis. Yes, I am here tonight to confirm in person what I shared with you in a report that you had earlier. It was RO 245. And that is that this is the first day for a reduced public service schedule at Meade Library. It's the revised schedule set forth in this Blue Brochure we put at each of your desk last week. We wanted you to have the information as soon as possible. It was a decision made at a special meeting of the Meade Library Board on August 21. And I would like to point out the first words in the explanation section of the brochure. And it says, it is with regret that the Meade Public Library Board has reduced its hours of service to the public. It was a hard decision for the library board to make, but it made it because it knew it was necessary. And I imagine that you as common council members accept the decision with regret as well. There was some discussion about exactly which hours of service should be cut. And there may be some continuing discussion about that as members of the public begin to experience the change in the public service schedule. And certainly the library board is opening to hearing from citizens in that regard, although it has stated that the total number of hours available for service must remain the same in order to realize the savings that are necessary to deal with the shortfall. The board has been supportive. The staff has been great about it all so far. The public seems to understand. And your understanding is very much appreciated. I will say, however, that the library board deems the situation to be temporary. And it does realize that the term temporary can refer to a variety of time periods, especially when we're talking about economic cycles. I don't think it's going to be as long as the life expectancy of an elephant, but temporary can mean different things in different circumstances and different things to different people. Nevertheless, the library board does regard this reduction in public services temporary. And it does take that stance when it's talking with members of the public. Again, members of the public seem to have the feeling that this is a temporary solution to an extraordinary situation and one that we hope will be cured over time. Just as the board anticipates an end to this temporary situation, it anticipates working with the Common Council to restore public services, public library services, when that opportunity arises. Are there any questions about any of the background for the decisions or the direction things went? All of them are mine to bear. Thank you, Sharon, for being here and giving us this information. And the staff at the library, you know, is taking a 7% decrease in salary, just so everybody knows that a 7% decrease in salary. Thank you, Sharon. Thank you. Alderman Graf. Thank you. Sharon, you were at finance, and you also spoke to the Finance Committee regarding this. And at finance, we were unable, and at that time, you were unable to define a temporary time period. And I just want to make sure the public realizes that this temporary time period could be anywhere from a year to 25 years or something like that. We have no way of knowing exactly when the economy is going to turn around or anything, and what the rest of this council may feel is needed with the library. So services that may be reduced or cut or disposed of will have to be looked at at some future date to see if they're worthwhile bringing back, or if there's a need to bring them back. But you're basically rolling things up, combining certain services with other services, or reducing them completely, and using a lot more internet services than you were before. Well, basically what we're doing is reducing the hours of service, the amount of time that the building is open to the public. But because of advances in technology in this brochure, we've also pointed out to members of the public that there are some services that people can use when the library is not open for public access. But of course, it's not the full range of services. So it can mitigate the inaccessibility of the library surface, but it can't make up for it completely. I guess I would say in response to your statement that as some time goes by, meaning a period of years, there should be some sort of actual decision, I would think, taken by the Common Council about the priority for surface restoration. I think there should be some actual discussion and an actual statement made by the Common Council to the community if certain services aren't going to be restored so that members of the public understand that situation. Sharon, hang on. Alderman Doyle, you have a question? Well, this isn't a question. This is just a comment. I'm not a lifelong Cheboyganite. I came to Cheboygan in 1983. And I remember people in Cheboygan proudly telling me that this was the library in the state. And I remember being appointed to a state commission and having this gentleman from Eau Claire who was on the state library board come and talk to me and talk about how Cheboygan was the library in the state of Wisconsin. And I guess I just considered a tragedy that the community has said, the library no longer is our priority, and we're going to become just another ordinary library in Wisconsin. In fact, a library that if you go down there, it may not even be open. Thank you, Sharon. Thank you. OK, before us, we have everything 11-1 through 11-21. Alderman Warner? I thank you, Your Honor. I just wanted to speak on document 11-19. 11-19? Yes. It's an R-C by finance. And I think that for all the discussions we've had here this evening, I'd like to compliment Alderman Groff and the entire committee on finance and Rich Gebart for saving the taxpayers in this instance, $19,680. This is one of the creative ways that we look at cutting the cost for the city and to the taxpayers. Yeah, we're raising our deductible for the insurance policy, but in so doing, we would have to have some pretty bad things happen to get up to $20,000. So I think this is the kind of stuff we're looking for. $20,000 is a lot of money to save. Thank you. Alderman Rainfler? I'd just like to throw my two cents worth and say congratulations. That's more and more of those tough decisions that we have to make. And I'm glad to see the finance take that step. So congratulations. OK. If we have another discussion, what do you call the role, please? Boney, Doyle, Groff, Manny, Montemayor, Moody, Perez, Rinflaish, Steffen, Ben Akron, Vanderheal, Wangerman, Warner, Winniger, Vollman, Ferd, 16 Ayes. Motion carried. 1123 through 26 to be referred. 1127 through 38 to be referred. 1139 through 42 will lie over. 1143 through 46 to be referred. 1147 will lie over. 1148 by Public Protection and Safety, recommending denying beverage operator license 5112 as an applicant failed to appear before the committee is requested. Alderman Doyle? Thank you, Your Honor. I move that we accept and adopt the report of committee. I guess Ms. Dan Sluis, now present tonight. She hasn't, Your Honor. OK. We have motion before us. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would you call the role, please? Doyle, Groff, Manny, Montemayor, Moody, Perez, Rinflaish, Steffen, Ben Akron, Vanderheal, Wangerman, Warner, Winniger, Vollman, Ferd, Boney, 16 Ayes. Motion carried. 1149 through 52 to be referred. 1150, excuse me, Alderman Groff? Just on that referral, these are referrals from strategic fiscal planning following the budget memorandum that was distributed to all the Alderman and they voted on as to what they wanted done. And in there it said that strategic fiscal planning should make some suggestions, return them to the various committees that were in charge of these things and get input from them and then make a recommendation to counsel. So this is the first step that these four documents are taking right now, going to various standing committees to be looked at and reviewed so that more suggestions may come up and recommendations from the various committees. And if possible, we'd like these back as quickly as you possibly can because our next strategic fiscal planning meeting is, I believe, tentatively scheduled for September 11th. And if there's any way you can get input back to us by then, we would greatly appreciate it. Otherwise, we'll be having probably weekly meetings to get this information back. Thank you. 1153, we will have a special council meeting on that document. And that will be coming up. Tom, you said you needed a few weeks to. OK. So we will have a special council meeting. It will be advertised. It will be up here. You'll be notified through the press and on the radio for that special meeting. Oliver Groff. Thank you. I'm just wondering, has the chamber been contacted? Because I know when Dee Olson was here last week, she expressed some concerns about the fee and so forth. And she wanted to make sure that everybody and the chamber of business leaders in the chamber had time to conduct some meetings and so forth on this fee. And I'm just wondering if there is any special meetings planned with the chamber or with other business leaders that may be coming up before this council meeting? Tom is working with the chamber as we speak on setting up meetings. Alderman Perez. Thank you. I have a question. Is there any tentative kind of date that I can meet? Let's look at the 29th. Is that a Monday? Yes, because I have to put something in the minutes. We'll put the 29th. And then we can always change it. Thank you. 1154, that will go to strategic. It was asked to send back to strategic. So that will be sent back to strategic. And it will come back to council for next meeting. 1155 and 56, why over? 1039, resolution by Alderman Graf. Winninger, Stephanobone, transferring appropriations into 2003 budget. Alderman Graf. John, I would move that resolution be put upon his passage. Move to the second resolution be put upon his passage under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Graf. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Stephan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Wenninger. Aye. Bauman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Buone. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Sixteen. Aye. Motion carried. 1010, hold for 1159, 1023, General Ordinance by Alderman Reinflesh. Mending the municipal code relating to building and building regulations electrical. Alderman Reinflesh. It's upon its passage. Second. Moving to second ordinance be put upon its passage. Under discussion. We do have Mark Summer, the secretary of the board of electrical contractors here to discuss the changes proposed. Thank you gentlemen for allowing me to speak this evening. Basically there's a proposal of five different ordinance changes to our existing code. And basically I can just run down them really quickly for you. The first section one, the change is basically add repairs. Basically everything else behind where it says repairs and or installations existing on the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived may be required to be brought into compliance with this article, current state electrical code by the city and within the time period determined by the city. Basically it's pretty much a carbon copy of what the state has. And what the state did in the last code cycle, they've separated repairs from existing installations and basically have the same language. So to clarify ours, we just added repairs to what we had in front of installations existing. And we also clarified that they may be brought up at any time deemed by the city to the current electrical code. A lot of times when you make occupancy inspections, you're going around and you're always trying to sort of estimate what date it was installed because it only has to comply with the code that date. Once a while we may be off three, four years and that sort of covers our tail a little bit for liability. And also if there should be some major hazard, you are permitted to make them bring it up to the present code. Like if they have an old pendant light that's freight or something that can no longer put a pendant light in, like in a closet, they have to put it in closed light, which is just a safety thing. And that's really what that one is. Section number two is basically re-inspection fees. It says section 26277 of the municipal code entitled re-inspection fees is served by repeal and recreated as followed. Presently we only have a $10 re-inspection fee. It's got to be duly served in the notice which basically is you're writing a letter and everything to get the $10, it doesn't really pay. So what we wanted to do is up it to $40, also have a no show fee. Once while we go out make an inspection, the contractor or the homeowner for whatever reason isn't there to make an inspection. So then you basically go do something else, but then you're taking another slot away from there. And now with the workload and all the amount of work, you're booking things two, three, four days out ahead of time to get out to it. And it's really not fair to make someone else wait because somebody was just had an inconvenience that I maybe went to Milwaukee today shopping or I just forgot about you. And basically the board did have quite a bit of discussion regarding that $40 fee. There was some talk, first of all, $25, but what we did is we set the $40 fee, the same as what the proposal is for the new minimum electrical fee. Figuring a lot of times, most of the time on the small minimum jobs, you pay $40 for the minimum fee, you're there once, make the inspection, you're out. So why not, if you gotta go back there another time it should be worth the same $40. Other municipalities or some places in Milwaukee are $100 for a re-inspection fee. Typically they're all in the state. A lot of the other areas are in the 25 to $50 range. And what we feel is basically the first time we're not some municipalities, I talked to one contractor where they have $100, basically he'll come on a job, find something wrong, he'll leave, come back, find something else. The one contractor works down there says typically he'll leave an extra $300 on every bid just because he knows what the municipality charged him. That's really not what the intent of ours is. Ours is once you're there, you tell him something's wrong, you come back and the thing you told him wrong is not fixed. That's the time we'd be using the re-inspection fee. And also what we did is we put a maximum of one fee per inspection. So if you're there for a re-inspection and he's got like five different things you're not gonna charge him for each re-inspection a separate fee, nor if he doesn't show up. So you go there, you're gonna be re-inspecting what was supposed to be corrected and he's not there. It's only gonna be the one time $40 fee. So that's basically what that one is. Section three is basically 26232 of the Missile Code certificate of inspection. That has been in there as long as I've been here 19 years and basically the state covers that on their state statute and we also adopt that by the code in the very first part of our electrical requirements and the municipality basically had their own requirement and it put a couple higher requirements on than what the rest of the state of Wisconsin had. So basically what we're gonna do now is follow through and have the same requirements as the rest of the state of Wisconsin and basically the state statutes very clearly says utility company if there is an inspector in the area has to get basically a certificate from them if there's an area where there is no inspector then they actually file an affidavit. So basically what we're doing is taking away our standard that's maybe a slightly stringenter and just going with what the state is. Section four basically is where we're adjusting the electrical permit fees. Basically the present minimum fee for the first thousand dollars of electrical work is at $25. We want to just up that to $40. After that it's basically $10 per thousand or fraction there of that portion we're gonna leave alone because that pretty much puts us where we are with the rest of the state. The minimum fee is basically where we were behind some of the other areas and I'll go through what amount of money that will raise for the city. And the other part of that is one and two family residence fees. Basically we have a present fee of $70 for a new home which also involves three inspections and we want to raise that up to $125. Similar to talking with the plumbing inspector a plumbing permit runs anywhere probably from $135 to $170 for a new home fee. Now with the impact of those two fees just basically going over the 2002 there was a total of 47 new homes. It's extra $50 per home now it had $2,350 and electrical permits in 2002 were 612 and an extra $15 would come to $9,180. So if this was an effect in 2002 it would have added an $11,530. This year so far there's 29 new homes which would add $1,450 and there's been 554 electrical permits already and there's still four months to go and that would have added $8,310. So so far this year it would have added an additional $9,760 plus the extra permits that would be taken in the rest of the year. That that's basically where the impact would be and the additional revenue generated for the city on increasing those two fees slightly. And basically it's a fee that's borne over each job so it should not be a hardship for any one individual. And basically the last one, section five which hasn't been actually changed since I've been here previous boards never really wanted to address so I figured they're not in the interest of mandating what really they should carry for liability insurance. But now we have basically a different consensus on the board. So what we wanted to do is just bring up the requirements of liability at least to the same amounts that's in the heating code section because right now there is 25,50, 10,000 for basically liability and $10,000 for the property damage in this day and age is actually very minimal. So what we wanted to bring it up to was 100,000, 300,000, 50,000 minimum which still isn't a great standard by today but it's a lot better than what we had and it's consistent with what's presently on the books for the heating contractors to carry for their license. Any questions? Alderman Warner, you have a question? And I think your honor actually I think Mark has answered some of my main concern was taking out that one paragraph and I'm glad to see that that's covered under state regs. And I guess Alderman Ryan Fleisch and his committee did a good job of raising these fees to get them in line with what they are on the state. We see that a lot where for five, 10 years no one increases the fees in these instances and I think all the person Ryan Fleisch and his committee did a good job in getting the fees up to where they belong because otherwise somewhere in the future you end up raising them by huge amounts and I think that's what happened in this case but it's probably a good thing to do. Alderman Moody. Thank you, your honor. Mark, you said the no show fee would be $40 only for the first time? Do we get people who are repeat offenders who do this? No, basically it'd be for any time that they didn't show up. Basically what I'm saying is there'd only be a one time fee whether I come there and the person doesn't show up or the corrections aren't right. Say if I was going there to make a reinspection and you know, or you find something where you're there for really two reasons there would still be only the contractor or individual would only get a charge of a $40 one time fee. They don't show up twice when you ask them to or when you're making a whole thing. No, it'd be 40 times each time. Basically what we're saying is if I go in there and I find six things wrong it's not going to be $40 for each one of the six things. It's basically a flat $40 for. Okay, I guess the senator stood you. Thank you. Alderman or Ang Flush. I want to thank the secretary's somber for his comments today and thank Warner for his comments as well. We did look long and hard at ways that the departments which in terms of funding we see uses of the manpower that is out there making the inspections and making reinspections and not getting really paid for the time that they're out there. And we wanted to really not necessarily raise fees but penalize those that did not show up so that we showed how valuable their time is to the city. Alderman McGrath, thank you. I was just going to congratulate Alderman Ryan Fleisch also to pay him back and to tell the rest of the council members that tonight we have two congratulatory statements for two different committees and so forth. And some night we might have 16 for 16. One tap in ice. Yes, it would. Thank you, Mark. If there's no other discussion, would you call her roll please? Manny, Montemayor, Moody, Perez, Ruin Fleisch, Stefan, Van Akron, Vanderweel, Wongerman, Warner, Weninger, Bauman, Berg, Bounet, Doyle, Grath, 15 eyes, one no. Motion carried. 1042, General Ordnance by Alderman Warner, Doyle, Wongerman, Moody, and Vanderweel, mending the one way streets and alleys regulation to delete North 7th Street from Erie to Michigan Avenue and North 9th Street from Erie to Michigan Avenue. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion, the General Ordnance be put upon its passage. Moved in second, Ordnance be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, this will change North 7th Street and North 9th Streets between Erie Avenue and Michigan Avenue from one way streets to two way streets. I guess with the changing face and needs of our downtown business and cultural district, traffic patterns and needs have also changed. As Michigan Avenue was rebuilt, this change will fit well with the new look Michigan Avenue will have and also aid the businesses while that street is closed. I think this will be a help to the residents, the business, to everyone in this area. When North 10th Street was changed from one way to two-way traffic, it opened up access to the residents and businesses along it and allowing people to park on their side of the street facing in the direction that it came from. It just helped a great deal. And I think the Public Protection Safety Committee working with the civilian police department in this instance has made a very good recommendation here. Thank you. Thank you. There's another discussion. Call the roll. Montemayor. Hi. Moody. Hi. Perez. Hi. Steffen. Hi. Van Akron. Hi. Vanderweel. Hi. Wongerman. Hi. Warner. Hi. Winninger. Hi. Bauman. Hi. Bird. Hi. Bonet. Hi. Doyle. Hi. Groff. Hi. Manny. Hi. 16 Ayes. Motion carried. 1157 will go to finance, 1158 Public Works, 1159 to finance along with 1010. At asking to be exempt from paying the stormwater fee as they have no storm sewers, curbs, or sidewalks in their subdivisions. That will go to the special council meeting. And 1161, a resolution authorizing entering to agreement for engineering services for soil excavation oversight, waste characterization and geo probe investigation at the former clean and bright laundry at South Business Drive. That will go to public works. Moved and seconded, you're in under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed?