 We have a quorum and I'm going to call our meeting to order. If you will, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mutual microphone if you'd be so kind. 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. Right, I do see that we have some folks in the council chambers. I identified Chad and I think Marty. Chad, if you know everyone else who's in the chambers, could you, and I think Harry is there, if you could just indicate who's in the council chambers. Sure, so it's city administrator Wolf, finance director Hellerson, human resources director Schneider, myself Dulce Johnson as a citizen rep, Carrie Arons from the administrator's office and Scott Milos. All right, very good. Thank you and welcome all. Moving on to the agenda, could we have a motion to approve the minutes of our September 14th meeting? Move to approve. And is there a second? All right, I heard a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye, motion passes. Let's move on to, actually, if you all do not mind, I would like to take item 3.7 first. Chad will be speaking to that. If there's no objection, we'll just make that change in the agenda. Hearing no objection, Chad. Thank you. So this is a document to enter into an agreement with MSA Professional Services to do a comprehensive affordable housing study. So we've done as partnership with the Economic Development Corporation in 2015, a market rate study to determine the amount of market rate apartment units that the community could support. And then in 2018, we did a condominium market study. And that's the reason for some of the recent developments on condos around the city. And now we're looking at using some community development block grant funds to do an affordable housing market study to look at the need for affordable housing in the community. Because then a lot of our comments in the community survey on the annual basis is we need more affordable housing units. And we do have a project with the Badger State Lofts that's coming on board here in the next couple months of 118 units. But we feel the need to study the market to see how many additional units this market can support. So we went out in an RFP in July. We had two out-of-state contractors and one in-state. And we have a relationship with MSA because they help us with our neighborhood revitalization activities. And we felt that they have what it takes to do the study. So we're recommending moving forward with them. All right, does anyone have questions for Chad? Chad, I assume within the context of this study there'll be some pertinent definitions of affordable housing. That is correct. In the RFP, we did not put a definition of it because it seems like it's a different definition in every community. So yes, we will work with them to determine what that definition is and fits for this community. And then I had just one more question. There are a number of low-income housing projects and Section 8 vouchers housing in the area, which is affordable. Will the nature and extent of that kind of housing be studied? We'll work with the housing authority that administers them to get some of the baseline information and then use that as the calculation. So yes, it'll be part of it. Does anyone else have questions for Chad? If not, what I'm looking for is a motion to recommend approval of the resolution and then entering into a professional services agreement with MSA professional services. So moved. Second. Carrie, I'm gonna let you take your choice there as to who moved and seconded. Is there any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye, motion passes. Really glad we're doing this. All right, let's move on then to back up on the agenda to 3.1, resolution 7121. So this is with respect to the settlement of a claim by the city of Sheboygan with BNT Sales and Service. Chuck, do you wanna take that? Sure, so this is a little bit different than the typical claims that we get. This was a claim that the city had, but under the ordinance that you folks passed not too long ago, you've given authority to the administrator to settle many of those claims as well, and so this is just simply a report that that claim has been settled in the amount of $2,000. We'll receive $2,000 for the damage that was done. All right, always nice to have the money flowing in a different direction. So we need a motion to file, I assume. Sorry, I've got the wrong eye of CF. That is correct. All right, do we have a motion to file? Move to file. Okay. All right, moved by Marcus, second by Trey. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye, motion passes. All right, let's move on then to 3.2, submitting a communication from Dulcey Johnson regarding the ambulance fund budget. And Marty, do you want to, or I'm not sure who wishes to speak on this, if Johnson had some concerns and is there a way that we can address those concerns or not? I'm just reading through to make sure that we, this isn't one that came, the communication did not come to me. Dulcey actually is at the podium, would you like to hear her comments? Yeah. Yeah, the question I have is why, why doesn't the 280 fund reflect the actual cost of the service? Why do you just put four, the salaries and benefits of four people in there and not the 22 that are needed? And you know the company that did that study two or three years ago now, one of their four recommendations was that the city should consider adjusting their financials to reflect the 18 FTEs adjusted to 75% as a more representative cost allocation for EMS staffing requirements. And I really don't understand why that hasn't happened and why you're reluctant to do that evidently. I don't think it's going to change anything. Can anyone make a response? Well, this is finance director, Helverson. At this point, the salaries and benefits for ambulance and firefighters because all firefighters to my knowledge have now become certified other than our fire chief. The calls that are made where the fire department responds and or paramedics respond, this would be how the fire chief has allocated the dollars based on the time spent related to fire calls versus ambulance calls. If we put all these firefighters that are dual purpose just in the ambulance fund, we'd be understating our fire department and either or vice versa. So this was the allocation method that was used. Well, I think it's simpler than you're making it. 22 people are required to run the ambulance service as it exists, but you only account for four of them. And I realized that the original agreement was that you had to hire four people. So four people would be added to the roles and those were always the last four hires. However, before Nancy bus retired, she told me that's no longer the case. I don't know how those four people are selected, but you're not gonna get to the exact penny, the exact dollar amount of this, but you're gonna have a closer figure to the cost of personnel than just figuring four. It just really skews the whole issue, I think. So I don't know why it would be, why is it so difficult to do as I do, you take the four, the salaries and benefits for the four and the 280 fund and that gives you their base, which is approximately I think 108,000, an increase of 7,400 over last year anyway. And then you take that amount times the 18 additional people and take three quarters of that and you would get a reasonable figure for the salaries and benefits of the personnel required to run the ambulance service. And I would suggest, as I understand it, and if someone can correct me, that would be wonderful. All firefighters are currently involved in ambulance services. I expect the fire chief is not with us today. City Administrator Wolfe, would you be able to shed some light on this? I'll do my best. I'm not sure why this fund, my fund 280 was set up for four firefighters. I expect that it is in historical designations and that the 280 fund is included in the overall fire department fund. I would have to consult and see what's all in the 280 and get some history on this. My understanding is that basically it's balanced with the revenues coming in because we know that the fire department is a cost and the complexity of it is the fact that everybody can and does basically rotate into the ambulance service. So whether it's four people, eight people, 22 people, we basically, everybody's rotating into that. So we can balance it and show everybody in the ambulance fund and less people in the fire department. But if we're looking to balance it equally, it's very difficult. So you're missing the point with all due respect. It takes 22 people, as I understand it, to run the ambulance service. And why can't you just assume that those extra 18 are receiving the same amount of pay as the four that are included in that budget and take it from there? I know that you're not gonna be able to account for Joe Blow was on the ambulance for four hours this day and Sunny was on the ambulance for six hours the next day. You can't do that. That's impossible. I'm not asking that. I'm just asking for a more accurate accounting of the personnel service, personnel costs of running the ambulance service. And I see that I would suggest to you but we obviously need to get more information. We need to have, I'm sorry that Mr. Halverson did not get this communication in advance. I expect that Fund 280 was set up by Nancy Bus and sometimes those fund reports are really not contiguous with the reality of how the fire department works. To the best of my knowledge there are, we have I believe 73 firefighters and they all are certified to provide ambulance service. So I think we need to get more information. I don't want you to think that we only have 22 firefighters who are providing ambulance services. And I suggest that maybe we can hold this to the next finance meeting when we can get more information for you. I realize that the ambulance that probably all of the firefighters do it sometimes serve on the ambulance but you can still figure out the costs of the 18 plus four that are needed to do that. The other question I have which nobody has been able to answer for all these years and the fire chief is not here today is, do minutes count? We always hear that. Well, we can't close that station because minutes count but yet the last time I checked half of the firefighters live outside the city limits and require volunteers to take care of their lives, their families and their property. And that seems really strange that we could not have such a system in the city of Sheboygan if it's okay for them and their families and properties. That's all I have to say. And it is interesting the prospect of changing the entire firefighting system to a volunteer fire department for the city of Sheboygan would be quite a challenge, I believe. But again, if I could have a motion to hold Ms. Johnson's inquiry to our next finance meeting with a request that both fire chiefs and the finance director and the city administrator be present to provide some answers. That would, I think be our next step. Do I have such a motion? I don't know. I would second that. All right. Is there any other discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair Boasai. Thank you, Boasai. We really appreciate your keen interest in this and hopefully we can come to the, get to the point, get to the bottom of what's going on here. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to 3.3 is a communication from Alderborn about bonding and insurance requirements for municipal officials attached to it as an article from the municipality magazine. Chuck, do you have any comments for us on this? It is my understanding that we have such coverage in place or maybe the city administrator. We have a coverage that's required by state law. That is correct. Chair, I actually did contact our insurance company, talked with them extensively and we are covered all the way to Alders as an example. So there is no reason and they don't recommend bonding. They do have, I think, two municipalities that do bond above and beyond, but it's not a needed expense. All right, so in other words, the insurance coverage is satisfactory and- Yes, yes it is. And the statute seems to require bonding. That is correct. We do not need to bond. Chuck is- I'll correct that. We do bond several employees and we do have the bonds for those who are required to be bonded. What I think Mr. Wolfe is referring to is, in the course of the discussion of Alder person born and there was discussion, I think his suggestion was, maybe we ought to bond more people. And the answer to that is no, we bond the people who are appropriate to be bonded. Additionally, as you will note, even from the article, when the department head who was required to be bonded, so in this case, the finance director, which was finance department with Alder born primary concern, when with Marty being bonded, that covers not just him personally, but it covers the people that he supervises. And then finally, while we do have the bond because it's required, the real protection here doesn't come from the bond. The real protection comes from our other coverage and we do have that other coverage through Sivnic. And it is sufficient and our coverage matches what a city of our size should have. Finally, the final issue is one that receives ongoing review, which is policies and having good policies really is what truly protects in these cases. The bond, it's like a little bandaid and even insurance policies, while they protect us, the best protection is at the start with good policies. And I know that Marty's been working on those things as well and continuing to follow up on making sure those policies are where they need to be. What? Go ahead. I as so as an Alder person and a member of the finance committee, am I understanding that the city insurance covers me and my decisions as part of the finance committee for the city of Sheboy. You are covered and you're covered in a couple of different ways. First of all, we would, as an Alder you're not going to touch money. So those kinds of policies don't necessarily protect you but you're not touching that money. You're also covered by immunity. When you make decisions, you're covered by legislative immunity. So you are protected. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? I think probably a motion to file would be in order. Move to file. Second. All right, very good. Is there any further discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. 3.4 is a resolution authorizing a budget adjustment, excuse me, an appropriation in the 2020 budget regarding the Optimist Park playground. Who would like to take that? I can take that chair. So without any DPW staff here, this is just basically a donation that has come in and what we are doing for the most part is following through on our normal process where we can do a resolution to be able to spend these dollars. These dollars that were donated are to be used for the Optimist Park playground. All right. So do we have a motion then to accept to make the budget adjustment and appropriation for within the 2020 budget for the Optimist Park playground? No moved. I get it. All right, we have a motion in second. Is there any further discussions? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. And thank you to the Optimist Club. That is a substantial donation. All right. 3.5 is a resolution authorizing a budget adjustment and appropriation in the 2020 budget regarding tree stump grinding. I know that Joe is not here. Does anyone have any comments or questions? I can take that chair again. This is something that the ATC organization has allowed us to do our own stump grinding and therefore the grant funds that they receive. We just get a portion of that to be able to cover our costs for our own stump grinding. So ultimately it could have been done by them and then we wouldn't get it, but I believe it would have dragged out the process a little bit more from a DPW perspective of accomplishing this. So we do our own stump grinding and then we receive the funding that they received through grants. So our good, the lower good for grinding stumps is 44,000 and of that 7,800 will be received by ATC to offset the cost. Is that correct? That's correct. Is there a reason they're at hand for the whole thing? They do, it's more than stump grinding. We receive just the stump grinding portion, I guess. I'm not sure the, we can do it for $7,800 and do it. I'm not sure about the bid process as far as who was all involved in that piece. Okay. All right. Does anyone have any questions or concerns? Hearing none, we need a motion to recommend adoption of the resolution, authorizing the adjustment and appropriation for tree stump grinding. Almost. Chair, I have a question. Go ahead. Just for clarity, the city is paying $44,000 for stump removal and we are getting 7,800 from ATC as a percentage of what they owe us. They receive grant funds for that and then we're receiving that portion to stump, to grind out those stumps. They're doing more than just the stump grinding on these trees, that's just the portion that we're doing and they receive funds that we're now, in a sense, they're the pastor and then we receive it because we're doing the work. So I think what we're trying to get at is who's paying the 30, the other $37,000? Is that the city or is that ATC? It is not us. It's a grant. All right. All right, so we had a motion, but did you move? No, I didn't. I have one more observation. So we in essence are a subcontractor of the grant that was given to the corporations. Is that accurate? That is my understanding of it. DPW handles this grant, but that's my understanding. Thank you. So can we have a motion then to approve the resolution? I would make a motion to approve this resolution. Okay. Okay, perfect. Any further discussions? All right. Hearing nothing further, all in favor, State aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right. Onward test stump grinding. 3.6 is a pending claim from the Hoyer Law Offices on behalf of the American family for damages to a vehicle caused by a collision involving the city of Sheboygan vehicle. Chuck, do you want to take that? Chair, I- This is here for filing the matter has been paid. It was actually, we actually settled it quite some time ago and then it just took a long time for all the paperwork to go through the insurance company was quite slow. In fact, we had to re-issue the check, it was so slow. It's just important that that matter has been settled. Chair, if I may add one piece of, this actually was on a previous agenda. The reason it actually came through again is the RC 313 did not get included the last time. So this is to make sure that we clear out those carryover documents. So with that in mind, we need a motion to file. I'll move. Bert, I'll take that as a second. Sure. Any further discussions? All right, hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. We have come to the end of our agenda. Our next meeting is October 12th at five PM. Do we have any scheduling concepts with anyone that we're aware of? All right, then I would ask for a motion to adjourn. I'll move. And is there a second? Second. All right, a motion to second to adjourn. All in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all.