 All right, good evening. We'll go ahead and we'll go ahead and get going for the committee the whole meeting Monday, June 23rd call to order Roll call born here bulk here Decker Gisha Hi to Hannah Hannah excused Heidemann Kittleson Clowness excused Meyer absent Montemay air Rinflesh absent Ryan Suric here Vander wheelie For hassled and Wongamon Quorum is present mr. Chairman. Very good. Thank you. We will do the you pledge allegiance States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God Indivisible with liberty and justice for all All right, thank you for being here tonight I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the last the two previous committee the whole meeting Okay Who is the second? So we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of both the May 12th and June 9th committee the whole meetings All in favor I opposed Minutes are approved for both of those meetings Number five discussion and a recommendation vote on resolution number 50 0809, which is council item 5-49 We'll spend up to 60 minutes on a resolution by elder persons born Clowness Heidemann and Verhassell Authorizing a city of Sheboygan residency requirement for all newly hired including full-time and part-time non-rep employees Thanks, vice president. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I Make a motion to send a recommendation to the common counsel supporting 50-0809 Council document number 5-49 the residency requirement for newly hired Non-represented employees both full and part-time as it is set forth in the resolution Have motion and a second under discussion Please thank you, mr. Chairman again under discussion The salary and grievance committee Recently adopted a city of Sheboygan residency policy. It's a it's a three-page document The the the new residency. I'm sorry the the The policy guidelines were requested by fire chief Lestoskey To monitor compliance to the fire department's new residency policy for new hires I worked on the pot on this policy with chief Lestoskey and attorney McLean And it was modeled after Milwaukee's residency policy in also recent court cases The new pop the new residency policy would also be used to monitor compliance of the residency requirement in document number 549 We are now considering for newly hired non-represented employees. I also wanted to remind the counsel that I believe We unanimously Reaffirmed our policy that all department heads have to live in the city of Sheboygan and we did that recently The new the new city of Sheboygan residency policy will also be used to monitor compliance by department heads That they live in the city of Sheboygan one thing I want to mention about The document we're considering tonight is let me make it very clear that a Document number 549 only affects newly hired Full-in-part time non-represented employees. It does not affect any current city employees. I Think for the same reasons it is important for department heads and newly hired fire department employees to live in the city newly hired non-represented employees also should be Required to live in the city of Sheboygan. I believe it is important the employees to take ownership and be involved in the community Where they work? I also believe that city residents should have The opportunity for these high paying family supporting city positions Several of my constituents have suggested to me that they believe it is important for city employees For city employees to live and pay taxes in the city where they work. Thank you very much, and I would appreciate your support Thank you, mr. Vice President Alderman Longman, please and Just for the the bodies knowledge we are on TV tonight, and it will be played again So please do use your microphone Thank you, mr. Chairman. I couldn't agree with the vice president born more. I too have received calls from constituents People who feel that if you live and work here, you should pay your taxes here You have a greater connection to the city when you live in the city, and I think it's quite important So I did some research on the internet and looked at surrounding cities in Wisconsin and in other states and almost universally Employees are required to live within the city limits even to the point where Several cities have a ruling that every committee member Even if they're not alderman must reside in the city So therefore if you have commission or a board where you appoint People to date also must live in the city So it's not something that's really terribly new, and I think it's not asking too much of a person that if he wants to Work for the city then he should reside here also. So he has that connection to the city and a Greater feeling of belonging to the community he works in thank you. Thank you all the moment Yes, sir. Thank you chairman. I have several questions. I'll ask a little bit later, but just a question for Alderperson Wongaman Can you give us a list of some of these communities? I know that the city of Sheboygan does have where your commissioners and and members of boards have to reside in the city already But regarding the communities like Plymouth or Manitowoc or whatever. Can you give us a list of such communities? I I could in the future. I don't have it with me here The information is at home, but I certainly can provide it for you see at the at the next council meeting Alderman Ryan Thank You mr. Chairman. I to support this my only question is I mean I believe that definitely Full-time employees should live in the city. I mean no doubt Part-time employees also, but when it comes to I mean say if you we have a situation where we have a temporary part-time position To be filled I mean and when they come across quite regularly temporary part-time positions and a lot of those sometimes are positions that involve a certain amount of Expertise in a certain field Is there a mechanism here? To if this passes which I believe it will in certain situations that the council could still have the levity to appoint somebody that is not a City resident Do you want to answer that? Thank you for the question question all of them Ryan. I believe as the document reads right now It doesn't give that it doesn't give that discretion This after it passes after it after it goes to this body tonight And if it's approved or if it isn't approved it's still going to be referred to the salary and grievance committee and That might be the place unless you wanted to make a specific motion tonight That might be the place to maybe do some housekeeping on the document document itself But at but at the present time I don't think there's anything in here that that allows for those exceptions I guess I guess practically if we were doing a temporary part-time position and We could not find a city resident to fill that position We could possibly go outside the community and also I don't think this precludes. Let's say for example a person from Plymouth Applying even for a full-time position, but they would have to make the decision after a probationary period if they wanted to move to the city Perhaps we should be a little more flexible for temporary part-time positions That's I think that's a good thought. I think I think so I mean Definitely though on Permanent positions I support this 100% Thank you March. Did you have a question? Would you come up to the mic? Thanks March, we'll turn that one on you want my name and address to When the city hires that you should hurt you probably should give it my name is March the golly I resided 2732 be north of Anna circle she boy When it comes to the city hiring department heads And say for instance, of course that they're from out of town Is there a certain amount of time that is required for them to move into town and to purchase a home or an apartment? Etc. Thank you all of them sir. Thank you. Yeah, I can answer Margie's question. They have four non-represented employees like Non-union employees that there's probationary period of six months and they must maintain or achieve moving to the city I make residency within that six-month period and there is no provision for an exception for non-represented employees and if I recall The way the ordinance is written is that if they do not they will have to Relieve their employment with the city If they're not able to find residency say for instance within that six months Do you allow that allow them more time or is that six months a definite thing that you have to Then live in the city. Well with my tenancy. We've never had an exception that that That Particularly department has which would apply specifically they had always Established residency prior to six months Okay, does that also mean that they just have to rent an apartment here and still have the residency out of the city Well, I really wouldn't define I think I think Auburn board is pretty more defined, but Where we interpret it was that they hadn't had to live specifically in the city You know the driver's license that to reflect that they live in the city that there and they be paying taxes as a either as a renter for example And of course you wouldn't pay tax but they were to purchase a home They'd have to be tamed paying tax here, but basically this would be the permanent residency would be the city should worry. Thank you Thank you, Marge It'd be your intent right Alderman-Born. Yes, I think it's in the document that it's primary residency Yes, and that's covered in I believe it's covered in the residency policy that salary and grievances recently passed And I have it in the document here that Will within six months or after a probationary period whichever comes first be or become a full-time resident of the city of Sheboygan could I ask a follow just to mr. Sirich, please miss Alderman Sirich in This very very tough real estate market right now and somebody owned a house And they were not able to sell it and they and the department head did not have the financial means To own two homes Would it be possible to grant an extension under the circumstances with our real estate market right now? I Think currently way the policies written. I don't believe there is an exception but Unfortunately, we've all experienced them and I had the same experience although our home did sell properly But we were prepared to move here and establish residency when I when I was a department head and we have to the past We have bill bulky. I think He purchased a home here I Think more specifically Dave Lutzki who is our city assessor He had to maintain residency at a home in Madison, which he may maybe still hasn't sold yet He did purchase a home in the city So it kind of comes I guess with the turf that if you're willing to accept employment the city that you must follow those terms And one fall Ed Can you give me a sense of what percent of city employees are non-rep About well and there's about 62 employees that are now represented Okay, the residency requirement as it exists right now for specific city residency Applies a department head. I think that's six people. Okay, so it'd be 50 55 more people for future hires But it 55 of 420 employees Post 500. Yeah, okay, but this wouldn't affect them because it's only for new hires I'm just trying to let you know how many but they go a little further for now the other non-represent employees There is a policy They must maintain residency within two-thirds of the of Sheboygan County the four townships on the western edge do not count as As a requirement on the residency. They must move within that two-thirds of the Sheboygan County to Maintain their employment with the city. Okay. Thank you Alderman Gisha you're next. I don't know if we have to stand up or not. Please. Thanks, and I don't mean to make this the insert show but if maybe if other people have input is There an expense to residency for the city you talk about the awareness of taxes, etc but Do we end up paying more money because we if you're gonna give something you got to get something It's the only way negotiations work has it been anybody's experience that we perhaps pay more because Would end up paying more because of that requirement My experience in recruiting with the city has never become an issue I've never had a candy come back and say well, you know, I'm not really in favor of your residency policy Could you give me a larger salary and it's never been an issue? The number of hires I had experience with the city Thank you, you know, there are This isn't an easy question and alderman born knows I'm not a big fan of residency requirements and And maybe if I could bring up a couple of reasons why First We all read about the city of Milwaukee, which has heavy-duty residency and and what it's done to that city as far as the Braindrain on that city and particularly the residency requirement on the On the teachers for the city of Milwaukee having to live in the city that hasn't worked out particularly well with 50% truancy and 50% graduation rates I Think if we had those kind of numbers here in the city, we'd be storming those buildings second my my caution on residency comes from a study done by professor Lilla John at Lakeland College not some college Somewhere else in this world nice here in Sheboygan County, and he was commissioned to do a study for residency for communities and his original thought was that He was gonna find that residency was a good thing bar none Because of taxes and people the things that people are talking about, you know You live in the city you're paying those taxes and and you're gonna not want taxes to go up and Salaries to go up and you're one of those that are paying it, but what he found was To his surprise was completely the opposite and and his report is available at Lakeland College's study is That what you do according to him in a voting block if you have a thousand People associated. Let's take we're talking about 60. You see is that round number their marriage of 120 and and Most elections in this town if you extrapolate that out can be and now we then in the future if this is a benchmark to go to Requiring our union members and contractual Discussions that would out be the obvious next step of this You could have a voting block of a thousand people in this town That influences every election a voting block of a thousand gets people elected Who maybe wouldn't what would be more inclined to raise employee salaries at a higher level than maybe we all would like and Just because their taxes goes up a hundred bucks a year or 150 bucks a year They will gain that many many many many many many times fold dozens of times fold by getting the compounding of Larger salary increases and benefit increases etc. Etc. So and this isn't me saying this this is Professor Lakeland and that was the conclusion of his studies He cautions municipalities of doing this for the creation of this voting block that ends up doing exactly the opposite of what Emotionally we all want to Emotionally we all would think great you gotta live in the city you get paid by the city you live in the city But there are consequences to this and and he he again did a 180 on his initial Conclusion or where he thought the study was going to go to and in the second having to do with reality of today's families I Commuted to Waukesha for five years from Sheboygan because I wanted to live in Sheboygan Now if my employer said you got to live in Waukesha. I Probably would be moving to Waukesha. I suppose but I 43 in our system of Families today where if you've got let's say you got a wonderful candidate for job X a wonderful one Everybody wants this person he or she would be a great candidate But she works in in Milwaukee He works wants to work in Sheboygan Do we blow off an excellent candidate just because and this could be a candidate for an office job in Sheboygan because they happen That makes thirty five thousand or twenty thousand dollars a year because they want to live in Port Washington because the economics of today's families You know, so we will Constrict our pool of all candidates for these jobs. It'll just happen There's no other way around that and we just have to be prepared for having a smaller pool of candidates And how do you make up for a smaller pool of candidates? You end up raising pay and raising benefits to entice people to come in so I Professor little John had some wise advice and other things for us all to think about I Admit I had no issue with residency until I read his report Until you realize it's a little bigger than just the emotional aspect emotionally Yeah, you're living the city on a work here you get your pay here But the reality is that there are other factors that end up it could end up being the opposite of what the intent of this I think well intentioned legislation So his research would say that they could vote they could be Create a voting block that could increase their own pay and benefits that could sway the vote on paying benefits That would grow faster than what their property taxes would correct interesting Next up Alderman Brasso, please. Thank you As far as a lot of the exceptions that have been brought up if I incorrect me Alderman sir having been previous HR director Alderman Montemar being chair of salamence grievance, but in any of the cases similar to this that I've seen in the past if HR director would come to us with some dire circumstances They were have been unable to hire whether BHR director or a simple Journeyman type job they could come to our committee asked for an exception and we could then make that recommendation to the council So there's really The opportunity for any exception would I mean this guy's a limit I mean could be recommended back to the salamence grievance committee. So there could be a lot of remedies I Guess work in progress. We don't need to I think solve it all up front. You know, we have committees in place I can deal with the exceptions that come to us Yes, that's my my thought as far as the voting blocks. I mean it's interesting, but I think you were mentioning Alderman Gish a thousand People if you break it out into the districts, I suppose it puts it down to 125 And then only if you had full voter participation would you have? You know, so it's mitigated quite a bit when you take into the fact that a spread over eight districts And you're only going to maybe get on average you get 30 to 40 percent voter participation across the city So then it takes it down to more like 40 people My hunch though is that those people would be impassioned to vote They would be motivated more motivated to vote than the average percent of voter participation But if the argument if the argument was made the devious Circumstances were exposed that were presented by Alderman Gish you that they were out for this sort of objective to raise their own wages I suppose the opponent could draw, you know draw some light to that and Inspire their own voting block to come out against it. So I like the idea of keeping it at the voter level I'm not too concerned when voters are the ones making decisions. I kind of like that Thank you, I Would like to invite Director Bittner and Deputy Chief Shervin to weigh in on you on the effect what you think the effect of hiring for your two departments would be If this were to pass if there were to be a residency requirement may not a pay I'm not sure how many non reps are in your two departments But I'd like you to come up if you would and just just give your your general opinion on the effect of your ability to hire given a residency requirement I Guess in regards to non reps that would be normally people that would have been on our department for many years It would have been a you know established officers and there's a there's two non rep positions on our department the chiefs and Mine and so it would normally for somebody to be promoted to those positions You're talking probably an area of 25 years or so So as far as as far as that issue with the with the non reps because we have a small amount We have Also the chief secretary. I take that back as a is a non rep so You know again these are positions that it's not normally hired from the outside because it has a lot to do with experience So it's established employees. Okay, so no no effect on the police department unless we need to hire a new secretary From yeah, because it's normally very experienced secretaries that are the chief secretary that have probably been around I would Just my off-hand recollection have been here the longest and have the widest range of experience because they've got to know the policies and procedures within the police department. Okay. Thank you Director Bittner. Oh, oh, I'm sorry All the Magesha. Thank you scenario Paula retires You have an internal person then who wants to apply for her job And maybe they that job now pays $10,000 more than their old job does residency Does this address residency? They're gonna be making more money. They're gonna it's a new position and all that maybe Maybe it's actually it's more of a question for for Jim does does this residency pal Clued a person from applying for an internal job. That would be a major step up Do they have to be a come residents to take the promotion I guess I guess my answer to that At first blush would be yes, they would have they would have to become a resident If they were not if they were all already not a resident Then I guess that could have a serious impact with on in our department because the people that would be applying at This point because it would be affecting all new hiree. I wouldn't necessarily be Wouldn't necessarily be residents. I now I didn't understand the question No, it would not because that's an existing employee if it would have to be a totally The way out this is meant to be written is that it's a totally new hire That's not working for the city at this time to do with job, right? And perhaps just a suggestion perhaps to Eliminate that vagueness perhaps that first sentence all newly hired Perhaps that could be not currently an employee of the city of Sheboygan just a thought and then Do you have a question for okay? Okay So we had oh and director Bittner. Do you want to this is one of these issues? I feel strongly both ways Been in many communities. It has been debated in every community that I can remember since the 1970s with good arguments both ways The one thing I do know from my experience in major urban areas. I think Milwaukee was already cited I've been in the twin cities. I've been Omaha urban areas where there's a huge or a large number of cities make up One urban area Trying to subdivide the workforce really doesn't work It's more viable in other communities. I've been in that are freestanding such as Sheboygan We are the center hub. We're sort of a freestanding community and probably have more workability there because a larger part of the population base does live Within that boundary you draw around it So if it's going to have a chance to work we're the kind of community that that it maybe has a chance in Suburb of the twin cities or something. It just simply does not work because with our modern families You just can't limit your your population base Having clarified that the grandfathering goes to the individual not the position I think that's a that's a real critical one because I've been in places where The history there's groups of people grandfathered not grandfathered then over time their grandfathered again You have a catalog of dates when you when you have to live in the city and when you don't so it has been an issue that in my experience Usually you have to live within this restrictions we have we have many They usually work themselves out I guess if I were falling one way or the other on the issue I'd probably lean against a residency requirement but as I say I feel strongly both ways because I inherently have the Gut reaction that people have talked about up here that if you're going to be a major player in my department If you're going to work for the citizens, there's something visceral that says you ought to be part of this city all the way But there's there's more back up from that emotion There's some reasons that you don't want to limit the canate candidate pool So my original statement was right. I feel strongly both ways Do you have can you give me a general percentage of how many non reps in public works? How many positions might be non-rep? You're in the 20 some I think okay, that's right And what how do you feel that that would? Affect your ability to hire for those 20 positions as natural attrition happens in them You you do eliminate the candidate pool you eliminate the it It eliminates the candidate pool or restricts the candidate pool to suggest that limits How much I don't know if anybody can tell you it's it's just a factor. It's You know the great thing sheboygan has going for it's a great place to live and hopefully the people are looking for this lifestyle Are are going to come here anyway the ones that want to live in downtown Chicago aren't looking at sheboygan, but Okay, and I just want to get there some people out there with questions all our men Ryan Thank you. No, this isn't for this isn't for. Oh, okay. Thank you director Bittner Mr. Bittner. Oh, okay, hang on Bill. I'm gonna Jim has a question then we'll get Mr. Bittner, I believe you recently hired an electrician and How many candidates did you have apply for that position? And do you know approximately what the breakdown was between? City residents and non-city residents for that electrician position and did you end up hiring a city resident or a non-resident? The Ability to do that job was a very definitive one. You had to be a licensed electrician There was there was a very a bcd. Did you meet those a that's not always a case particularly in management? So we had a group of candidates. I'm not going to try to guess at the number and So we had a group of probably 15 to 20 that we thought met that qualification well Part of the market right now normally we would not get that number of highly skilled people We then had to Make a decision how we're going to whittle that down because we really there's only so many people you can rationally consider and we used Residency in the city is one of our criteria of what who we consider for the second stage of the interview I believe we had one candidate that seemed to have some Experience more conducive to our work that was not a resident So when it came down interviewing we only interviewed one non-resident and by the way that didn't turn out to be the case So we hired a resident But we actually use residency as part of our criteria all else being equal Thank you And I'll remember hassle, please. Thank you Mr. Bender could you give us an idea? I guess of the skill levels of the type of non reps that are in your department I mean what type of positions are we looking at when we talk about non reps in public work? I In engineering is not in my department, but it's usually associated with it and in City Development that that's a big issue. You have the engineering staff and the technical staff which is a I would say a hard to find skill right now So I wanted to bring that up rather than just isolating on public works department because it's it's critical there You're probably recruiting in a very difficult market because you both In a market that have pretty good salaries In a market that that education is is reasonably scarce In public works operation You'll have a couple and would want to try to have a couple people engineering or technical training in that area But mostly you would want Facility type managers people who maintain buildings and things of that nature That would be generally a general management background And you probably would draw those people or could draw those people from the private sector In other words an awful lot of companies have facility managers They hit it just like we maintain a city hall. They maintain office buildings so a lot of what we do in the operational end Of public works can either be filled through the general private sector training or skill level and a lot of it's just brought up from the ground up people who have worked there and had worked their way through the the Labor positions that have shown the ability to move up to perform and supervisors and things a lot of would come up through The ranks. Yes, okay Would there be you're talking about and your engineering operations with some of these be degree requirements and that those yeah degree Either actually engineering degrees or technical degrees That would only be the limited probably the top people in public works, but in engineering obviously it's mostly sure Okay, thank you and a director bit and one more question I lost my thought oh Seasonal employees those those handful of employees that you would hire for five or six months a year Would you have any problem filling those? Seasonal spots if we that one's of a concern because we hire a lot of a lot of college students and stuff And they don't necessarily all come back home. We have positions such as lifeguards at the At the quarry where we're each year faced with do we have enough can we find them all? The unskilled I shouldn't say unskilled because we have a lot of young people bring a lot of abilities to our job But just that general laborer that we use in the summer. I would think you'd find quite a few locally specialty positions and Simply the life-saving red cross training is not that available or when you have it You can find a lot of summer positions that do it with you're competing with resorts and camps and those type of things That's the only one that comes to mind though. Okay And cheer person month may or within salary and grievances. Would you see any problem if there were a few positions? Is that something that would normally salary and grievances might move to to waive that required temporary? college kids and the like sure if it came to Having somebody as a lifeguard or not having a body there. Of course we would waive that so we could have Qualified lifeguard Okay, thank you and Old person Ryan Yeah, um, you know, I'm thinking about what Alderman Gisha said here about the the whole Milwaukee scenario and It's it's a it is a very good point It's about I mean Milwaukee and Sheboygan are two totally different animals in my opinion Let's face it the city of Milwaukee proper. I don't think I'd want to live there You know, I mean, I don't know if many other people living in Sheboygan that would either But when you look at these positions these these these well compensated positions And you look at the city of Sheboygan. I mean these I think are the type of people that we want living in the city We want, you know, we want to to have Especially, you know being being paid by the city is one thing But if we're having people taking these positions that are going to move in from out of town When they are well compensated positions those are the people we want living in the city They're going to buy or build a home. That's going to add to the tax base And let's face it. There's a lot of nice areas in of our city that are available for them to live in It's not like we are Milwaukee where you have one area that is so Highly taxed that nobody could afford to live there unless they've they've got old money And they've inherited their home and a lot of the rest of the city you wouldn't want to live in You know, that's not the case here. So, you know, I think that that that is how I can reason You know kind of reason out the Milwaukee scenario And I think that this would probably work much better in Sheboygan. Okay All aboard when Alderman Gisher brought up the Milwaukee Residency in Milwaukee. I had a friend that lived up on 99th and Good Hope which this was about Seven or eight years ago, which was at that time was a pretty good neighborhood And he and his wife wanted to be closer to their summer home up in Northern, Wisconsin and be able to get out of there. So they wanted to build a home in Salkville He listed his home. I believe the first weekend in August and He had a he had an offer And he sold it for the first that he sold it the first weekend for his asking price And it was for a young man who was an engineer that was going to be more working in the city of Milwaukee And had to get his school kids in school right after Labor Day So in his case it really turned out it really turned out well In fact, they sold it so fast They had to live in an apartment for six months before the house was done But this was a for this was a four bedroom home a large home But the marriage did survive in spite of them being in an apartment for six months before their house was done in Salkville So in his case This residency thing worked good for him because he sold his house the first week Indiana on the market And it's just happened to be somebody coming in that was going to work for the city that needed a home and pronto Probably anecdotal evidence at best I Wonder if we if we were to pass this if it would get to a point where we might end up Waving that if it would become this revolving door of waivers and not if we'd be getting into this waiver conversation Something that comes to mind in in my job We get concerned about days to fill how long how many days it takes to fill a given position and I wonder Maybe all them and Siric if you have thoughts on How often do we get to a point where we just we really need to fill this position? And we're tired of it being empty and we might be you know tempted to waive it in order to fill the position Well, yes, the market tends to change and I mean I've been in the business for a long time And there have been periods of time where you really had very difficult time recruiting people of all levels I think that that's not the case in in today's market. So I don't think you have an issue I just want to point out something we talked about earlier and that was Department heads and exceptions, you know, if if an individual takes a position with the city and there is a residency requirement And something occurs with them a difficulty selling their home. Well, look at the private sector if I were to accept a job with Sergeant general with Johnsonville sausage and and I'm a difficult selling their home and in Indianapolis, Indiana, for example, you know, that's my problem I mean when I took the position with the company or with the city and I My my obligation is to move to that look if I encounter personal problems I think that's something you have to consider when you before you accept the position So I think there should be exceptions on certain levels, but I think that we got to make them fairly tight. Okay. Thank you All in mcgisha You're swaying me Jim. I was thinking about selling my house quick. I Just thought it was really interesting with that electrician situation the way they gave final preference to and And I don't know if that's a softer way of doing resident what they did was residency really residency preference not residency plus I guess in A way we're giving We're taking available talent in the city that may as also may never have been tapped Like mr. Bittner, I I'm not a strong Lover or hater of residency. I know there's no financial benefit to the city for it So people can forget about that because whether somebody's living in that house who works for the city or not the same taxes are due a moral thing yeah, absolutely there's a moral thing but I So I guess I'm now back. I was off the fence now at least I'm on the fence But I really appreciate what they did with DPW with Making that a one of the criterias. I think that's that was excellent Well, I'll be all the person on the main one. Thank you chairman bulk If we were to have a residency in requirement for these non reps remember that would be Valid unless we waved it until next April and who knows I Have a hard time voting for something that can be changed so easily and so quickly Every April and some employees some human beings will be caught in this rule trap that we have right now Interesting So many changes over these years that what is legal this year is not legal last year and the next year All right, I Agree and disagree. You know, I mean, I think the it's a politician The general public in the city the residents of this city. I think they they most of them Believe that a residency requirement is a good thing I think it would be it will be a lot easier to pass a residency requirement Then to negate a residency requirement in the future I think once that once that That rule is passed. I don't think it's it's easy to turn that to turn the clock back so to speak Also, I mean on on this not being a Financial benefit to the city I Hate to disagree with a professor But I don't see how it cannot be a financial benefit to the city because if you have somebody that is coming here and They are either if they're making as as a as a well compensated employee $60,000 a year and they're going to bring in their spouse who's we're going to be working in the area And you have that that family buying a home in the city Now it's not like they're going to displace somebody because there's limited housing That next person that's coming in if that home is not available They're going to have to buy another home or build a home in the city So I don't see how there cannot be any financial benefit to the city in the long run I think I think there's there's got to be at least a marginal benefit financially for the city And that's all I have. Thank you Thank you all them and Ryan Please mr. Montemay or I just have a what-if question. Okay, because I've seen this happen in the city before where a Gentleman that's it's required to live in the city as a resident Rent an apartment here. His family lives in Green Bay But he's residents is in the city. Does that need the qualifications? I think Mr. Cirque, I think even this would because you have expertise in this in this issue well, I think In my opinion if they if they maintain a home outside the city And let's say commute on the weekends back to their home outside Their apartment would not in my opinion would not be considered their residency I think but Alderman Warren is his has tightened his language that would tighten up or define more clearly the residency is but again if it's Monday through Friday Go to work and leave Friday night to go back my home to me. That would not be Truly in the heart of Citizen of the issue I understand about what okay when you when you ask somebody a sign of contract Do you require them to have own property in the city? No, we just the offer letter typically I said maintain residence in city within six months of employment So technically then he couldn't say I'm written Perhaps a legal question or and maybe we don't have the right expertise in here at the time But does the city have the authority to enforce that and look at someone's federal tax return and find out what their real residency is? Because that's your residency where you know where you're where you know where you pay the feds from you can have as Many properties as you want, but sure you tend to pay from where you live, and I don't know if we have that Well, please City, Wisconsin deployment will begin with so there is no contract your contract between the employee in the city Say that again, please stay, Wisconsin's employment at will ah, so there is no contract specifically between the city and the employee to maintain it employees employment So the city decided that we don't believe that you're true to our resident My opinion not confirmed that you probably could terminate their employment. Okay. Thank you And all the person born would that be your intent that? How how zealous would we be willing to be in order to find out if someone really does have a family in Madison? Or whatever mr. Montemay or is is in the in the city's new residency policy. There's about 11 different tests of what residency is and I believe in in my document it says Let's see full-time city residents full-time city residents, but I believe The city has the right if I can if I can find the white right whereas in here that the city can Top the back page Whereas failure to reside in the city of the shabuagan full-time will result in termination of an employment for newly hired non-representant Employee city of shabuagan, but I had another I had another one in here that sets the fact that The city the city can get the HR department can get a Referral or they can they can do it on their own volition and checking within six months to see whether the person has Moved into the city or they can get a referral from that Person's department head that they've heard that they've not let they're not living in the city of shabuagan But I think ultimately then it would be HR's Responsibility to determine whether truly they're living in the city Okay, and there were some people who had alderman and Gisha. I'm on my last hurdle Jim Right there. Let's call the rule quick Yeah, but I'm almost Non reps are only non reps because they aren't union And we have to look forward then to what all my question what could have did I am sorry? No, that's good What if they unionize now we have another This is one of those things that kind of pushes people to do that kind of thing Do we do we have another bargaining unit in the city now? What do we do? I guess we Please I guess we would have to cross that bridge when we come to it It's it's and Okay, and Mr. Montemay if I could just mention one more thing, please Bob The thing we have to remember though is that this is not going to affect anybody who's currently working for the city of Shabuigan, it's only new hires if they want if they want to organize on that basis I guess they have the right to do that, but it's not going to affect anybody who's currently working for the city only future hires and All the person Montemay or did you have a question for mr. Montemay? Yes Okay And what they could just add one place if I could just add one thing to all that would Alderman Montemay are Mentioned is that I believe those criteria that you established have also survived numerous court tests Court and that's why Attorney McLean went over this proposed residency policy with a fine tooth comb And he's comfortable with with the tests that you're using Based on recent court cases that they that they would hold up if they're challenged Okay, and any more questions for old for mr. Montemay or that was my case because it's what what do you consider a full-time Residency to five days, you know if the guy it sounds like those 11 points might be the test that we need though Okay, that's that's I don't have a document in front of me, so thank you and Mr. Sir, yeah Yeah, I didn't remember getting a little off the point here, but we talked about in this non bargaining group Bargaining, okay, and if they were to decide to go to Union well Just bring the point out that if if a group of employees decide to organize and they want to bargain with the city Their benefit package begins with this Nothing everything's on the table So I mean you don't start with the benefits you have currently you have a work up you start with a blank sheet So that's a point that should be brought out Okay, and what are your thoughts on the effect that this would have if we pass this what effect would that have on the represented employees? Because the natural snowballing of this would be the next step would be going after the unionized employees And what effect do you think that would have on the next round of bargaining? Well, you know the last bargaining session we had with the fire department We did put a residency requirement that for the first five years of employment the employee must maintain residency within the city with any other bargaining groups that we do we have the Maintain residency within two-thirds of the Sheboyton County. It has been a subject of bargaining. I think that it's probably not a big an issue with the unions as we might think it would be and Because actually with with the fire department there was no cost factor involved There was no money from the table to to bring that benefit about to the city So I think it's I think it's an open discussion. I don't think it's being a big issue. Okay. Thank you. That's very interesting You know one thing we need to consider also is this is an employer's market today, too You know we've talked about how easy it is to sell homes or if things of that nature right now We're in the we're in the driver's seat for people that we hire There will come a time when we will we will be starving for employee You know the economy will get better and people will be seeking other jobs So as long as this residency requirement would be in force there might come a time where You might have we might eventually have to go against mom and apple pie and say that there's a time when we don't require it, but All the person want to me. Thank you again. I just wanted to make it clear that area whereby we those 11 points That could be used are the test to see if the department heads are living in the city That's also the same criteria or the same tests to be sure the other Employees that have to live in two-thirds of the county are living in their two-thirds of the county. It's the same Criteria, okay, no matter where thank you and all remember hassle. Thank you chairman bow You know, I think at the end of the day, I think we have to do what we think is right when we're passing this rather than Worrying about whether a unit will organize and become a bargaining unit I I also think it's dangerous to try to connect this in any thin way even to future union negotiations I think that fuzzies the discussion I think it distracts from what we're trying to accomplish here, which is specifically the non reps were a few years off from discussions with the Union Alderman wangman started the discussion out talking about how this is pretty prevalent in other communities around the state and country And if that's the case, I'm I would guess that an arbitrator would look at that Favorably from our position if this is a comment because I mean an arbitrator is going to look at comparables out there So if what he's saying is the case, I think we'd be sitting in good position interesting a great percentage of the municipalities in the state of Wisconsin also have their own City ambulance service, but that argument didn't hold much water about a year ago But I invite Alderman Ryan to speak up I Go going back to us being in the driver's seat at the moment as far as as far as being an employer You know, you're a hundred percent right and in the future. I'm sure that will there will hopefully be a time where The employment opportunities in our community are much better for everybody And at that point even though we may not be such a shining star as an employer Hopefully at that point we'll have more money to spend because if more people are employed our tax base has gone up So I mean I don't think we can look to the future and think that just because we don't have as many people in the Hiring pool to hire because everybody's got great jobs at that point the city should Be making more money. So, you know, it's Something that I don't think should be a factor in making this decision today because the number of houses that have been built as higher No, that's how you're if you are hiring more people in your community Jen you have increased your industrial base or done something in order to hire all those people sure Okay Thank you Alderman Wongaman Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are legal definitions of residency if you look at the motor vehicle code You'll find it right there because if you live Seven months in Wisconsin and five months in Alabama and you want to have an Alabama license because it's cheaper it doesn't work that way and the state has clearly defined what residency means and If you want to find out if a person's a resident take a look at his driver's license check the license plates on his car and in most cases The state is very strict about residency rules and in the 346 section of the motor vehicle code You'll find very clearly defined what a resident is and what a resident does not if you live here The most of the time and you get your mail here and you earn your money here The state says hey you're a resident of Wisconsin you pay Wisconsin taxes and you're eligible for a Wisconsin driver's license but there were people that lived in the sunny south in the summer in a in the wintertime and Then moved up to Wisconsin and tried to carry a driver's lens from one of the southern states because in many of them They're the licenses cheaper both the plates and the driver's license, but the state says not that doesn't work Okay, good point. Thank you Any further discussion on this before we take it to a vote? Okay, very very well then what we are voting on is a recommendation to the Common Council on Resolution number 50 0809, which is item 549 Please call the roll Born I Chairman bulk abstain that correct. Yeah, I'm gonna do the chairman's option That's gonna be my habit when we do these things to abstain for the year Decker Gisha Heidemann Kettleson Monta Maire Ryan Syrac Vander wheelie Verhaselt and Wongamon motion carries Next item. No It's gonna be my head at the first meeting. I didn't vote either Item number six Suddenly the lights broken on Discussion recommendation vote on communication number 90809 which is council item 4-47 a Communication from Debbie Desmond requesting that city allow leashed dogs in Maywood evergreen park for a yearly fee And we will continue with a question-and-answer period about Understanding the history of leashed dogs in all the city parks All in a right. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We need a motion Is this actually a we're gonna make a recommendation back to ourselves on communication and I would I would motion them that this Goes forward to the council with a favorable recommendation to allow The dog however, I do not want Maywood listed in that Okay, so the communication is specifically about Maywood the communication is about Maywood and evergreen parks I do not believe that Maywood belongs in there Because Maywood is an environmental park that I don't think dogs need to be trampling whatever okay, so before we get into discussion So your motion would be to amend it Do we do we amend it? I would like to send it forward with a favorable recommendation on evergreen park only Okay, so the motion is to send a recommendation back to the Common Council that says Evergreen Park for a yearly fee should be opened up to leashed dogs amended to remove Maywood from the the citizen's correct letter is there a second under discussion and Did you want to sure pick up from there? Please all right, you know the reason I didn't want Maywood on there And I wouldn't have wanted me what on there to start with Maywood is an environmental park I mean, it's a it's a park that is set up with a certain Foliage growing and growing in certain areas. It's not a place that you want a dog off of the trail trampling over everything Therefore, I don't believe Maywood belongs on there as far as evergreen park goes or any other park for that matter at this point We beat the heck out of this subject Is it last year of the year before I? Went round and round and round and what we ended up with out of it was a dog run Which is a place you could take your dog off leash down by Lakeview Park Which you have to go down a steep hill If you're not an agile person, you're not getting down there to start with basically you're you're you're going down a Gravely hill in order to get your dog down to the beach I believe besides that we had two other parks six others We do have six now we have six now that that a dog can be walked on a leash There are six out there What are those if I may okay, and we're gonna go I'm gonna I've written that down We'll get back to that all the person monster mayor next to is all the men and wongerman Are we speaking to the amendment now or? My original intention was to speak for the entire document not just the amendment The motion is that we send a recommendation to ourselves as an amended document saying no maywood, but yes evergreen Do we need to vote on the amendment? so Do we want to continue to this do we want to discuss the amendment? No or take a vote on the amendment? Okay, we'll take a moon move vote on the amendment to discuss this document just considering evergreen park and leaving maywood off the table All the men for hassle. Thank you chairman I just I before we vote ever I guess I just wanted to point out with this council's action here in the last year So we've effectively made evergreen in Maywood one contiguous park So in any granted evergreen is a little more. I guess what you might consider your traditional park But it's not too far distant from the ecological standing of Maywood as well So I would have some concern about making that a blending it to friendly park as well. Okay. Thank you any more discussion on Oh, did you want it? Okay all the person want to me? Oh, thank you It really is evergreen maywood right now because the sand cranes that have come to Maywood go into evergreen the new Whatever the new critter is that is now visiting maywood also goes into evergreen and and the otter the otter that also goes into Maywood Though the the animals don't know where the edge of Maywood is they don't and they Right, they don't they're not good at reading those signs. Okay. It is one park now. It is one park. Okay. Thank you Then we will vote on the amendment the amendment being to to consider them as separate parks and to treat our discussion for tonight to be to approve evergreen and Not and keep Maywood off the table. So please call the roll Decker Kisha Heidemann Kittleson Montemayor Ryan Syrac, Vander wheelie For hassled Wongamon Boran, no Most of the amended motion fails. Okay amendment fails Then if we were to disc if we in order to discuss further. I need a motion to accept the communication Or whatever your pleasure is the communication as written Alderperson Kittleson No, I'm I'm taking chairman's privilege. I will not vote throughout the year unless my vote is needed to break Please Alderman kill all the person Kittleson. Thank you chairman. Bulk. I would make a Recommendation that we file this document Okay, we have a motion and second to file the document under discussion All the person Heidemann. Thank you chairman Though this whether you want to have a dog walking in a park I guess I would have been against any fee Established they're already paying taxes They're already walking in six of the parks so then one or two parks You're going to charge them to walk in it really didn't make any sense Thank you Alderman Heidemann if I could ask Alder person Montemayor Could you say which six okay the Overland Park on leash Lakeview Park on leash and then the sub is the beach Off leash, that's just so that's two parks green wing on leash Terri-Andre on leash pigeon River corridor on leash or off and then of course number six It'll be the new fenced in town of Wilson Off leash that's that so we have six specialty dog areas right now And how many of those are in the city of Sheboygan the only one well Wilson is going to be operated both of us And then of course Terri-Andre is on the south part Thank you. So these are all Sheboygan dogs using these six parts. Okay. Thank you Alderman Wongerman Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know all of a sudden face seems very good Collecting the fees and granting people the right to walk their dogs on a leash in city parks And I'm a dog lover. I have three dogs I've got a Sherman separate the size of a small horse and I've got a yellow lab and a Shelty, but I would be against this because first of all I have to look at it from an enforcement standpoint Maybe it's my past employment history that makes me do that. Please talk about that. That was how you enforce something like this It's almost impossible. I mean we got what 30 some parks in the city What are we going to do hire 30 new policemen just to run around in parks and see people paid their fine or not I mean their their fee would you carry a little license in your pocket or would you have to have a receipt with you? That says yes, I paid my fee and You know as well as I do the minute you grant something like this there are going to be people who are going to violate it They're gonna let their dogs off the leash We used to stop all the time on the lakefront and they'd say well You know my dog is under voice control at all times. Well voice control isn't a leash You know and it's just like oh man. That's just what we need is another ordinance We can't enforce an ordinance isn't worth the paper is written on unless you can enforce it in some way And this is almost unenforceable because there just isn't a manpower to do it You know, it's just not practical to go around so on that alone I I would be against it But I don't take this to mean that I'm against dogs because I you know I love my dogs and at least two of them are smarter than I am So and I want to continue down that thinking just for a moment. What if it were to be? Any dog in any park as long as it was on a leash would that be enforceable? No, there just isn't a manpower to do this I mean, I forget how many parks the city has anybody know for it's like 33 or something like that Can you imagine what a mess this is for the police department to try and enforce? You know people and how would you tell if somebody paid their fee or not like I said, what would they have right? No, no, I understand that I just meant yeah, okay It's it's it's nearly non enforceable in fact. It's difficult to enforce even now and It's not a police officer's favorite thing to do to be going around and be a doggy policeman, you know It's just not their favorite. It's not real high on their list of things. They have to accomplish for the day But it's it would be almost unenforceable But apparently picking up old ladies whose paperwork is ten days out of date is a big priority That's another whole story Um, who's next? Alderman sir, please. Yeah, I just concur with all my way But I spent some time you know fishing the Pigeon River both evergreen park and Maywood and you can't really I can read sign if you can't tell which park was which but that issue is dead But the other part is enforcement. I can't imagine because of the geography of the land Having to you you'd have to post Enforcement officers and you know every hundred yards to make certain that no one is violating the law So that to me it's it'd be an impractical Thank you. So just maybe it's a rhetorical question Maybe it's not but we should we should deny taxpayers the right to enjoy the outdoors at Their leisure for the parks that they pay Simply because the bad apples can't be enforced against and apparently from all the person want to mayor's reaction That is not a rhetorical question That's right Then taxpayers that taxpayers get to use all the parks We get to use all of the parks We could even go into the specialty parks if we want to the specialty dog parks But we get to use all of the parks we taxpayers with ourselves our Our children and our grandchildren who are also city residents. We get to use all the parks We taxpayers right, but I think that that ignores a great deal of population who is very close with their dogs Dogs are well behaved and their children and they get to use all of the parks as well Who does the dog owners? They also get to use the parks and their children also get to use the park right with their dogs They also have some specialty parks to use that we're paying for okay. Okay. Thank you Next is all of them in Gisha. I Don't really want to speak to the issue except to say that I wouldn't want to meet alderman Syracs dog on or off a leash in any part Okay, oh Your mic still on sorry all the person kiddles and it's my light on I mean I thought my No, it's not is it am I okay? Okay. Thank you I just wanted to say that you know the dog study committee did such a wonderful study and gave us a final report And I think we really have studied this subject to you know at length at length and and this report is excellent and it lists all the parks and I Just feel to what is it? You know we can we have the right to put our dog on a leash and walk on any city sidewalk that you know to that We want so we can walk our dogs all over the place So if I could just ask oh if I could just ask a question because I wasn't all the person when that When that dialogue was happening and thank you to mr. Montemay or he sent me a from 2005 until 2007 a Good list of all those proceedings So can you help me understand the dialogue that happened with regard to why we would deny citizens with dogs that right? What what is what is the what is the overwhelming need to deny them? We're dogs misbehaving we're dogs What do you mean deny them deny taxpayers who have dogs from enjoying our parks? That's what I'm trying to understand. What was that dialogue? What was the overwhelming need to do that to do that? Well, they're We had there were several public meetings. I mean how many meetings there were I can't it's the whole list here I thought they held at the Roker room 50 citizens in attendance 20 speakers, and I think there was just a real a Lot of passion with the with the topic and for and against if you recall Alderman Montemay air So what were the dogs doing though that compelled us I don't think I strict taxpayers rights to take their dogs into city Owned parks. That's what I'm trying to I think one of the major things was that dog owners We're not cleaning up after their pets. Okay, so that okay. I got that that's something I can Understand I get that right so dog. Oh, they're bad apples that are ruining it for others that were ruining Okay, I get that poop in the parks What else Help me out there Marilyn Alderman Of course, of course and I object to having them be considered more of a taxpayer than I am Their owners are taxpayers. Yes. That's correct It wasn't the letters and the people weren't just Concerned about the poop and the pee which they were because that would be all over even if they picked it up afterwards It was the numbers of people who talked about very nice dogs Wonderful fluffy your pet. Yes Terrifies the children and it's not the dog being awful. That's it's a dog being a dog And I just don't know the overwhelming need the compulsive need that are there attacks There don't even have to be a tax for instance. Let me tell you about our four-year-old daughter many years ago She's 45 now playing and a very nice dog chased her to play with her stood on her chest and barked in her face He didn't attack her, but he terrified her of course and I and I know that that's why it's such so Visceral for you and I understand that and that's unfortunate horrible for your daughter But I don't know that that is compelling enough to deny other taxpayers the rights to use the park I think if you'll see dogs in parks and people bring dogs to park now when they're not supposed to And if they're sitting very nicely with their owner and they are sitting very nicely and they're not attacking They're not barking, but there'll be a large perimeter around that person and their dog where other people don't come and sit But I but I think that's self-selection based on the citizen. That's a citizen's choice And I again, so I guess we just kind of disagree on who's compelling Need should prevail there, but that's okay. Yes. Thank you Alderman Decker's next. Thank you, ma'am and chair. I would like to say that On the safety issue I'm actually thinking of it in another way another perspective a lot of people in the city Don't believe our city as is as safe as it was and I know a lot of people would say that well and those respects bringing a dog to the park, you know that Throws off people, you know, and it's true and Just like having a dog at your house, you know Somebody's banging on the back door dog starts barking. You know the same same thing and When it comes to a couple of people Ruining it for others and not cleaning up dog feces whatever I don't believe that should completely deny the whole subject because you know I mean this might be way out of what left field, but you got people to speed on the streets We're not gonna tell people you got to start stop driving because we got a couple people speeding on the streets, you know, okay So dogs can make certain citizens feel safer and then enable them to enjoy the city more or differently And I wonder also about the poop if that can I say that? If that is as prevalent of a problem as it certainly could be but I don't know if it's such a problem that it would deny people the use of all because we we only have four Locations in the city we might have six in an area, but we have four parks in the city and if you have numerous and numerous and numerous people going to just these four parks and There's just some couple of bad apples like you said in these four parks. Well, yeah, it's gonna make it look bad for everybody else I mean you only have four parks. So if there's a couple going to these parks. Well, there you have it Okay, thank you and just in the interest of full disclosure. I don't even have a dog I am just looking out for the rights taxpayers I'll remember hassle, please. Thank you chairman bow. I mean, uh, you know, I've heard the argument about These analogies about speeders and so on and in fact, we actually do take speeders off the road if they speed too often Even though they're the minority We do suspend their license and take them off the road and we say you can't drive on those roads Even though you've paid for them through your federal tax dollars through your state tax dollars So there are examples similar to that But you know to your point earlier here 10 minutes ago is that we have all kinds of taxpayers here Not just dog owning taxpayers. I personally would not it I would not bring my one my two and four-year-old two parks if I knew there would be a handful of dogs there all the time I just wouldn't my four-year-old was bit by a dog two years ago And he's definitely afraid of it and people may argue the merits of whether he should just get used to it and it Come to accept dogs, but the fact is he's not a dog fan and no one in my family really is I have nothing against dogs But I don't own dogs and I don't wish to be around dogs in park situations for a number of reasons the unpredictability And you have the waste matter again most dog owners I'm sure pick up after their dogs and most dogs actually all dogs I think if you ask their dog owner about the sweetest nicest little dog out there in the world and anything to harm anybody But the fact is a small percentage of them do ruin it for the whole and I think we as legislators need to take that into account Statistics show I think it's from board between 50 and 60 percent of us are dog owners So therefore there's a equal and opposite percentage then 40 50 percent of us that are not And I think we have to be considered of those as well We do have six parks in place as Alderman Montemar already pointed out so if we were sitting at zero I would see the argument to be a little bit stronger, but we have six opportunities around the city So you would suggest that perhaps if there are 33 parks in town that's 60% of those 33 parks should have access Because 60% of shabuaganites own a dog. I would not extrapolate it that way. Okay. Just second Alderman Ryan Thank you You know basically we don't have six parks We have four parks if we look at the list we have north point and north and north park listed as two locations We have the green wing ponds listed as a park the green wing ponds is an isn't a park the green wing ponds ponds Is a is a stormwater facility? It's not a park If we look at this and basically I mean I was involved from the start last time around this this whole whole Communication tonight basically was not written. Well That had Maywood and evergreen specifically listed which number one it shouldn't have I mean I think this should be a discussion for Not necessarily Maywood or evergreen But looking at the whole situation again looking at the map of the four areas. We actually have in the city and Can we open up more areas? two dogs You know but but but what's happened and it's half it happened in the committee on the recommendations last time is you have some people that are seriously anti-canine on those committees that even to get those four areas passed was a stretch And the people that came out of out to the public hearings It seemed to be a lot of people that were Not exactly dog lovers put it that way So I mean this communication tonight is not proper It shouldn't have been written the way it was and I don't know how it came in this way or who put it in in that fashion Citizen did right, but I think I think this should be discussed more. However, not under this communication You know as we as we say if 60% of us are dog owners Do we necessarily need to have 60% of our parks open to dogs? No, but can we have more than four? I believe we can okay. Thank you. I just have a question That gets Sheboygan can sometimes be resistant to change. We like things the way they are I spent significant amount of time in all of the boroughs of New York City and Manhattan And lived in Paris for a while big cities New York City one most densely populated places on the face of the earth Parks with dogs in them everywhere a park with 150 dogs in them all running around kissing each other sniffing each other doing What dogs do people sitting there enjoying a sandwich kids running around enjoying their parents enjoying a sandwich I don't understand what I'm what I'm having a hard time understanding is How if they can make it work in New York City where it's the most densely populated place on the face of the earth Why we can't seem to get along with dogs and kids and park goers in our Massive parks in the city of Sheboygan. That's the question. I'm not getting answered what I've heard is is There are some safety concerns kids get scared which is a legitimate concern people don't clean up and that's a legitimate concern, but So understanding how why in Sheboygan with our massive size parks and multitude of parts why we can't make this work And I wish I would have been paying attention two or three years ago when you guys were having that dialogue Next up is Alderman Wongerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know this whole discussion is not about dogs It's about people You know if dogs ran the world we'd all be better off We really would you know, but it's about people it's about Irresponsible owners it was brought up that why should a few people or why should the many suffer for the misdeeds of the few Well, that's the way all laws are written. I mean not everybody in this room goes out in speeds Nobody here. I don't think commits murder or Rob's banks or holds up mini-marts or but laws are made Because of a few bad eggs always and that that's always going to happen and that it's just the way I mean if there weren't any bad eggs, you wouldn't need a law for anything. You know, we would need we would need any laws So, okay. Thank you and mr. Vice president. Thank you, mr. Chairman I wanted to ask Alderperson Kittleson and Alderman for hassle whether this was just going to the committee of the hole Or did you refer this back to the to the what committee is at the parks and recreation? Is it going there also? We already we already thank you chairman We already talked about this in public works and we talked about it and we it was referred to the Board of Parks and It was talked about there as well Did they make a recommendation? I think the the communication was filed in both in both the Both committees clearly because the narrowness of it It's right because of the narrow right if I can ask one other question Aller Alderperson Kittleson you made the motion to file. Yes. Who is the second? Was that all of them? Thank you, Alderman Thank you a couple more comments So we need to break call it a night for the finance committee meeting Alderman Gisha, please Thank you chairman. I don't own a dog. My wife does I don't so therefore I Pay no I pay no attention to the animal So therefore I don't take it to the parks. You can take a dog to the park with do we have an issue for those who do Do that type of thing? Do we have an issue with too many dogs at the current parks? We have available to to have dogs in I mean Are we bulging at the seams at the use Alderman Ryan's number the four parks in the city? Our dogs falling off the curbing because they're just If that point is moot though because people it's a long way to travel as I understand it What I'm hearing is the long way to travel to get to those parks and I pay taxes Why can't I walk to the lakefront which is the city is only so many blocks this way? They sound like they're pretty well spaced apart. I mean are we overcrowded in our current parks and need more space? These animals thank you Last two comments Alder person want to me. I'll make it quick Here are people who was chairman of the dog park Study group is a dog owner and a dog lover. So I Don't not believe at all that the study group dislike dogs Okay, thank you, and I just want to make one more comment the SPD I asked someone from the SPD to be here so they could talk about enforceability and I appreciate Is there anything you wanted to add to Alderman wangum and he talked about enforceability earlier? Okay, I apologize. I should have invited you up earlier, but he but he spoke quite admirably in the defense of Street street folk the street cops Okay, so last comment by Alderman for hassle. Thank you chairman bow I was part of the park and forestry actually I chaired it back when the chin had his Genesis So I was knee-deep in the discussion at that time and I embarked upon a little bit of a study around the state again Just to see it to your comments about whether shabuigan's in the times or behind the times And so and I can tell you at the time of the study was about two years ago Probably about two years ago this summer I believe at that time Green Bay had no dog parks Brown County had one Appleton and I'm using cities similar to us Appleton had zero out of game. He had one And it was illegal to have your dog on a leash in those parks in those other parks in the city The same was true. Oshkosh Vandelaak Madison had three to four. I think it was three or four parks But it was not very common whatsoever Interesting seemed to be handled at the county level for whatever reason What do you mean by that? It was County ran. Oh, they were there were county and out of gamey County ran the cities did not run these parks, okay? Thank you. Well, I will just float the idea that if you're out there on TV land or if you're here tonight I'm considering Floating an ordinance that would allow dogs on leashes in parks so if you have strong feelings either way send them to me you can get my Web address on the city's website. I'm considering it. So send me send me your feedback and then I'll know what to do Mr. Montemay or got to be quick if you promise should be quick. You're not going to sway me from entertaining the idea of an ordinance though Yeah, but that's not a park I Get it. I get that We had to do it Now I'm confused. What does that mean? Scared geez who poop all over our parks away And and we've talked about that, okay Is that there's no children around because I have a rule says what children under 40 not allowed Thank you only thing you see there is dogs and the people that own the dog Thank you, and I know your family has real strong feelings about that So I appreciate that so just to the citizens send me emails That's how you best or phone whatever you want to you know, send me information to let me know whether or not We should entertain that idea. So that's so we need to vote on 0908 That's the end of discussion a vote to approve would be To approve to file this communication. So please call the roll get sure Heidemann Kittleson Monta Maire I Ryan Suric Vander wheelie For hassled Wongamon Boran I and Decker Motion carries the file. Okay, and then our next meeting I've been asked to hold a meeting on July 28th. I'm just checking my calendar to make sure July 28th at the fire department It will be at the Shabuigan Main City fire department to discuss the quality assurance program of the city's ambulance service So that is my intent unless any of the members of the body have thoughts on they'd like an additional meeting in July or an earlier meeting in July It'll be in the main the main fire department And so and that'll come out. We'll get communication out on that soon Yes, it will it won't be live, but it'll be taped. Okay, so entertain a moment to adjourn Okay, we stand adjourned thank you for a great night