 In terms of roll call, Alder Lewandowski, Truster, and Bourne are excused. Scott is currently in the hospital in Green Bay, and our thoughts are with him, but he's decided that he would not attempt to join us today. Would you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? We did not hear from Alder Savalio, but I presume he will be coming in, so we'll just take that under advisement. If I could have a motion to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2017 meeting. For move second. And there he is. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. We'll move on to section three, items for discussion and possible action, possible recommendation to the council. This is our committee of the whole review of the 2018 proposed budget. Just giving this some thought about the most efficient way to handle these four items. What I'm proposing is that I'm going to ask City Administrator Hofflin to present an abbreviated form. We're all acquainted with the proposed executive budget. We've reviewed those in our committees. Changes to the executive budget with his thoughts. Then I thought the discussion on each and every change that committees had made, we would just do under 3.1. In other words, finance had a change, and I believe public works had a change. Law and licensing did not. Public safety did not. And so we will have one final vote on all of those changes in the budget as a whole as we recommend to the council. Does that make sense? With that in mind, I'm going to turn it over to City Administrator Hofflin. As many of you are aware, an executive budget was presented to you for consideration in August. It was presented to different committees in August, September. And as a result, the four committees made a recommendation, which is why we're here tonight. There are five changes in total that were, again, came forward out of a committee. Several of those items were in fact recommended by staff as a result of additional information that we were made aware of. Let me go ahead and start the specific discussion. First, coming out of finance and personnel is a change in how we allocate monies between the general fund and the capital projects fund. Originally, the intent was to ultimately pay for a portion of the City Hall renovation project and utilize, in essence, some of the fund balance in the general fund. In order to comply with the expenditure restraint program, and again, this is kind of an accounting challenge, we, us being staff, recommended that we reduce the amount of property tax levy in the general fund, allocate 2.5 in the capital projects, which ultimately reduce, in essence, results in using 2.5 of fund balance in the general fund. Again, after conferring with staff and our auditors, we decided to simplify it, at least for the purposes of complying with expenditure restraint. Once the budget is approved, then we can have further discussions as to where best to spend fund balance for City Hall project in 2018, whether it's general fund balance or whether it's capital projects fund balance. For purposes of guaranteeing that expenditure restraint program City will be in compliance, recommendation is to budget traditionally that most of the property tax levy is going right into the general fund. There is sufficient fund balance in that capital projects fund, so the recommendation still stands, that 2.5 million will be spent out of the capital projects fund, and as I mentioned, we have sufficient fund balance. There will still be a little over half a million dollars of fund balance in the capital projects fund, even after that 2.5 million is paying cash for a portion of the City Hall renovation. So that's, in essence, the first bullet. Two personnel related items. First is a recommendation from finance and personnel to make, to transfer money from elections, I think, to elections to City Clerk, basically effectuating a creation of a permanent part-time staff member. So there's no net additional costs or reduction in costs. City Clerk Richards provided you with details specific to her request, that it be of a more permanent nature. My recommendation stands for it to be seasonal, and as we get into the specific discussion, I'll give you more specific comment on why I recommended that. For permanent full-time staff in the Fire Department, this came out of Public Safety Committee, consistent with the Fire Chiefs 2020 vision, three firefighters in one additional battalion chief. The fourth bullet is reclassification of cable TV equipment maintenance. Originally this was identified as equipment-related expense, but it's really maintenance costs associated with some of the equipment. So again, it's more of an accounting change. Last item coming from the recommendation of Finance and Personnel Committee is funding Taylor Drive turn-line. This is our infrastructure cost associated with the planned hotel construction south of Holiday Express. Again, south Taylor. This was budgeted in 2017 due to the delay of the hotel. Correspondingly, we're delaying our infrastructure improvement, so this needs to be re-budgeted for 2018. So again, simply shifting all fund balance because it's unspent money in 2017 to fund this project in 2018. That's a summary of the items that are on the table for discussion tonight. So it would be my plan to go through each of these proposed five changes, plus any changes that might come from the floor tonight in turn. Excuse me. Before we do that, does anyone have any general questions for the city administrator? Okey-dokey. Well, let's start with the capital issues. And what we are looking for with respect to the Taylor Drive turn-line is a motion to transfer the funds essentially from the 2017 fund balance. John, I'm sorry. Madam Chair, I just have a question. I want to make a motion and add a six item. And I'm just wondering what the protocols need to do with that. When we get to five items, we can consider that, or frankly, you can chime in any time that you wish, but just to kind of keep things rolling. Now I guess that would be my preference if that's okay with you. To do it after the other? The other ones are discussed. What if it's related to one of the other ones? Then we can take them together. Okay. Okay. All right. Darrell, I kind of, I didn't say it as well as I wanted to. Can you give us the precise language that you would be looking for with respect to the motion on Taylor Drive? It would be a motion, specifically it's recommended that the Council approve RC number 129-17-18, which is supportive of resolution number 71-17-18 with a budgetary amendment to fund Taylor Drive turn-line. All right. We have such a motion. Second. All right. Discussion, questions? Seeing nothing further. All those in favor of the proposed change signified by State and I? Aye. Any opposed? Darrell, sign or move and passes. All right. Let's move on to the cable TV accounting change. And again, I'd ask you for basically that same motion. So a motion to recommend the Common Council approve RC number 129-17-18, which supports approval of resolution number 71-17-18 with budgetary amendments to reclassify cable TV equipment maintenance costs. Motion to approve the second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, State aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. All right. And then we'll take the last capital issue, which is with respect to, excuse me, the funding of at least part of the City Hall renovation costs with respect to changes in the fund balance. Okay. It would be recommend the Common Council approve RC number 129-17-18, which supports approval of resolution number 71-17-18 with budgetary amendment to correct tax levy allocation of $2.5 million to the general fund for compliance with the expenditure restraint program. So moved. Second. Okay. Everyone pretty clear on what we're doing there? Any questions? Comments? Hearing none, all in favor, State aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Good. All right. And it's only 612. We're doing good. I think what we'll do at this point is take the City Clerk budget request. And I don't know. I haven't spoken with City Clerk Richards, but if you would like to come up, Sue, and if there's anything that you would like to present or Meredith, and we'll just get that on the table here. This is a different place to be. The sheet that I handed out basically is a short summary of what we are requesting. We did request a permanent part-time person in the City Clerk's office. It went before finance and personnel on September 11th. The request was to transfer $13,842 from our election temporary salary to full-time regular salary in the clerk's budget. For a part-time person under 20 hours at 1950 per hour that we figure the FICA and Social Security will be included. There will be no other benefits due to the position being less than 20 hours a week. We will be looking to do a TO change and make it a grade one clerk position. The changes in the 2018 executive program budget would be to decrease the election temporary salaries by 13. $842 and increase the full-time salary by 13. $842 netting a zero change in the budget. We just want to move the money from one fund to another. The new hire will be trained in most aspects of the clerk's office operations in addition to the elections. And the new hire would be staying current with election laws rather than us bringing in new temporary people for everyone. We found over the last three years that we've been bringing people in that we are spending more time training new people to do the job. And in my opinion, the benefit of that can be held in the permanent position so that they are trained year-round. They're under the 20 hours. We're not paying benefits. All we're doing is moving the money that's already been provided by the executive budget. We're just moving it to another fund. So that's basically what we would like to do. A little bit of a backdrop. As staff develops an annual budget, consideration is given not only to the budget that is forthcoming, in this case, 2018. We're also trying to take into consideration future budgets, so 2019, 2020, and set the stage to make it easier for us, easier for you to consider changes that lie ahead. In many cases, position ourselves to, again, comply with the levy limit as well as the expenditure restraint program. As I developed the 2018 executive budget, one thing that was first and foremost, that was an understanding or an expectation is that we have two police officers that are currently funded by a three-year grant. So in 2019, the city will need to fully fund those two positions. In 2019, specifically, $118,938 of additional funds will be needed to cover those two positions. In 2020, due to contractual and benefit requirements, $121,295 for these two positions. As we've experienced over several years, specifically going back to the election position, is that we do see a cycle. Four years, I'm sorry, four elections in one year, oftentimes two elections in the subsequent year. Consequently, my recommendation was to treat the additional need as a seasonal or a temporary related need. And as a result, my recommendation is not to fund this position on a permanent basis. Again, I want to have capacity and funding capacity specifically for these additional police officers. Being one example, again, trying to make decisions in 2018 that will not make it difficult in 2019 for things that will present themselves. Again, specifically, the police officer I think is a good example of that. As City Clerk Richards identified, there's no dispute as far as the amount of funding. It's simply whether it's a permanent part-time or whether it's a season of part-time position. Questions, comments, Todd? Thank you, Chair. Question for Daryl. Daryl, I guess just help me understand. Right now what... Excuse me, Todd, do you want... We are taking... And you're back here. So if you would use your microphone, please. Is this better? Daryl, if you could maybe just help clarify. Right now the recommendation is that a transfer of $13,842 basically to be used for a part-time person. And your recommendation is to not fill that position and use that $13,842 to help offset additional costs possibly by like the police department. No. Okay. So the police department simply to give you a heads up that decisions you make in 18 may make it difficult to fund what I expect to be a priority for the Common Council in funding positions in 2019. So are you recommending that we should be looking at this as a cost reduction to help us with additional costs in the future? The recommendation is to treat this additional need on a seasonal basis so we don't find ourselves in the position of hiring someone in 2018 only for me to recommend laying them off in 2019 because we're... 2019 is expected to be only two elections versus four in 2018. Okay. Thank you. Nelson. Thank you, Chairperson. My question I guess to Sue is I noticed that back in, I think it was 2008, something like that we did have that position and it was cut at that point. So did that affect your efficiency as City Clerk? We lost a part-time we shared with the Department of City Development. She retired from both departments basically so that's how we lost that person and did not replace that person. But my question is kind of goes with Daryl's comment. Do we need that person full-time on a part-time basis? Not full-time. No, no, but you know what I mean. We're very lean and there's just a need for that extra hours, you know, 20 hours a week where we can cover lunches, vacations. Somebody gets sick. None of us can get sick because if we get sick, it's that type of feeling for our department. I would point out that either way it's going to be money budgeted every year because we do do an ebb and flow for elections. We go up four. We go down to two. We go up four. It happens every year and we have just found that, and I know this doesn't totally address your question, but we found in trying to do the temporary that it is not spending this taxpayer's money the way we should be. We should be using someone that can be trained in not only elections but other things using the same amount of money that we would in elections that we're going to need anyway. So our thought was just to move it over. So it'd be more efficient. More efficient. More personnel. Right, because we spent a lot of time training these people coming in two, three weeks before an election, a week before, a week after, whatever. So it takes a lot of our time away, whether we have a permanent part-time person. We would have someone that knows the ropes year round. So the only additional costs are only as if it would be a full-time position then as wage increases every year that 13,000 would be under $300 increase of any wage increase. Approximately. Alder Hoshun. I have, it's just an out there idea. Do you want to use your microphone? It's an out there idea. I don't know if it's on the table, but if we're looking for 2020s budget, you're saying that we need to. 2019. 2019s budget. It's possible that the mayor's secretary will be retiring by then. And perhaps the mayor and the city administrator could share a secretary and that salary could go towards the fight or the policeman needed. And then the city clerk could have the part-time clerk they need. Just an idea. We'll be having that one position open due to a retirement that no one's chatting about. Just a clarification based upon Alder Nelson's comment. The, my expectation is because there are four elections in 2018 and expected to be two elections in 2019 by having it be a seasonal position this roughly 26 to $30,000. I would not recommend that additional $30,000 in 2019. So it's an increase in 2018, four elections, 2019, two elections. I would take that roughly $30,000 out of my recommended budget and then throw support to partial funding of these additional police officers because the grant won't be available. Where if it's a permanent position and the $30,000 stays in, 26 to $30,000 stays in. Thank you, Madam Chair. We've got a renovation of City Hall that is going to be going on in the next year. There's I think a significant burden on the city administrator to get this correct with the workflow and what's going to be done in the future. And in my mind, I see a significant consolidation and streamlining of workflow and cross training from different departments and having people filling in and having a front desk that is a lot more efficient than what we have right now. And nobody knows exactly what that's going to look like or how that workflow or that process is going to work or how many FTEs are going to be required and so on and so forth. So for that reason, I think it's premature to be doing this full time without us having to handle on what that's going to look like and how that's going to impact not only Seuss departments but other departments as well. So I think a good compromise is to do with seasonal and address that kind of as a band-aid until we're able to figure out what exactly the workflow and the processes are going to be moving forward. But I greatly anticipate some significant changes in the way things are done here and streamline and efficiencies as a result of the expenditure that we're making to renovate City Hall because the reason that we're putting that kind of dollar forward is to get gain efficiencies. Thank you. Other comments? Alder Sorensen? Yeah. This question is for the city clerk. Just to clarify too, like you said, this new position will be cross-trained. So this position will be able to help out with other things that might come up in the office. That's correct. So it's not just going to be specifically election? Absolutely not. And in your experience, there's elections that come up, like recalls and recounts and all that kind of stuff. Do you feel like those also put an extra stress on your office as well and that this position might alleviate some of that? That's for this way. We pray for no extra elections, but we oftentimes will get a recall or whatever. So we have to deal with it when it hits. We never know ahead of time. But we know for sure that there will be foreign to and whatever else happens throughout the years. Thank you. Alder Savalio? Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it a requirement that we terminate the seasonal or temporary position after the election is done currently? Or are we hired for a period of time? Could we change that so that we can hire one person, train them once and then bring them on only when we need them? That may be more of a challenge to find someone that's only willing to come in for two, three weeks and then we let them go and then we bring them back next election. I would think that that would be a challenge to find someone that would be willing to do that. Thank you. Yeah. Before Alder Person Holschew mentioned something about the mayor's assistant. When Daryl was hired, we tried to find a way of co-locating our offices so we could have shared one assistant at that time. And because there wasn't sufficient space without major remodeling, he was located in the second floor while I'm still on the third. So it didn't work out and he borrowed Sandy from the purchasing department to fill that role in his office. In the new plans for the city hall, we're looking at co-locating our offices so we can share an administrative assistant in the future. But Sandy would then be going back to purchasing in the finance department. So you're really not going to achieve any savings that you can put to anything else in that scenario. Other comments, questions? Alder Schneider. Thank you. So Daryl, real quick, in the next five years, how many of those years do you feel you would need this person? This permanence. Part-time. Or the seasonal, right? It's, again, traditionally it's, you know, on even years it's four elections, odd years it's typically two. But you would still need that one person? Again, this is one half-time person. We're not talking about a full-time. One half-time person. Every year? Every other year. Every other year. Is what I'm recommending. Okay. As far as a number of hours reflective of a 20-hour a week person every other year. The next five years, you would say you'd need it three times? With 2018 being the first of the five years, yes. Yeah, okay. Do we have a cost estimate on what the onboarding process is? I'm sorry. Of having to rehire every time? Do you know what that cost is? Your guys is ours. I mean, is there any assumptions? I just think that there's got to be a return to go from, because you're talking about the burden that puts on your staff, not only to hire, train, and retain them through the process, right? And that's the whole benefit for you? Right. And our pool of people that we use are typically our poll workers. So these are typically seniors. They're not looking for a permanent position. So that's why as we look at it, because we are responsible in our office for the elections, we've looked at all the years and said, okay, now what's working, what's not. And we refine the system as we go and go along with the laws that change on a regular basis. And this, it just makes more sense to have someone that's trained year round that that will be that extra person versus bringing in five or six or whatever it is depending on the election. People that don't have a clue and what they might be left doing is sorting ballots and filing them where someone else could be actually at the counter or answering the phone or whatever jobs we need. So I don't know. I guess I would recommend moving forward with it. Just it sounds like for $14,000, we lose that non boarding anyways every other year or every year. So I would have to believe there's got to be a return here, but it just what I know on boarding can cost a lot. And for $14,000 to save on some of these additional funding for full time employees to drop in a bucket. I guess clarification on using your five year timetable. Again, I would be recommending not funding that half time person every other year. So between 26 and 30,000 times two, so it'd be close to $60,000 of savings in that five year period. I think correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the number is 13. It's not. It's not 26. I don't believe. I'm sorry. 26 total. Correct. 28,000 across five years. Yes. Thank you. Other comments, questions. I think at this point, as it came out of finance and personnel, if someone from that committee would like to make a motion to grant the permanent part time person in the city clerk's office is outlined here. Would there be such a motion? I'd make a motion. All right. So there's a motion and second to proceed with the permanent part time person in the clerk's office beginning in the 2018 budget. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. I think we'll do a division of the house. Ballinger. Day. No. Ok. Welcome. No. No. No. Cheyne. No. Cheyne. No. No. No. No. No. No. The motion motion passes seven to six and I will be forwarded to the council in that respect As a companion change, there'll be a recommendation to amend The table organization to add this as the permanent part-time position very good the The next matter before us Out of public safety. It is my understanding that there was a move to a motion To amend the proposed 2018 budget to provide for three full-time firefighters and a battalion chief and the chair of public safety is Alder drawn do you just want to speak to the matter? We did have this discussion Directly correlating with the report that came from chief from us and out of respect, of course, we want to Offer that to everyone to be able to review that and have discussion about that We realize certainly that there's budget issues throughout Associated with that, but we certainly need to talk about it put it on the table It's directly related to future safety and potentially what we need to think about for future expansion and I believe I'll turn it over also as well. I believe that Holden whole shoe originally brought this up. So it's Susie if you'd like to mention anything further on top of that No, all right. I think I'll turn it over to The city administrator for his comments and chief. Do you want to come up because people may have questions chief Romus may have questions? Walter Bellinger, I'd like to make my amendment at this point Why don't we let the city administrator discuss the financial impact and then? Then your your amendment would be in order Based on the wages associated with three additional firefighters and one Italian chief Including benefits 342,000 $413 is the budgetary effect at this point In time the recommendation coming from the public safety committee simply recommended the count of the community the whole consider an increase of This amount However, no corresponding cuts or decreases and the budgets have been identified So at this point we think what is simply been identified is hiring additional staff. The funding is unclear and if you would comment on the as stated on the Impact on our expenditure was going to amount Should there be support for these four positions with no corresponding cuts the additional amount will in fact result in the city being above What is allowed for the expenditure restraint program? As a result in 2019 the city will receive $743,000 less than state funding So the total financial impact without looking at decreases in the other lines would be just over one million dollars Almost one point one one point one million dollars. Thank you All right, Alder beller bellinger Thank You madam chair. I'd like to make a motion to allocate $53,991 From the reserve contingency fund to the fire contracted services for the sole purpose to fund the Fitch and Associates fire department study and if I could I'd like to read a correspondence that I had from The city administrator related to this issue If just before you start on that we'll need a second to that and there is a second go ahead, okay? The current recommended reserve from the contingency amount in the executive budget is a hundred and twenty nine thousand eight hundred and twenty six dollars It is anticipated that with statewide inflation will be higher than the Sheboygan staff's earlier estimate in part due to higher energy cost as a result of hurricane Harvey Which was used to estimate the expenditure restraint program? Maximum budget Consequently I was planning to identify an increase in the hundred and twenty nine thousand eight hundred twenty six reserve For contingency amount to maximize our capacity of expenditures for future years I will not know officially for another couple of weeks But I will ask Nancy bus to provide an ERP update to the next committee of the whole and so he concludes This is Daryl speaking so so taking 53,991 dollars out of reserve for contingency will not unduly constrain the city's budget And this was last Tuesday, and I would just like to open it to Daryl And if anything has changed since that correspondence no change Thank you I'll open it up to discussion this amendment Discussing the lights to Transferring money for the purpose of the fire study just under fifty four thousand dollars. Is there any further discussion? Alder Nelson the only question I have is to require a supermajority or a simple majority simple majority Alder whole shoot If you're looking for money to pay for the new firefighters why not take the fifty three thousand nine hundred ninety one dollars and put it towards The new firefighters from that area Contingency funds I thought were for emergencies not for funding studies And the fire study was not supposed to be targeted at one department yet It is if you're going to put a plan together to do studies Why not do one on the fire department police department the public works stagger it out over two to five years? so that everybody's being addressed and possibly everyone would be More into that kind of a study, but this is the same thing just a different way to get it through and I'm opposed to it And I think the same people that voted no in the supermajority will vote no against here, but luckily they're not here for you tonight any other comments Well the Bellinger I would just like to address you know the claim that we don't do other studies for other department is erroneous and False it's we do studies all the time you voted for them unanimously all the time This is the only study that you don't vote for so so to say that you know that There's other departments that we're not doing studies for is just completely false and misleading to the public because we've done a We've done a traffic sit study on the south pier. We've done a parking study for development We've done a wastewater study for public works We've done a street master plan for planning and development. We fund studies all the time We did an industrial park study, you know for the Southside Business Park and in and so to say that we don't do studies I'm just sick and tired of that argument because we do it all the time. We take the recommendations They're invaluable. We're giving it's you know a great amount of data and expertise that we don't normally get from our Department heads because they aren't subject matter experts on every single Facet of every function that the city provides Holder hosin we have indeed gotten a study from the fire department and the department head and we haven't Gone after any department head in any of the certain studies We had to do a study because we didn't have any expertise in breaking that land out in the industrial park We didn't have any expertise in the traffic. I'm not opposed to doing a fire study as long as we're doing the study for everybody That's on the budget. That's the greatest part of our budget and putting it out over two to three years Why is that so difficult? I don't understand that why is it just why don't you want to do a study on the police? Department and public works and some of the other departments Why is it just the fire department which we've had the expertise as a department head? And it has been given to you and it has been voted down three times in council Any other comments? Alder dam room Oh What happened to the study that The fire Union did what happened to that one May I answer that it's sitting on the shelf. It's there The research was done. It took a team of people from the International Association of firefighters I believe it was six months to do that study. Yeah, so it's it's there. It hasn't been across the city That didn't cost the city anything. I don't want to cost the union I'm not sure if they had to pay them for that or if I believe the union the national provides that to them any Department that requests Help in this area they come to their aid and they provide the technology and the expertise to do that I just find it funny that it never comes up ever again. What's was done? And now this does all the time and that's truck that nobody just it never comes up It just sits on a shelf. They spent all the time they spent all the money to do it You know and then this is this is keeps on coming up and up and up and that one just goes away and goes away and goes away just like They didn't get hired years and years and years ago I'm going to be Crap in my opinion and I won't say anything for another year anything further We will then vote on the motion the amendment that's before us to Approve the study in the amount of fifty three thousand nine ninety one from the reserve contingency And I think why don't we just do a roll call on that? We did have a second yes, thank you This is on the amendment Every good hold on just like does everyone understand what the amendment is and what we're voting on Alder Nelson, I'm just a little confused. Is the is it going to be an amendment? to The motion to add for permanent full-time staff That's probably I know it seems a little strange, but from the Yeah, from a procedural point of view, that's just the easiest way to get this presented anything else into the budget It's an it's an amendment to the budget. It's not an amendment to the well, I am taking it as because there was a As an amendment to your right because was there was not a motion There was not a motion on the on the three firefighters So why don't we just consider it as amendment to the budget and that's what we are discussing. Thank you All right We are doing it within the context of our discussion regarding the fire department, but yes, all right very good Yes Right I Four nays, yes, very good. All right, so We're going to backtrack then to the proposal from public safety to Actually bring to the counter bring to the committee of the whole for discussion is my understanding It was not about am I correct older drawn? There's not a particular vote in favor or against It was just to bring the the matter before the committee of the whole and then ultimately to the council Yeah, I think in fairness again to chief for almost into the the plan is laid out That's that's what we'd like to do so we can have that discussion point. All right so For purpose of discussion Do any of the other For three full-time firefighters and one battalion chief in 2018. Is there such a motion? I'll make the motion and in the meeting. We all voted to Bring this with approval and discussion not just to discuss it. Okay, so I will make the motion to hire three fire fighters in a Battalion chief and is there a second Discussion Alder Sorenson My question is gonna go to the city administrator In our previous discussion we were talking about that there was a federal grant that is funding to police officers That's correct. Yes, and With that that funding we're gonna be having to kind of dance around and find that funding already in the budget for the future to keep those positions of the council chooses to do so Um, where do you first see us finding money to fire three full-time firefighters as well as a battalion chief? No source is obvious it would really take The management team getting together and collectively looking at the general fund And trying to find cuts of the corresponding amount. Okay, I Just want to speak out against this right now I was not at the public safety meeting when this was approved the only meeting I missed I had a work commitment But I think it's very premature right now That you know, the council did just approve the funding of a fire study To include that in the budget and we did approve the fire study by a majority at the last meeting So it was approved by this council, you know Now I'm optimistic to see what the results will come back with with the fire study to even determine if we need these fire Firefighters and the battalion chief and even you know Where their locations might be I think I'm gonna add another question to the fire chief to Even just with the staffing levels and you know, I want to get the feedback from the fire study right now So I won't be voting for this and then a question for the fire chief Did you have an idea of where if this does get approved where these fire? Firefighters would be stationed absolutely With the addition of another battalion chief We will be able to put three of our battalion chiefs back on shift Which in essence increases the shift strength by one person all the time Right now in 2010 and 11 we lost remember remember the ambulance came on board and we added four staff Since then we've cut four staff those four staff were cut in management. We went from 10 to 6 so the administrative jobs of Inspection maintenance and training were given to the already existing positions of battalion chief That's what happened. That's how that all shook out. I added a chief in July and That's helped immensely. We have somebody now in charge of Inspections and he's doing a great job We're in that program is increasing and getting cleaned up by leaps and bounds as I speak and give you many examples In addition to that I took another battalion chief and put him in charge of EMS so now I have a Intermediary or a goal between at that level to run our EMS program which accounts for you know Basically 80% of our runs and that's paid dividends and I can give you lots of examples there So by adding this cheap now the second one I can put the other chiefs back on shift which will add to the staff strength per day The firefighters you remember in 16. We we had seven on vacancies We were only allowed to hire four firefighters So we ran three short last year which required us to cut a person from the north side station station for This year we got it back. We got the chief and those three firefighters back So the net gain was achieved for half of a year. We started in July with that Recurring we were allowed to staff station for with four people Okay, they their staff would for but they can run as low as two and they're all by themselves They don't have a paramedic unit if we add these positions for next year We can staff station five on the south side with four So they're like it's less likely to run at two. We're increasing their strength by one automatically and And you know what I'd say it's almost 40% of I'm 38% of the time. There's always rigs out when other runs come in And we count on being able to pair up our paramedic units with an engine or a truck To go from that two or three to four or five That's essential. That's how we we try to operate if we can so it's We're trying to be fiscally conservative, but at the same time I have to worry about you know the quality of service for the citizens and the safety of our firefighters Thank you chief you're welcome You know ultimately, you know, I'm looking at this on the financial side understanding that there's a real Wall that we're not able to do this But I think long-term my hope is with the combination of your study, which is an excellent study the unions Recommendations and the potential Fitch Information I think they're all gonna say the same thing. We need to be prepared and expand. It's it's a safety issue It's an operational issue. That's one area that you don't want to keep cutting back on it We'll come back to to get us someday So I would almost like to see us look at at a longer-term financial Issue here and how we look at this so we can address it down the line two years from now three years from now Every year we seem to hit the reset button come back to where we are saying well We don't have enough to address this and we're right back where we started It may end up being a tough discussion about taxes it may be something else, but somewhere down the line We're gonna have to address it so Aldersavalia chief if you had to pick either the firefighters of the Italian chief, what would your choice be? I said that I that's a great question He's come up before and I know there's some people that disagree with me on this but Because we lost for management staff the area that we really need help in in our department This is my opinion is in staff I would I would if I had a choice I'd hire the battalion chief because if by doing that I was gonna put the other three back on shift and That would add to the shift strength overall. What would the cost of that be about a hundred and twenty five with benefits I believe thereabouts city administrator. Would we be able to find that easily in the budget? I mean, it's it's possible There's no obvious location at this time as Alder Bellinger identified in the next Two weeks we'll be learning from Department of Revenue what the expenditure restraint CPI is going to be So it's possible a portion could come from Continuously without having to make cuts in individual budgets Thank you lights on All right, so that would be Second that for discussion All right, so my memory is that is that is the first motion before us Okay All right So we previously had a motion to amend the budget to hire three firefighters a battalion chief That was made by Alder Hoshu and seconded by Alder Damro. This would be an amendment to that To that motion and seconded by Alder Sorenson discussion Alder Nelson my discussion point isn't necessarily to that amendment but In the general context, but I'm I'm still interested in finding out and I I don't know if the Fitch study is going to do it I don't know when it's going to come about but you know the future is Is is a fire? It's a serious area system. I mean eventually we know that the volunteer fire departments are Withering and we know that There's a lot of fire districts so eventually I Picture not a city fire department, but a fire district what that might encompass For sure it's going to encompass more taxpayers So to cover the system so I just want to and I don't know how it's going to turn out but I'm hoping that that any any Structural changes to the fire department now will fit into a future structure That we know is going to happen. I don't know if it's going to be 10 years from now 20 years from now Maybe you have a Enlightenment on that but but that's what I picture the future in 20 years from now as a fire district perhaps including I Hate to say town of Wilson, but I will town of Wilson town of Sheboygan perhaps maybe Kohler and Falls I don't know but so so we have to not only plan for the present But plan for the future and so I just want to want it to bring that little point to the fourth If I may comment on that it's an excellent point with fire districts, though What you see there is they're all like departments. So what it tends to happen in? Rural areas were a lot of different volunteer departments that are all the same. They're volunteer 100% they'll join together and realize efficiencies by combining there right now We started when I got here. We started with 25 departments Total in the column one career 24 volunteer as I speak we're at one department is Combined with another and has folded and at the end of the year another one's gonna do the same thing because of all the Things you just said It's gonna happen and it's gonna happen more often. So when you see those efficiencies gained It's it's in like department. So for us as a city with a full-paid staff with you know 5300 plus runs and things that we do In a service that we provide paramedic service all those things the other departments don't have any of that So it's really difficult to make anything like that happen. So then my question is how do we balance out? First responders now my I don't have a guess you probably know exactly how much it is but How many times do the rural volunteer fire departments help us as versus us helping them And is there some kind of financial equity involved in that? What happens is we're a part of Mabis Mabis is mutual aid box alarm system And there's 72 counties in the state and I believe 63 counties have or participate in Mabis So it's a shared service. So you're right I mean we ask when we need help will ask for help and we have asked for help and have received it at fires and other Incidents like EMS and on the other hand if you know it goes both ways So if they ask for our help we go out Last year We went out 15 times and other departments came in 12. So it was almost even Steven The other benefit this year. It's it's more it's farther apart. It's about 20 to 11 right now as I speak All right, however, if we go out for an EMS run many times we Transport and we gain the financial benefit whoever transport gets paid so there's it's not like we're losing out and It's a good situation. We are in good terms. We're reaching out. We're trying to you know, we have a combined Fire inspection team. We have a combined dive team. In fact, the county dive team is housed at station 3 in our old Equipment Bay or our maintenance Bay. I've allowed that to happen to share services. I'm trying to reach out We're trying to make you know, we need water protection here And that was the way to do it the best way I thought so we're reaching out all the time Has Mattis County team So we're we're seeing those efficiencies. We're realizing that you know, we don't need all the equipment We don't need all the staff. We're we're trying to make things work with what we have Yes, sir, I Had a question for the city administrator as I understood the amendment Would be funded $1,229,826 If we fund it from the contingency fund I would assume that would be just a one-year position because that's not an ongoing That's not an ongoing budget line. In other words, you can't fund personnel on an ongoing basis for the contingency fund Yes Yes, yes, you can in light that the ultimate Accounting would be to place permanent funding in the fire department's budget and In essence the challenge would be to find try and find money to Increase that contingency that new net contingency amount just to kind of recount for everyone where we're at financially in that Continuity we started out with a hundred twenty nine thousand eight twenty six earlier based upon action by the commuter hole By fifty three nine nine one, so we're now at seventy five eight thirty five With an approximate amount from Alder Svoglio of a hundred twenty one thousand for a battalion chief That reduces it to forty five one sixty five set or a negative one forty five one sixty five Consistent with Alder Bellinger's comment that we expect a higher cost of living For the expenditure of strength let's use a round number of a hundred thousand dollars So that would put us up at fifty five thousand for the new Number associated with reserve for contingency And just keep in mind that the general fund budget is thirty seven million We have a fifty five thousand dollar contingency I think you have to realize that in 2016 we carved all the little contingency budgets out of all the different departments to put them together in one contingency budget that we'd use for all city purposes and If we go in to the year with only a small amount like fifty five thousand we're just asking for trouble That that wasn't the intent to put that there for the council to raid prior to the budget being passed It was supposed to be there at its full value to cover those contingencies for the entire year that the budget operated Alder Bellinger I Think it's You know it's the it's a job is alderman to if they want to fund something and do something like this the 342,000 or the hundred twenty one thousand is to go through and figure out where the money is going to come from I agree with the mayor the contingency fund is for contingencies like a study Not ongoing operating expenses like personnel if you want to fund 342,000 or if you want to fund a hundred twenty one thousand go through Figure out where it's coming from you've got the numbers in front of you Is it coming out of the police department? Is it coming out of public works the finance city development? You know where's the mayor's office? You know where's it coming from you do your homework figure it out and and bring something forward You know the to just you know to say we're gonna fund $442,000 and we're gonna throw it on the city administrators lap and give him that mess to figure out and it's like okay Well, where's it gonna come from it's got to come from somewhere And you need to figure it out ahead of time and then you know have a plan Bring it before the council something that makes sense and then have it voted on just to do it this way I think is ridiculous just to say you know what okay? We want to you know what let's have a fire station on every corner We could just go and pass that and say you know what we're all for public safety We want this you know what the chief would be happy everything would be great You know and and then it's like okay We're gonna throw it on to the city administrators lap and say deal with this mess and figure out how to do it It's just not the way things are done You should do the homework figure out how it's gonna be funded You've got everything in front of you and then bring it forth and then have a vote on it to do it this way I think is ridiculous All right, so our discussion is on the amendment Which is to take a hundred approximately 121 thousand dollars from the contingency fund for 2018 to fund a battalion chief Is there any more discussion on the amendment? See none. I think we should do a roll call. Okay No Hey, hey, John. Hey, Schneider The amendment fails we are back to discussion on the original motion which is to add three firefighters and the Italian chief to the Approximately three hundred forty two thousand dollars further discussion Baldur Ross, I think a vote on that would be premature ahead of the Fitch study Any other questions? I just had a question for the chief chief as that would be a Approximately a one point one million dollar budget hit Have you given some thought as to where that one point one million dollars would come from our three big departments are police Then fire then public Public works. Have you given some thought of where that one point one million dollars would be found? I'm sorry all madam chair one point one. What is that coming from the expenditure restraint all the expenditure straight cost this Oh, if we if we agree to your proposal, we'll be adding three hundred forty two thousand dollars And then in addition losing over seven hundred thousand So it's about one point one million dollars. Have you given some thought would you take that from the police department from public works? Where where where in your thinking? Where would that come from? I don't have any idea Alder person not at all I believe that we need these additions in my opinion as fire chief. I believe that we need them for now But mostly for the future what's going on. I mean eventually I mean all the departments probably need staff You know, I'm asking for it that doesn't mean they don't need it But I believe that it's in the best interest of the interests of the citizens and the city To do this if I didn't I wouldn't think so. I think I'm being fiscally conservative Maybe a lot of people in here don't but you know NFPA standards call for four and on a per apparatus That would double my budget. I'm not asking for that. I understand that I just don't want to see three firefighters running out of station four by themselves And I don't want to see three firefighters running out of station five by themselves. That's my big issue That's where a lot of this is coming from so you haven't given a bigger picture any thought at all Thank you One firefighter cost adding one additional firefighter three are two twelve I believe so probably like six upper sixty sixty seven sixty eight But in the fire service we have three shifts. Yeah, so you can't you know, you don't add one you add three I know it sounds weird, but that's the way it is You know for the shift. Thank you. I was just curious Any other discussion That's with benefits All right, the motion before us is to add three firefighters in a battalion shape at an approximate cost of $342,000 to the 2018 budget and we'll do this by roll call as well Hey Jammerl. Oh John No Schneider Three eyes and ten nose All right That brings to a close the Amendments that had been proposed by committees and also the amendment by Walter Bellinger. Are there any other amendments or discussion on the 28 budget forward to the Common Council? I just have a question If it isn't brought forward today, that isn't the end of the world I mean it can be still brought forward before this is approved, right? Right. I think what will want as a closing motion is a A motion with these changes to bring to the council at our next meeting, which is next Monday Next Monday is the 16th Correct. Yes The public hearing on the budget will be on that day prior to the council or The first part of the council meeting and then there will be a final vote on the budget on No, the first meeting in November the first meeting in November. So Correct This is just the committee of the whole's recommendation So with the amendments that did pass is there a motion to bring the budget as amended to the Common Council? Second and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none all in favor state aye. Aye. Any opposed chair votes. Aye a motion to adjourn Madam chair. Yes. Do we have to go through the other? The other items on here or they just rolled into the first one, right as Procedurally rather than vote on all of these separately. Okay, just rolled them into so we don't just need to file the other ones or do whatever Actually, probably a motion to file would be in order. So is there a motion to file? 3.2 3.3 and 3.4 Any discussion hearing none all in favor state aye Any opposed I would also note that the Committee of the whole meeting that was scheduled for October 16th at 5 p.m. Will not happen. That was kind of a spillover meeting We'll start at the 6 p.m. Time. All right Here adjourned second on the adjournment all in favor any opposed we are adjourned. Thank you You