 If you look at this, it's starting on page one is the summary of all city of Sheboygan funds by fund type. It shows you the original 2004 budget that was approved November 24th, the tax levy and if it was TIF tax levy. And then on page two, we go with the city of Sheboygan tax levies and tax rates from 2000 through 2004. And then the city of Sheboygan property valuations are on page three from 1999 to 2003 in a bar graph. And then there's another graph showing the 2003 property taxes collected in 2004 on page four. Also on that page, you'll see the property taxes for the 2004 budget and what various entities got including the city of Sheboygan, Sheboygan area schools, Sheboygan County, Lake Short Tech College and the state of Wisconsin. The page five is the 2004 general fund revenues and then a bar graph of, excuse me, a dot graph regarding the general fund revenues that were collected is on page six by the various entities. Page seven is the general fund revenues for 2000 through 2004 and then followed by the general fund appropriations for 2000 through 2004. And then you see a pie graph on page eight which is the 2004 general fund appropriations. And then on page nine is the general fund appropriations by classification. On page 10, we have the full time and permanent part time positions, not seasonal in the 2001 through 2004 budgets. And the reductions are the numbers that are circled in the various areas. Page 11 shows you the operating budget for 2003, the 2004 amended and breaks it down as to what was the increase or decrease in the percent and so forth. Page 12 is the cost center description of the same items. And then page 13 is the history of the medical plan rates that we presently have for single and family from 2000 through 2004. Page 14 is the debt service fund appropriations and revenue. Page 15 is Mead library fund appropriations and revenue. Page 16 is the transit fund appropriations and revenues. Page 17 is the 2002 municipal revenues which came from the legal Wisconsin municipalities which compares Sheboygan to several other cities that we normally compare ourselves to when we're asking certain questions as to what we pay and what different rates are and things like that. And then page 18 is also the 2002 municipal expenditures also comparing Sheboygan to the various cities that we used in the previous example. Page 19 is the general fund budget increases compared to the expenditure restraint limit. Page 20 is the Wisconsin city's rated AA3 by Moody's and it shows you their equalized value per capita, the medium home value, the general fund balance as a percent of revenues and the unreserved general fund balance as percent of revenues. If you all will recall last year when we were doing this, Sheboygan was given if you want to look at it as a black mark because we left our fund balance drop below what Moody's thought was necessary for the AA2 rating. If it drops to less than that, then our percentage that we need or the rate that we get when we borrow money will be higher and therefore it will cost us more. All in favor, Stephan? Correct. And then page 21 is a city of Sheboygan debt issuance for tax incremental districts and page 22 is the last district number 12 and district environmental district number one which is the Northgate district. And that's what Richard put together to give us some previous and to give us some information regarding the budget. The budget is something that we all have to become responsible for and I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of several things and as Alderman Berg pointed out, we'll be asking for suggestions and I don't know if everybody has but I've got a list of 11 things that I've received during the past week to 10 days including several today that I'd like to present to council as thoughts that my constituents have called me about or talked to me about and their concerns. But I just want to make sure all the Alderman are aware that come December of 2004, we're going to start off behind the eight ball if you want to look at it that way because of the 2004 wage concessions and the 2004 health insurance concessions that were given for contract year 2004 by the various bargaining groups. That 2004 wage concession amounted to $141,500 and the health concessions for 2004 amounted to $114,600 if my numbers that I was using from last year are correct when we put the budget together. There's also a pay, an increase in pay that was, that will not start until December of 2004. That amounted to $256,000. Totaling that all up comes to, excuse me, it wasn't $256, it was $211, totaling that all up comes to $467,100. In addition to that, the finance committee on a vote of 4 to 1 I'll add recently said the library should increase their expenditures by 3%, the transit 1% and the general fund for contracts should be increased by 1% also that results in another $202,682 that we are already are looking at spending. Because of that, if we look at $180,000 as equivalent of 1% increase in property taxes, we're talking 3 3⁄4% just to cover that $669,782 additional that we will be starting as I said before behind the 8-ball. One thing that just came through also in your packet this evening was a memo from the city assessor regarding an assessment update for the assessed values for personal property, I believe it is, not including manufacturing or anything like that. And with that, looking at that, that would increase the 2004 assessed value to $45,597,500. Of that, if we multiply that times the percent or the times the dollar amount that the city gets, we come up with approximately $305,000 after you deduct what is TIF eligible and we cannot touch. So taking that 305 off, we've got about $364,782 that we still have to account for and that equates to approximately a 2% tax increase that you're looking at right now. And I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that because I've received a lot of calls that say we don't care what you do but don't raise our taxes. I don't care if you do this and then you ask them some questions and of course they don't want to lose any services either but they keep saying they do not want to lose any, they do not want an increase in their taxes. So I was asked just the other day what I thought was, was a fair and equitable tax increase and based on the calls I've received I'd had to say zero was a fair and equitable and with that, if the chairman will allow me to start with what I was given as some things that people want us to look at, my constituents basically want us to look at and the first one I just got today via email and it also includes a process for this. The first one was that the suggestion was to take the police, fire and snow removal off the property tax and add it to the water bill but there's a part two. If you do that they said have the city attorney and the city assessor negotiate with the nonprofits for payment of these above city services and then the gentleman went on to give me examples and said for instance the city of Appleton contracts with AAL, 8 Association for Lutherans Insurance Company to pay for those services that they receive that they don't really get assessed for and they come up with approximately between $350 and $400,000 every year that they give to the city of Appleton in lieu of taxes and then another example that he listed was the village of Ashwabanan who contract with the Menominee tribe who have their city attorney and their city assessor go visit the powers to be of the Menominee tribe and they collect every year from the Menominee tribe approximately over $300,000 and if our city assessor and our city attorney would get together and do something like this for our nonprofits it could help substantially as far as a reduction in taxes and so forth. Several others as long as I have before that have been brought to my attention and as it was recorded in the paper none of these suggestions no matter how off the wall they might seem to a lot of people are going to be thrown out. These are all going to be referred to the Strategic Fiscal Planning Committee which originally was going to meet Wednesday we were looking at Wednesday the 9th but now that meeting has been changed to Tuesday the 15th I believe the time has not been established because there's several other meetings going on that day and we want to make sure that all of the aldermen can attend those excuse me as well as department heads. The other items that I've been given were eliminate the dare program, put officers out on the streets rather than in the schools let the school system pay for the total of those services if they so choose. Combine the human resources department and the city attorney and the mayor's office or combine the human resources department, the city clerk and city attorney and mayor's office into one department also sharing of staff would result in some type of savings. Another suggestion has been combined finance with city clerk purchasing information systems and payroll, combine the city development office and the city assessor's office, combine and streamline the administration of police and fire departments into a public safety agency or law enforcement and protection agency. Utilize the handy care buses rather than the transit for off period times and allow the handy care to utilize their buses to make sure that they cover their costs which is a nominal fee and I don't know exactly how they charge that but I figured this is gonna be referred to transit and somebody's gonna come up a reason why we can or why we can't do this. The next item was let the sheriff's department take care of the 9-11 dispatching and then the final one was no matter what you do or where you decide to build it do not spend $300,000 more for land that is already owned by the people of Sheboygan and Sheboygan County. During the past 10 days basically I received the majority of these through email or telephone messages and I happened to know all the people that gave me these so they are constituents of my district and that's all I have right now so with that if there's any other suggestions I'm sure Alderman Berg is going to I guess just one of the items that struck me was I think because the wages and benefits are such an important part of this budget and especially a part of the increases obviously as early as possible we've gotta decide how many people do we want and where do we want them and that's it I mean not to drag it out till the end of the world. I notice in tonight's packet the liaison officer contractor's coming up you know when the chief talked at the last committee I think it was the last committee the whole they were actually kind of wishfully thinking about two more liaison officers and I'm not a police I don't pretend to know what they do or how they do it and where it's most important but we've gotta get that from the chief say hey do you want these two officers you've been talking about for a year do you want two more liaison officers do we want what's more important to have them on the street or in the schools or in the community development or in the dare I mean we've gotta get that from them their priorities and I think that's what's lacking I guess and they've gotta understand Alderman Peterson has brought in a resolution about dispatchers we've gotta you know as soon as possible get that and figure it out and tell the shared services committee this is what we want you to look at immediately not meet every three months for an hour it's not gonna get done and we've gotta look at the how many people we need the services we wanna support you know we've got a committee that is looking into those things and I think they're ready to you know in the near future come out as soon as possible I think we've gotta get our table of organization set so we know cause from there we can you know look at combinations and different things but that's gotta get set first I think that's something that you know in the past hasn't been done maybe as you know smoothly you're looking at well do you wanna give you know $20,000 to this group or do you wanna is it a half a police officer or you know I mean we've gotta look at those things and I think it's easier to do it now than it is to do it in November right when you're up against a bullet if I may can I just add something Dan, just to let you know this is all preliminary because there's a lot of issues that we're still waiting for the state on and we'll still be waiting for those for a long time like for instance shared revenue or what we're gonna get as far as transportation aids and other increases that we may get other offsets that may be there for instance we'll have a full year of storm water fee but that fee is only used for storm water in 2005 but we still have to account for that and let people know how we are actually spending that but this is preliminary but we are trying to get a jump on everything and that's why strategic is gonna be called as soon as it is and we'll go from there and I think the mayor's already has or if he's not he might be going to be speaking to the department heads asking for their suggestions earlier or I don't know, sure. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Already did speak to the department heads and some of the suggestions came in from departments and some of them were just like Alder McGrath said combination of departments which we're going to look at very seriously seeing where we can cut costs, utilize personnel better than what we are now not saying we're not doing a good job now but I think we can do a better job of doing that. Some of the other issues that were brought up were combining library services with county. That's one issue that was brought up with us. County Park System, looking at our roadways what we're paying for our roadways versus the town and the county. So there's many issues as Alder McGrath said as a state budget we know the state is going to be at least a billion dollars short this year again unless they fill the gaps somewhere magically with some money that they can come up with to 600 million from the one time tobacco funding the 200 million from the insurance Medicare program and then of course the 240 million from the tribal pack. So we are going to be in a tight budget again this year. Shared revenue will not, I was told by the governor staff shared revenue should not get any worse than what we had in the past year but they did not say how it's gonna affect us in the following year. And without knowing all these scenarios out there where there are billion dollars already looking for a billion dollars at state level we are going to have start rearranging our budgets also because there seems to be only two places to get either shared revenue or in the Department of Education it seems like and we're always getting hit on shared revenue and we just can't afford to do that any longer. So we have to look at different ways of growing our infrastructure also and building our tax base which we are doing with Blue Harbor and getting some more funds coming in because if we, I think Alder McGrath said if we think we're gonna rely on shared revenue for the rest of our lives I don't think that's going to be the answer. We really have to start working in and creating a larger tax base within our communities. So we are working on it though and we will have more suggestions coming into strategic June 15th. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think unfortunately I was on vacation for the last 10 days so I didn't get the time to get a list put together on some of my ideas but I've had a time to think about a lot of them and one Alder McGrath and the mayor spoke about it already and actually my colleague Bill Stephan and that's the department heads bringing in what their real needs are. I think they probably are all gonna say we need what we have right now but we're gonna be working with fixed dollars and we know that at this time and that's where we have to begin. We have to first find out what they figure they need and then we're gonna have to work through all those issues of debuting if they really need the employees they have and the level they're at and I think combining the departments is one area in some of these departments we can probably have significant savings. As far as Elias and officers I just wanted to mention one thing about that we have to remember right now yes those officers are there and about the school district is paying half their salary and if we take them on full time we pay their full salary. In addition, if we did add any other people we may take them out of the school system but one way or the other the taxpayers are gonna pay for what's needed in the school system and I am a strong supporter of Elias and program and I hope we can continue that because I think it's something that nips some of the problems out there in society and in our schools prior to them becoming larger problems once they leave school but that doesn't mean there's not ways to deal with it. Dispatchers that's another issue we should be looking at in the future the city is gonna be building a new police station eventually perhaps we'll spend that 300,000 perhaps we won't we don't know that yet. We have two sites and at that time that's a good time to look at joint dispatch and we're building a new police station that's the time you would build a joint dispatch center. I know there's a lot of different opinions on that but those are things we'll look at but that's something that's not gonna save us a lot of money in 2005. You can't just turn the switch and expect that to function but it's something that should be looked at along with everything else. One thing we do have to wait for to find out what the state's gonna do I think that's gonna be very important because that could, let's face it, they blamed us last year for all their problems and they're probably gonna blame us again this year I just hope that they don't take more money from us this year and make us be the ones have to bite the bullet all over the place and try to balance books that are very difficult to balance when they're taking the money from you and pointing their finger at you. And some of the other things, one thing I guess for Marie looking ahead, what level I think the state requires us to be at a certain level of assessed value like your properties have to be assessed at 94% of their actual value. What level are we at now? We're at 88%. We're at 88% and what are we supposed to be at? So that's something to consider too. I mean, tax are gonna go up almost the way they raise the gas tax simply because the state is forcing us to do certain things. And I see that as another problem. It may help us out, but I'm not so sure that it's really a good thing but the state's gonna force us to do that. But I think working in our departments and our committees we're probably gonna do the job again in this coming year. The mayor has already started it. There's a quality of life committee out there that's gonna be bringing in its recommendations and my understanding in that committee is that there's a lot of different opinions and I think that'll be good. We have a lot to talk about over the next four or five months here and I'm sure we'll do the work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions. When will we find out about shared revenue? July, December, October? Thank you. And then the next question, Alderman Groth. When you were giving us those numbers about being behind the eight ball, 141,000, they're wages that are due in December, right. And then 256,200 for health, right. And the last number, four, increase in pay. The last number was 211 for the July 2004 increases that are paid in December. Okay, so what is the difference between the wage concessions due in December and increases in pay? July, because the wage concessions were split between, happened January and happened July. Okay, so the wage concessions were for, actually for some months. 300. So when these wages concessions and the increase in pay business of July come due in December or July, this is back pay? No. We just have to start paying. Just start paying it. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I don't know. Yeah, I think you were wondering at the initial meeting, I believe it was said something about. Yes. This will give you a year to plan for this. Well, the year is coming up real quick, so. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Seeing as such a big proportion of our budget is tied up in personnel, salaries and benefits, I think it would be wise to hear Ed Searck summarize for us where that stands with labor contracts going into 2005, the status of those to remind us, as well as the process of those negotiations in the larger context of municipalities in the state. All seven contracts. And we've been watching our comparable, you know, other municipalities, what the settlements have been in that. And we're kind of at a standstill. We're kind of the same question. What we're gonna get in shared revenues? What's the budget gonna look like? Unions are wanting to talk. They say like, where is the problem? And we, well, we know where the problem is. We don't know how to resolve the problem and how deep a problem do we have. So right now, we've talked to them. They're kind of saying, you know, where, how much difficulty is the city in in terms of wages and benefits and that. So it's hard to say. We know that it's public knowledge that there are a number of settlements out right now of 3%, like cities like ourself for 2005 and some go out to six. The problem that we run into is that when you're negotiating these contracts or if you end up going to interest arbitration or arbitration, you've got to prove your point based on comparable municipalities in terms of what they've settled at. Are we being excessive in our demands for concessions? Or are they being excessive in their demand for benefits and wages? So I wish I had a good answer right now. Just one further question. Does that mean we really can't well settle labor contracts until we have a sense of shared revenue from the state where that's gonna be? That's correct. So late summer really fall at least. I would suspect that would be. I have some idea of what the city is looking at. It might not be dollars. It might be healthcare costs or it might be something else. Yeah, that's correct. In fact, we know based on what Rich is talking about in terms of increased medical benefits, I mean, it is comparable to a wage increase. So you're kind of starting at a ground zero there in terms of what we know for certain what our expenses are gonna be for 2005. But unfortunately, the way the system works within the public sector is that we don't decide. And we could recommend and we can push. But if the union or unions depend to go to arbitration, it's one individual in arbitration deciding what's the validity of our arguments versus the union's arguments. Thank you again. Nancy has just mentioned, I guess it premature to hope that we get shared revenue by August or so, it'd probably be later, correct? So I'm wishful thinking that they have it. So to correct myself, it'd probably be later. Probably October, November, more like. So it's going to be later in that. But we, I think Alderman Groff said something. We can't stop our budget projects to wait for shared revenue. Shared revenue is a big portion of our budget. There's no doubt about it. We get from the state around $12 million between 11 and 12. But we do have control over parts of our budget where we can control and start making those adjustments. So therefore we have to start this early and get moving on that where we can control it. And I think there's a lot of good suggestions out there and we'll keep moving on it. And back to the floor, please, Ed. Could you take the projected increase in healthcare costs for the city and translate that to increased deductibles or increased co-pay to see what the impact would be? So that the city's expenses is the same as this year. Yeah, I haven't done it yet, we can. Unfortunately, we've had, for example, our prescription drug program, we did some managing last year. We, in fact, we joined with the county and the school system to go to a higher discount to restate. So our expenses in the prescription drug area from 0304 maintained the same. So we didn't have any increase in that, which was kind of remarkable. But deductibles, the thing we're working on and the union's seen to really be concerned about is we want to reduce the cost. I mean, you can't keep dumping the cost back on the employee and the city, so we got to find some way of designing a plan that will reduce, perhaps usage of the medical plan. So that, you know, the solution is really, is lowering your medical costs as opposed to just conveying the cost onto somebody else. And that's kind of the item we're working on. So we're talking about deductibles. One issue that one person brought out, and in fact it was a doctor, we were talking about it, and he recommended that we really push to have annual physicals for people, say over 45 years of age, and have physicals for people that are under that age like once every two years. And there's been studies on that. If you can catch some of these problems that diabetes and high blood pressure net early on, they really reduce your cost later on. And our labor force is getting older. We don't have a lot of turnover. And that's one of the issues that we're kind of looking at. On page 13, Rich put together his history of medical plan rates and so forth. So that's got a lot of information through 2004 on that those are the rates we're paying now. And they're anticipated to raise to, I think 15% is what's been kicked around right now. So, yeah, that's the estimate right now. But that would give you a, that'll give you a ballpark figure then. Not that much. I, so I was late getting here. I spent two hours, two hours with them. I think as Mike, as Alderman Werner had said, there are a lot of different opinions on that committee, which are, which is very good. They will be coming to you with their recommendations, they hope by the end of, by the end of July, but the reoccurring theme was, was combine with the county, combine with the county, combine with the county, or in lieu of that, create a metropolitan or regional form of government. And I'm certainly going to hear that in their recommendations. Cool resource program. In last speaking with Chief Kirk, he indicated that, can you hear me all right? He indicated that he would in a perfect world like two more liaison officers or school resource officers. However, what we're striving for at this point is maintaining the status quo and keeping what we do have as the program is very effective. And in the long run, it saves the city money. So that's my only comment concern there. The only thing Chief Zire asked me to convey to the council tonight is that we have been working with minimum staffing as much as we could for the last decade and we operate at a minimum standard. We have enough to supply on any house fire and initial attack with one engine or unit in reserve at the opposite side of the city. However, we normally call in additional manpower when we come into those situations. So we'll do our best to try to cut the budget wherever we can. But as far as staffing, we're at bare bones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few words. As we move forward, having the arduous task of trying to predict the future without really being able to predict the future. And as we move forward, trying to perform self-surgery on ourselves, I would like at some point to be made aware of what the whole process is of this budgeting that we're doing. All this talk is really neat and really nifty and there's some good ideas coming up. But there are pieces of the big picture that I don't see yet or that we can look at and see how every piece fits. We don't have a timeline in that respect. I know Mayor Schram is working with the department heads, but it's very hard for us to even work, thoughtfully work without knowing what's really going on out there also. A lot of us aren't staying really on top of the quality of life. I know there's some good discussion there too. But I see things, little small things that are somewhat disturbing. We talk about shared services repeatedly and it's not a new concept that's been around for years. But then we have the liaison officer. What better example can you have of shared services? You got school district and the police department. That's an Eklen example. Now we're trying to kill it. So we're looking at shared services on one end and we're trying to just do away with the shared services that already exist. So I think we need to have a clear, concise thinking of what is it that we really want? And I do agree with Alderman Stephan here. It's gonna boil down to how many people, what are our services that we wanna perform for our community, what is it that citizens expect from us? How many people do we actually need to do those services and what's it gonna cost us? And just to sum up, we need to budget with what we have. We cannot budget with what we don't have. We can expect $3 million in revenue sharing from the state. If we don't get it and we're not sure of it, don't budget it, budget with what we have. And if we do that, it's a very cautionary way of approaching a budget, but if we do that and we get more money, more power to us. But if we stick within our means and spend within our means, I think we're gonna be okay regardless of how hard the times are. Thank you. I just wanna add one more thing. We'd like to remind the council that for the year 2004, six of the seven unions and all the nonrepresented employees gave concessions in both wage freezes and benefits. Of the seven municipalities that we share information with, we are the only city that did that for 2004. So I know that there's gonna be a lot of pressure on the unions and on the employees to do something, particularly with the counting and the problems they're having, but keep in mind that, you know, because of what we did this year, both at the union and non-union employees, we didn't have a tax increase. And our message to everyone here was that we need to solve the problem this year, going into next year. Call the person who needs it. Dan, I'd like to go back to two things. One is the police liaison. My daughter teaches at Horseman and she loves them. But the problem I have with it is we pay half the cost to city taxpayers and we also pay, the school district pays half the cost. But if the school district, only about 70% of that, I forget the numbers, but if you take the combined assessed value in the city of people that live in the city and pay their school taxes and the city taxes, we pay 85% of that service. And the people in the town of Wilson, the town should be able to pay 15%. So it's a good service, but I think there has to be, maybe the school district should pick up the whole thing because the district is much larger than the city. That's one concern. The other one, Mike on the police dispatch, I've never suggested a joint dispatch, a county dispatch. And they did it in final act last year. It's saving several hundred thousand dollars. We can't wait until we build a new building. I think it's something we've got to sit on. Somebody, I guess, Bill, you said, we can't just go to the county and de-sever and say, by the way, take over dispatch. You've got to start those discussions very soon and get those discussions going and try to resolve the problems. And it's not going to be an easy thing to solve. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We see a lot of, we get a lot of talk about shared services. A lot of people make proposals about shared this and shared that and shared everything. And I don't know about you, but I have not really seen any hard evidence where it works. I guess I would like to be shown, you know, where does this work? How much money can be saved? You know, you can make all kinds of proposals that this, that one thing and another. We're going to save lots of money if we put, you know, this department together with that department. But I'd like to know where this information is coming from. Where's the facts and the figures? I'd like to see it. Because if you do it wrong, you're going to end up with one heck of a mess. I'll tell you that. Thank you. There are services where the dispatch and you'd be surprised what their answers are. Bill, I'd like to go back to Bill Wahneman. I call Wahn, Pennsylvania. I work there in the 70s. They combined in the county dispatch. Call Fondle Act. They combined the first of this year very successfully and are saving several hundred thousand dollars. It's happening all over the country. The problem we have is we pay for our dispatch and we pay for 32% of the counties that we don't use. We just can't afford that anymore. Since we're bouncing around on the dispatch, I consider a joint dispatch or county dispatch one and the same. We'd be still, you still have people dispatch and sitting dispatch and county, it's, it's the same thing. We're still dispatchers. So you may save a few positions in that, but my point is if we're building a new police station, that's the time to build a joint dispatch center or call it a county dispatch center, call it anything you want. That's the time to put it in. We have the equipment in two places. The county's not going to just accept 200% more and calls and not charge the city for it. We're not saving a lot of money. We may save some the first year, but eventually that's going to be weeded out and gone just as it always is. But there's, there's something that we can look at. And I think building a new police station that's prime time for doing something like that and including it in our RFP when we send out, hopefully building use will have something a little more concrete to give the council in July regarding that site. And this is something that can be in an RFP, but there's, you have to be very careful. I was involved in a discussion several years ago at a joint dispatch center and there were cost overruns in Racine of $4 million and building a joint dispatch center. Green Bay, it's literally from the people that work in it, extremely problematic. They're having huge difficulties up there. It's not functioning good. We're talking public protection and safety. Not the committee, but the public protection safety of the public. And you have to be careful in this. You can't just snap your fingers and do it. You have to study it. You have to find out if it's going to really be effective, if you're really going to save money and if it's going to jeopardize public safety. Now, if someone out there wants to just say it won't jeopardize public safety and do it, they can, but I won't take that tack on it. However, I will keep an open mind and that's why I've made the statement many times. We're building a new police station. At that time, it's a great time to look at something like that. We're going to have to do shared storage of property. There's another issue, huge. The state and federal government have put limits on us and restrictions on storage of property that are unbelievable compared to what they were five years ago. That's a really good thing for a shared service across the entire colony, for every municipality and every town, so we'll look at it. I want to ask Nancy a question. Rich normally puts together a budget timeline. Is that something that's going to come out at our next finance committee meeting or? Okay, and then that will be distributed to all the aldermen so that we will have a timeline in place by the middle of this month, as far as when we're looking at these. And the debate or the partial debate was good on shared services and joint dispatch, but it's something that is going to be brought up again and again and again. Tonight's meeting was basically to get some more suggestions and we're still open to more and we'll still appreciate anything coming in from any of the citizens out there looking for different suggestions for the council to follow for 2005. And like I said, the strategic physical planning meeting will be on September, excuse me, June 15th, and the time will be announced later this week. Thank you. I'll make this quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Seeing that it's already halfway through the year, my biggest fear, we came up with some good ideas and being new again, I would like to see how do these things get moved to action? And maybe Alderman Groff had already mentioned that. We've discussed about these things. Is there any ownership? Do we send it to the committee so that they just don't get lost that it's discussed and nothing happens? The strategic will package them together and send them to the various committees, whether they're finance, public protection, security, government unions, and things like that, and that they'll be distributed that way with reporting back to the common council within a month or two or something like that. They'll do the time long to set up with that more requested. Okay, thank you. Audience, any of you here or have any suggestions for the other persons please write your order person with your suggestions and they'll all be taken up. So I look now for the adjourned. Second to move. You're looking for the second to adjourned. All in favor? Aye. Conferring? Aye.