 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under had indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from our last meeting. Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of the minutes. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Are there any resignations this evening? There are no resignations or appointments or confirmation. Thank you. Then we'll go on to the public forum. City clerk. OK. First this evening we have Alice Richter. Alice, are you here? Alice is not here. OK. Next we have Audrey Odden. Pardon? OK. We'll have Roger Odden. Come up to the mic. Pardon? This works. Yes, right up to the mic here. Yep. You might want to pull it down just a little. And Roger, can I have your home address, please? 1027 Bell Avenue, Cheboyton. OK. And you will have five minutes, sir. Thank you. I would just like to preface my remarks by saying thank you for your willingness to serve on the Common Council. That often means making difficult decisions as to what is in the best interest of the residents of our city. My wife and I know that. We both served on the council. I served for eight years back in the 70s. And I think the deaths are still the same. My wife served for 12 years in the 90s. I'm here tonight to address the document on granting a license for a liquor store on North 15th Street and Guley Avenue. Have you ever driven up Guley Avenue? There's a minimart on 10th and Guley, which sells beer. There's a tavern on 11th and Guley. We have two taverns on 15th and Guley. Now, you're deciding whether to grant a license for a new liquor store on the same corner. This area is predominantly residential. As a county board supervisor, I represent this area and I am concerned. In a recent conversation with our Shaboygan County Sheriff, we discussed the epidemics of drugs in our community. Heroin was mentioned. How people, so many young people, are addicted. Many are overdosed and dying. But you know what's the worst addiction, the sheriff said? It's alcohol. So much domestic abuse results from excessive use of alcohol. And I'm concerned for the families, for the safety of the families, spouses, children. The Sheriff's Department, the Police Department, called to many incidences of domestic abuse. It's rampant in our community. I urge you to please vote no on granting a license for another liquor store. Thank you. Thank you, Roger. By any chance, did Alice just walk in? Let's go back to Alice. Would you come up to the front, please? Can you give me your home address, please? 2208 Cross Court. OK, and you'll have five minutes. OK. I won't take five minutes. I'm a homeowner on the corner of Cross and Ghillie. Cross Court is between 12th Street and 13th Street on Ghillie. And I am all for small business. I'm not opposed to alcohol. But I am worried about my declining neighborhood. I did a little homework. And sort of what the gentleman before me touched on, I found in a six-block radius of my home, we have a supermarket with an attached full liquor store. We have two mini-marts, Pig Stop and Mint Art. But we also have, in this six-block radius, 11 bars. I am not throwing this number out to you. I'm going to name these bars. Time and a Half Bar, Silver Fern Bar, Jacob Hall, Tommy's Bar, Dennis' Denny's Bar, Braveheart, Beans 2, Terri's Bar, Poor Richards, Screamers, and Big Daddies. Now, anybody that wants to drink can walk within six blocks and get whatever they want. I don't think that granting a liquor license to someone else is an asset to my neighborhood, which is already drug and alcohol affected. I'm worried about my neighborhood. It's a declining neighborhood. And we certainly don't need any more alcohol. Thank you. Thank you, Alice. Next on the list is Michael. Is it Rieger? Michael, if you would like to come up, please. And Michael, can I have your home address? Yes, ma'am, 1214 Geely Avenue. OK, and you will have five minutes. And I would like to thank the council for the opportunity to speak this evening. I've lived at my residence since 1993. So I've seen lots of changes. And I think I have a good handle on what's good and what's not good for the neighborhood. Reiterating what the previous two speakers have just said, we have our hands full with crime in the neighborhood relating to drugs, alcohol, prostitution, to name the least. I do not see how another liquor establishment will add any family value to the neighborhood. Again, eight blocks to the north is a full liquor store. Piggly Wiggly. And the numerous sea of bars that I'm surrounded by. So there are plenty of choices already. I think, if I may speak frankly, what I'm most concerned about with these small type businesses is that they come before the council and the licensing committees. And they list how they're going to be assets to the community. And they say all the good things that they're going to add to the neighborhood. And quite frankly, they get their licenses granted. And what happens is they will sell what they will legally be able to get away with. Now, I know for a fact, at these smaller liquor store convenience type establishments, they sell pornography. They sell glass paraphernalia under the guise of smoke stuff. I've seen the advertising at Jake's liquor store, smoke stuff. Pig stop on 15th Street, which is not affiliated with Piggly Wiggly, has the glass pipes in the front window under the guise of tobacco pipes. Now, I know these things are legal. But we all know that they add nothing to the intricate value of the neighborhood. And a business owner or a potential business owner will tell you ahead of time he has no plans on selling these types of materials. But once he has that license, these are things that he is legally able to sell. And quite frankly, I have had my fill of potential business owners promising how they're going to be assets to the neighborhood and turning around and doing completely opposite and adding no value thereof. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I oppose it. Also, as a side note, almost forgot, my older person recently took a phone survey of the neighborhood. I do not know the exact count of numbers. I know her answering machine was flooded on numerous occasions with no votes opposing this liquor store license being granted. I believe it was 50 to 60 of them, the exact number I'm not sure of, so I can't be quoted on that. But I do know that there were at least 50 or 60 neighborhood citizens opposed to this liquor license being granted. So quite frankly, I'm perturbed that I have to come here a second time to vote on being opposed to this. I would have thought the first time was enough to register how I felt about it. And I'm sure the other people that previously called in with their concerns thought this matter was laid to rest. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Michael. Next on the list would be Scott Matula. Could you give us your home address, please? 1416 North Fifth Street. OK, and you will have five minutes. I'd like to talk a little bit about this project. I am the architect of record that is trying to put this together. And in going through some of these meetings, I've heard a lot of, I guess, some confusion because there was another project that was proposed within that same area. I've heard a lot about being in the middle of a residential neighborhood and being out here again for the same project and so forth. The area that we want to build in is the northwest corner of 15th and Geely Avenue. I've lived here 25 years. It has been blighted and not used for the whole time I've been here. And that whole area is a very commercial area. RCS is across the street. What's the oil company? Quaker, Q-Mart Oil Company, is right there. Pick and Save used to be in that same block, which actually sold liquor. So pretty much we're proposing to put a liquor store in the same block that there was a liquor store probably five years ago. There's numerous, the factories to the south of RCS are where the haunted house is, all those areas. There's a mini storage building that is located to the north. So when I look at that whole entire block, it is a very predominantly commercial area. We're not proposing to sell, we're not a bar. It's a liquor store and a convenience store. The building would have two separate components. One is the convenience store, one is the liquor store. They're separated as they're required to be for the codes that are out there. I guess when I look at it, I hear all this outrage about having liquor stores and whatnot. And I guess when I look at it, I really don't see a difference if you're going to buy some liquor at a convenience store that's there, or at a superior liquor, or at a festival foods, or Walmart, or where have you. Something has to start on that neighborhood and that street. You're right, it's a lot of bars and it's a lot of very rundown houses. We're proposing to put somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million investment into that corner. We are taking something that has been blighted, where I'm sure drug deals and prostitution and all those things have happened because it's a blighted vacant lot and we're creating something with it. I don't know, I kind of take a little offense that, well, now we're going to be having prostitution and illegal activities and things like that and then whatnot. It's a convenience store and it's a liquor store. It's something that is going to be well lit. It's something that's going to be occupied and have people there, which is way more safer than having a vacant building that's sitting there right now. I just wanted to kind of explain about the project a little bit. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. And last, we have Bessoudi Vadaqari. Mr. Vadaqari, can you give us your home address, please? 916 Mulvery Lane Cooler. OK. And you will have five minutes. Sure, thank you. You're welcome. I respect the chairman of the committee, respected mayor and respected all other members of the community and members of the Common Council. I applied for this license nearly three and a half months ago. There was only one license left. So I was told to come back in the next meeting. Same thing happened twice. And somebody else came in and applied for 11th and Gile. And that was right in between the houses. So definitely I agree if a liquor store is in between the houses, people will oppose it. And I even at a personal level discussed with him that you are applying in such a place where you are right in between the houses. My location is further towards the west. As everybody knows, RCS and quality state oil in the back. And I am in this kind of business for now 19 years. I own the Clark Station on Indiana Avenue. Tidy store in the 14th Street. And the liquor store in Siobhagon Falls. And education wise, I'm an MBA. I'm doing CPA right now on my side. So I am a responsible citizen. And I know what liquor does to a family, how people and the family get hurt with the over-drinking and all these kind of issues. But technically bars are more serious and more problematic to the people than a liquor store. People will come in, buy the liquor, put in the bag, go back to home, and drink. And if I don't have a liquor store there, it does not mean those people can't drink liquor. They already have the access. Bigly, wiggly is there. We can say there are other bars are there. So I am doing a bigger plan. So I don't see, I don't see from my standpoint, from business and I have other plans over there too. I'm requesting something that's not conducive to the society. And other thing is it's going to be totally separate entrance, separate cash register. So people under 21 won't have access to get in the liquor store side. So selling to minors and all these kind of issues will be eliminated. So I would like the committee members to take it from a positive standpoint instead of focusing on the negative side like drug dealings, prostitutions. I don't even want to talk about that. Those are, we don't even want to focus on those negative parts. We just want to be focusing on the good things that we can create and add in the society. If anybody has any questions, I'm feel free to ask them. Thank you. Thank you. And that's it for this evening. Thank you. Next we'll go on with Mayor's announcements. Tonight we have a significant retirement. Kerry Kautzer is with us. You can see what an asset he is to the community when we have microphones at work. He just jumps right back up there and fixes things. But Kerry was hired as a production associate at Cable Vision in 1992. When the city took over the operation of the local access channel WSCS in 1997, Kerry was named the manager of this new department. Through the past 34 years, Kerry has made sure that this community was connected to what is happening in Sheboygan by various TV programs. This includes high school sports, parades, government meetings, entertainment, speakers, community news, public service announcements, and church services. Originally WSCS was only available if you had Cable Vision and now it's available on Charter Cable, ATT Uverse, video on demand, and available on the WSCS website, and also live streaming on the internet. Kerry has guided WSCS through all of these changes and it was really quite an accomplishment. Kerry and his staff end up working many weekends and evenings to film all the events in Sheboygan. During his tenure, he's had to improvise many times to find a suitable solution to make sure that the show goes on. One example took place at a Lakeland football game where the, and whenever a production takes place on location rather than the studio, the likelihood of something not working goes way up. At this particular game, there was no direct communication or video link between Kerry directing in the truck and the announcers in the press box. He did have an intercom connection to the cameraman so the solution was for the cameraman who was on top of the press box to stomp his feet on the roof so the announcers would know that it was time to start talking. One drawback to this low tech fix was that the entire camera and picture shook at the start of each stomp. It may have not been ideal, but it got the job done and was an example of Kerry's resourcefulness. I want to offer Kerry a big thank you from all the residents of Sheboygan and ask them to come to the podium for this special presentation. Kerry, the city of Sheboygan is honored to present you the certificate of appreciation in recognition of your 34 year career with WSES TV from 1982 to 2016, and I believe tomorrow's gonna be Kerry's last day. If you wanna come and say goodbye to him, I think at 12 o'clock they're gonna have a cake and you can partake in that and say thank to him for all the hard work. Here you go, I wanna say a few words. Thank you. I'd like to say thank you to the mayor and the common council for this nice recognition. Sue, how many minutes do I have? As many as you want. Let's see, giving a background history you already have alluded to cable TV coming to the Sheboygan area in 1982 and that's when I started working for the cable companies which changed hands several times and then I was hired by the city in 97. So it's been a great career. Some other background history as far as technology when I started working covering council meetings which if I do the math correctly, it's been 800 meetings, common council meetings and another 50 or so community whole and special meetings. I've been here for many of those meetings and long hours. In the beginning we would be here until 10 o'clock plus every meeting and we would have our truck parked on center avenue below city hall, two or three cameras manned and we dropped the camera cables out the window over here and hook them up to the truck and now we have four robotic cameras which we've had for a number of years so you can see the technology is fairly improved in the quality image and I really appreciate all the community people I've worked for over the years, the dedication of the WSES staff and I'd like to thank all the cable viewers that support our station and watch these meetings. So thank you again. It's 12.30 for the cake. And you WS. Thank you, Carrie. I'd like to just remind everybody that the leaf collection season begins on the 10th of October. They see the banner ad on the city website to find out what day your leaf collection will take place and also I wanna remind you if you have some kids or grandkids, make sure you attend the children's teen book festival that's coming up this Friday, Saturday and Sunday and it'll be held at the Meade Library, the John Michael Cooler Arts Center and Bookworm Gardens. Thank you. Next we'll go on to the consent agenda that'll include items three point, oh, I'm sorry. We have a hearing first of all, item 2.1. This hearing is to amend the city of Sheboygan official zoning map and to change the use district classification of property at 1123 North 29th Street from Class SO Suburban Office to Class MR Mixed Residential Classification. Is there anyone wishing to be heard? Is there anyone wishing to be heard? Is there anyone wishing to be heard? Bami, you wanna step up? That would be good. Can we have your name? My name is Betty Grothe and I am the executor of this house. The reason we need to have it rezoned is because we are trying to sell it and without the rezoning we cannot sell it. So that's all I have. Thank you, Betty. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard? Chad Pellecek. This will be acted on later on in the agenda but just to follow up in the owners or the executor's comments, this is a property that's been built as a single family, has historically been a single family. It appears that in about 1996 when the city converted to the current zoning ordinance, there was some oversight of this property and it was put into the mixed office and it should be single family. So staff doesn't have any issues with it. I know they're trying to sell it and it's difficult to sell a legal non-conforming use property. So the recommendation was to rezone it so there should be no issues with it. The property primarily around it is single family residents. Thank you for those comments. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard? All the person down here. Thank you, mayor. I move to close the hearing. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Next we'll go on to the consent agenda. All the person down here. Thank you, mayor. I move to accept and file all reports of officers, accept and adopt all reports of committees and pass all resolutions and ordinances. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on any of the items in the consent agenda? See nothing? Although, would the clerk please call the roll? 14 ayes. Motion passes. Then next we'll go on to reports of officers. Item 4.1 will lie over until November 7th. Items 4.2 through 4.7 will be referred to various committees under resolutions. Item 5.1 is a resolution by Alderman Heidemann, Lee Wendalski and Schneider adopting certain changes to the city's dental benefit plan effective for calendar year 2017. Coverage and establishing the monthly premium equivalent rates effective for January 2017 coverage and thereafter. All the person down here. Thank you, mayor. As an initial matter, I would move to suspend the rules and would ask, well, perhaps the city administrator to explain why the suspension is required. The city begins its process of working with the employees for 2017 coverage, whether it be health insurance or dental or other insurances that open period begins as early as next week. And to be consistent with the health insurance change, which in past years has been a two-tier single and family. The resolution before you alters the dental plan to coincide where it is single coverage, employee plus spouse, employee plus children and then family coverage. I had in mind I'd move to suspend the rules. Is there any objection to suspension? Seeing none, please proceed. Thank you. Thank you. And then I would move to put the resolution upon its passage. Is there a second to that motion? Okay, we have a second. The items on the floor for discussion. Seeing no discussion with the clerk, please call the roll. 14 ayes. Motion passes. Item 5.2 is a resolution by older person, Donahue authorizing the execution of the utility sidewalk easement in lot 10, South Pier Platt for the purpose of installing sidewalk along the southern edge of South Pier Drive. Older person Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. As an initial matter, this particular resolution comes to us for suspension of the rules and immediate enactment. As I understand it, the sidewalk that the city intends to install is subject to an easement agreement with Blue Harbor, which has agreed to the easement with our approval today. We are authorizing that work to go forward on a timely basis. And with that in mind, I move to suspend the rules. Second. Is there any objection to suspension? Seeing none, please proceed. Thank you. I would move to put the resolution upon its passage. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll. 14 ayes. Motion passes. Moving on to reports of committees. Item 6.1 is an RC by law and licensee. To whom is referred pursuant to RO number 95 of 1617 by the city clerk. Various license application and recommends that beverage operators license number 1407 be denied based upon his failure to accurately reveal all relevant convictions on his application, his record of violations related to the license activity and his record as a repeat law offender and failure to cooperate with the committee. Alderperson Lussard, our whole shoot. Thank you, Mayor. I ask, I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Second. Thank you for that motion and support under discussion. Is Devin Wollin here? Devin was invited to meet with our committee on two occasions and appeared at neither. It was an anonymous vote to turn his license down. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? If not, will the clerk please call the roll on the motion. 14 ayes. Motion passes. Item 6.2 is an RC by law and licensing to whom is referred pursuant to RO number 95 of 1617 by the city clerk license applications and recommends that taxi cab drivers license number 1439 be denied based upon his record of violations related to the license activity. His record is a repeat law offender and his failure to cooperate with the committee. Alderperson Hull shoot. Thank you. I ask that the RC, the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Second. Thank you for that motion and support under discussion. Is Michael McKenna here? Michael McKenna was invited to two council meetings or two of our committee meetings and didn't appear in either one. And the entire committee that was present voted no to not give him a license. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll. 14 ayes. Motion passes. Item 6.3 is an RO by law and licensing to whom is referred pursuant to RO number 104 of 1617 by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending December 31st of 2016, June 30th, 2017 and June 30th, 2018 and recommends that a class A liquor license application to number, rather number 3220 for J. Mark Licker be sent back to the common council with no recommendation. Alderman Hull shoot. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As the applicant was not in a presence at this meeting I'm asking that this item be referred back to our committee. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to refer it back to the law and licensing committee. Is there any discussion on that motion? Alderperson Jose. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I would like this subject to be discussed and voted on tonight. The applicant communicated with me before the meeting that he wants this issue voted on tonight and there is no purpose in sending this back to the committee. It's clear the committee's what their position is and I think that the, we've had speakers here tonight. We've had both for and against the matter and I think the issue should be dealt with tonight. Thank you for those comments. I'm gonna vote against sending it back to the law license. Is there any other discussion? Alderperson Trester. We've been dealing with this issue now for. You're good. We've been dealing with this issue. I'm the alderman for that district. I'm the one that got phone calls and got many of them. And I only had one person that actually wanted that mini mart liquor store on 15th and that woman was already two sheets to the wind by 10 o'clock in the morning. These people in this neighborhood are trying to protect their livelihood, their homes. They have put all their money and resources into their home just like the rest of us. And they do not want a mini mart liquor store in that neighborhood. I understand Jose that you feel that this gentleman needs to have some closure to the situation but I feel that I need to ask myself as a council member and as their alderman two things. When I make a decision, who do I hurt? And who do I help? And in this case, I am not going to hurt the people in that neighborhood and vote in favor of this liquor store because the people in the neighborhood have spoken. Thank you. Thank you. Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just going to speak in support of the motion to refer. We've had a lot of I think eloquent statements on both sides of what is obviously a very complex issue. I'm troubled by the fact that in view of the complexity that it comes to us without a recommendation, I think there's nothing wrong with sending it back to the committee to a full committee so we don't have a tied vote. And we have members of the committee, Alder Trester has spoken eloquently about her position but there may be other positions and so forth. So I just think in the interest of in a complex issue like this of getting all the information that we need, I think referring it back to law and licensing is a smart idea. Thank you for those comments, Alderperson Jose. I respectfully disagree. It's gonna go back to the committee. The opinions are, we know what the people's opinions are. Even if the law and licensing committee would come down three to two instead of voting a tie, come down three to two against his license, we would be right back here and I would be moving to approve his license against the committee's vote. So whether we have this vote tonight or two weeks from now or four weeks from now is I think we're just stalling it and putting it off. The applicant would like to see this issue decided tonight. We have all the facts. There are no more facts to be drawn. When we speak on this, I'm gonna be speaking probably for at least five or 10 minutes and have done some research and I just think it's a waste of that committee's time to send it back to committee. Thank you, Alderperson Holschew. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand that his urgency to get a decision but he didn't show up at our committee meeting to even discuss things with us at that particular time and we have granted him a license for his tidy store which he should have completed by, I believe, November. I think that we didn't have an entirety in committee when this was brought forward and I just urge everyone to allow the committee to do its work and send it back to committee. Thank you. Thank you, Alderperson Donahue. And if we do send it back, I guess what I would be interested in because I know that area well. I went to kindergarten at Washington School but that's such a distant memory. I can't possibly remember anything but it is a really mixed neighborhood. There are, as one of our speakers said tonight quite eloquently, was it 12 bars or six bars within a 12, whatever, and it's very much a commercial area but it's also, you know, as you move out it's very much a residential area. I would be interested to know what our development folks think about this neighborhood and some analysis of the kinds of potential effects both positive and negative to the commercial neighborhood and also to the residential neighborhood. So that's information that I don't have at this point. Again, it's a complex issue and I just speed kills. Thank you for those comments, Alderperson Jose. I reject Alderperson Holschu's statement that because Mr. Adakari was not there that it should go back to the committee. He sent his representative, his architect was there and I requested at the meeting no less than three times that she allow his architect to speak and she did not allow his representative to speak. So what is the difference if we send it back there now when his representative was not allowed to speak last week, Tuesday? Thank you, Alderperson Holschu. Thank you. We had asked for the applicant to appear and that's who we expected to speak with but we have also taken information from our city police department and their recommendation was to not allow a liquor store and a convenience store as well. I don't know if we would like to hear from the police chief now or when it comes back to, or back to council the next time but if so I would like to be able to open the floor to our chief of police so he can explain the problematic issues of having a liquor store with a convenience store with a gas station. Alderperson Holschu, I think we have to vote to keep it on the floor. Right now the motion is to send it back to committee and it's not really germane. So is there any more discussion on referral back to committee? Seeing none will the clerk please call the roll. You all know what you're voting on and I vote would be to refer it back to law licensing. Bill, I don't have your vote yet. 11 highs, three nos. Motion passes. Okay, next we'll move on to matters laid over. Item 7.1, let's see no, 6.4 will be referred to the Board of Marina Parks and Forestry and then 7.1 is resolution number 106 of 1617 by Alderman, Boren, Schneider, Bellinger and Donahue authorizing the sale of city owned property in the Sheboygan Business Center lots totaling 8.7 acres and 5.8 acres to Kiernan West, LLC. Alderman, Person Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. I'm gonna make a motion to pass the resolution. Second. Thank you for that motion and supporters. Is there any discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll. 13 highs, one no. Motion passes. Item 7.2 is arrow number 110 of 1617 by the city planning commission to whom is referred, resolution number 81 of 1617 by Alderman, Boren approving the capital improvements program recommended by the capital improvements commission for the program period of 2017 through 2021 and adopting the program for implementation and recommends passing the resolution. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. I'll make a motion to accept and file. And pass the resolution. Second. We have a motion in support. Before we go on to discussion, I'd like to turn it over to our city administrator for a brief presentation by him and also Carol Worth. Thank you, Mayor. This is the sixth time this has appeared on a public meeting agenda, in addition to individual committee meetings in which department heads made a report of 12 individual projects associated with it in 2017 to 2021 five year cap improvement plan. More recently in July and August, the capital improvements commission reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of a five year cap improvement plan as presented. And then again in August and September, the plan commission reviewed the five year cap improvement. This ultimately resulted in a six to one recommendation for approval to you for consideration tonight. This was discussed by the common council as late as two weeks ago, but held over in light of requests for additional information, including the city's financial advisor. The five year cap improvement plan as presented totals up to 127 million approximately. Again, in the document itself, it is a plan. It is a document that is used to guide staff, to guide committees, and ultimately to be used as part of putting together future operating budgets. Many of the recommended projects specifically for 2017 are projects that leverage federal funds, state funds, county funds, and or special assessments. So in many cases, the value to the community is above and beyond what is, I know a concern for many of you, and that is the amount to be borrowed for 2017. The good news for the city of Sheboygan is we have an exceptional bond rating, AA2. That's really the highest possible rating. Community size of Sheboygan and the economics of Sheboygan can probably achieve. It has been done with discipline over the years in that the city's debts, outstanding debt amount has dropped. And I think that's one of the reasons why tonight and have been discussing through the different committees, a five-year cap improvement plan that in fact is higher in total project costs than what the council has reviewed and approved in prior years. So there in essence is a little bit of a backlog. 2017 is the largest of the five years. And again, 10.3, including half the costs associated with a possible city hall project is included for consideration. As Mayor Mike identified, Carol Worth of Wisconsin Public Finance Professionals here tonight to discuss a little bit about the Moody's Rating Service System, the city's debt, and the city's bond rating. One thing I want to mention is that as we, as you consider tonight, the five-year cap improvement plan, the city staff has incorporated the economics associated with that five-year plan into what some of you I think sat through earlier this year and that is a debt scorecard as put together by Moody's Investment Service. By incorporating the new economics of this five-year plan, the score changes I think four points, which is really insignificant if you look at the overall scorecard as the criteria are created and incorporate the city's overall financial items. One thing I also want to mention is that from early on in my employment with the city of Sheboygan, I heard about a policy that was created back in 1997, which identified roughly $3 million of debt being the maximum amount allowed. I know over the years, there have been exceptions made. The police station was one project where variance was granted by the common council, but in asking for a copy of that document, I realized that there was a second page to the document and instead of it being a $3 million cap, the maximum amount should be indexed based upon equalized valuation increased by the city of Sheboygan. So instead of a $3 million cap, because of indexing, it should be $4.5 million cap. And as I mentioned, the past exceptions have been granted based upon special projects. With that background, Carol Worth is here if you want to step up to the podium, Carol. Again, in light of the numerous items on the agenda, even though Carol has put together a lot of background information we've asked her to keep it to roughly 10 minutes. Thank you. And I'm just going to hand out some information here that if you'd like to just pass it down the roll to, hopefully, I think we should have plenty of practice here. Well, Carol's distributing those. One thing I do want to mention, more specifically about the 2017 projects. As I mentioned, it is the largest year for total costs of expenditures. 50% of the projects are public works related, mostly street projects. 40% is, again, half the costs expected for a city hall project with the remaining 1.2 million, half of it's for fire department related expenses, being initial repairs of the two fire stations that are of concern and a half million dollars for a fire engine. The remaining 600,000 is miscellaneous projects such as repair work and equipment repair replacement at the library. Okay, thank you. All right. The information that I've handed out is on the topic of bond ratings, as well as information specific to the city of Sheboygan. And the purpose is to inform the council of the rating process and methodology used by Moody's Investor Service. And neither myself nor a single rating analyst can predict or determine the city's bond rating. Only Moody's Rating Committee can establish and determine the bond rating. Okay, so with that, I have five pages of information. I'm not going to read everything to you. Has a lot of great information for you. So if you do go back, I'm going to make you aware of what's on the page and what's significant. And maybe this will help you make your decision or feel a little bit better because you'll have more information about the process. So with that, the first page is the Moody's Rating Symbols for what's called an investment grade rating. I'm sure you've all heard of junk bonds. That's not on this list. So you can see that there are categories of rating, triple A, double A, single A, and there is even a category called B, double A, but we don't want to go there. So we primarily focus on the first three. The triple A rating category is the highest and it is stated as a single triple A rating. The other categories have ranges within them and Moody's uses numbers, one, two and three. One is the highest and three is the lowest. So when you have a rating like double A, two, it gives you an indication of where you rank within that category. So as you can see, the city of Sheboygan is what we call two notches below the highest rating achievable. And again, with all the information that we're going to share tonight, you can see how Moody's has come up with that rating. At the bottom of page one, I have some check marks and just again to explain that rating indicates credit strength and projected future credit risk. When investors are buying your bonds, they use this information in the marketplace to determine what your interest rate's going to be. An upgrade or a downgrade is going to be different if you're going to have that happen within the rating category such as if you're in a double A category and you're going to move from double A one to two or to three, that is a different impact, or if you're going to actually change categories as a result of a rating upgrade or downgrade. For instance, if you are a single A and you go up to a double A category, you're going to get a much better reaction in terms of positive interest from investors and your interest rate will be much lower than if you just went from an A2 to an A1, okay? So that's something for you to understand because the market will dictate how much of an impact we're currently in a very low interest rate environment. So when we're in a very low interest rate environment, the interest rate differential is a little bit smaller than when you're not in this environment. So to give you an idea and apply it to city of Sheboygan directly, I took the financing that we did in April. We did two financings. They were both nine and a half year amortization. One was for 3.4 million and one was for 7.5 million. The difference if you were to change up order downward by one notch, and that notch would mean that you would go either to a double A one or down to a double A three would be a 10th of a percent or that type of a rating change. If you apply that to the 3.4 million dollar financing, that change in interest cost over that life of that financing is 18,880 dollars. If you are applying that to the 7.5 million dollar financing, again, that's $36,000. And again, that's over the life of the issue. That's not each and every year. That's over that nine and a half years, okay? So that's the rating impact specifically for a city of Sheboygan financing, okay? The next page is information about the rating process. And again, a lot of good information. I think I've laid it out in a format that you can pretty much go back to. However, I do wanna share with you the process that when we start the process, we are assigned by Moody's, what's called a lead analyst. That's our contact person. And that contact person is there to take our information. We have conference call, rating conference call. We present documents. And then that person is responsible for the preparation of what's called a scorecard. Once that analyst has completed the scorecard and any other questions that she may have of us, then she takes that information and is responsible for presenting it to Rating Committee. At that point is when the discussion takes place with the scorecard and also a subjective portion of the rating process. Moody's will refer to that as a below the line scoring. The scorecard they refer to as the above the line. And in that discussion is when they can notch you up or down, there are no formal rules in place in terms of how they can do that, when they can do that or by how much. So again, just to give you an understanding of the process because this is new methodology that has been implemented as of 2014. Both Rating Agencies, Standard & Poor's also has a similar methodology. Prior to that, we would ask rating agencies, what can we do to improve our rating? Because many times they focus on fund balance and we'd say well how much fund balance do we need in order to preserve our rating or be considered for an upgrade? And the answer was always, well it depends. So you could never ever get an answer as to exactly what you needed to do. And the reason it was it depends is because of all the factors associated with the rating process. Now the rating process culminates with the publication of a publicly released credit report. That means it's out there in the investment world for all to see. And it contains the comments that is their opinion. And it has their opinion on several different topics. Now at the bottom of this page, I've shared a couple of their comments with you right out of your credit report. So the excerpt from your July of 2016 credit report and there's summary for your rating rationale. It says the AA2 rating reflects the city's moderately sized tax base with below average demographic profile. Strong financial position, manageable debt burden and affordable unfunded pension liabilities. Also included the report of the following strengths and challenges. And again, this is exactly how it's presented. The credit strengths, healthy financial profile categorized by strong reserves, manageable debt and pension obligations. The credit challenges, demographic profile is below those of similarly rated entities. Tax base has declined in six of the last seven fiscal years. Now we have turned the corner on that in 2016. Equalized value has gone up. We're up 1.6% increase. So now when we go back for a rating, it's not going to read that way. Next page, I'm gonna briefly cover this with you. This is the scorecard, tons of numbers on here. I'm gonna go through and just highlight. First of all, it's divided into what they call sectors. Four sectors, the economy, tax base is one. Finances is a second. Management and the fourth debt pensions. And you can see the percentage that they weight them. Now the scoring is the better the credit rating, the fewer the points. Okay, some people think if we get more points, we're doing good. No, it's the opposite. Of course it would be. So the other thing, when you see the score next to each category, there is the comparable rating category associated with that score. So you'll see the economy, tax base, which for the most part, the economy's a little bit out of your control. I mean you definitely do things and act on things to help your local economy, okay? But when you have things that we've just been through in the last few years, there's a lot of recovery going on that isn't necessarily because of something that you did. So what it shows you is that the size of your tax base and your demographics, they call that socioeconomic indices, are actually in the first one, the tax base size is in the double A category, but the two underneath it are in the single A category. The same with finances. You can see the scoring there. You are in the triple A category in everything related to finances. So that definitely shows that the things that are under your control you've done wonderful. The management, there's a category called institutional framework. And that, you'll see the first one as A and you instantly think, whoa, what is management doing here? No, that is a category that is assigned by Moody's to every city within the state of Wisconsin. It's reflective of the state of Wisconsin and for instance, levy limits that are imposed through legislation on all cities. Okay, so it's just the fact that you're going to be subject to what the state imposes on all cities. So every city in Wisconsin has an A there for that score. And then you have other statistics, again dealing with your financial picture under that category. Again, you're in a triple A rating. Now we go into the debt pensions and you can see there through the scoring you're either in the double A category and you have one in the single A category. Now that all totals up to a number, the score of 1.93, and they call that your double A2 unadjusted rating that is referred to as above the line. Now after they get that information they go to the next step and they start to talk to committee with the analyst and they start to implement this notching. This is a subjective part of the rating process. There's, as again, as I mentioned, there's no formal rule when to notch up or down and by how much. So this is the part that really makes it difficult because we can work with numbers, we can quantify the numbers. And now you're kind of looking through the minds of the people that are having this discussion. So with me, I like to work with the numbers. So I've gone one step further and I've taken each one of those scores and I've put the numbers down below this page to show you where the scoring ranges fall because you may say, well, I'm a double A, but am I at the top or am I at the bottom of the double A range? So each one of those shows you what range you're in. Are you high double A, low double A, or triple A? There's only one category for triple A. When I do that and I look at that economy score, you have your single A category is actually in the A2 range. So you're kind of in the middle there of the A category. That first one in the economy that's the double A, you're in the double A3 range. But again, things that are primarily out of your control. Your finance is perfect, all triple A, your management as we discussed. Debt pensions, the first double A is actually a double A3. The next one is an A1, the next one is a double A2 and then you're followed by a double A3 and a double A2. So it kind of gives you a little bit of a peek into what they're leaning towards when they get to the point of then starting to have to talk about subjective part. Okay. The next page is debt calculations, information only. Just because you may say, well, geez, what is our debt or how is this calculated? You have, the rating agencies are gonna look at your direct debt. That is the debt issued by the city. You're at about $34.8 million. However, your taxpayers also have to pay their share of the city of the, I'm sorry, the school district, the vocational district and the county's debt. When I put that number on here, that debt by itself is another $37 million. So your taxpayers are paying the $34 and their share of the $37 million. Okay, so that's something, again, part of your rating process. Okay. The amortization of your debt is very rapid. Now that would be one example of when they are going to notch your rating up or down. That would be a notch up, okay, because your rapid amortization would warrant a positive. Okay. Then you have limitations on your debt. And for the most part, everybody has a statutory limit. And in some cases like you do here, you have a local government policy. For the statutory limit, it's 5% of your equalized value. So I've done the math there for you to show that you have $122 million under that limit. You are at 34.8, which leaves an 87.4. That doesn't mean that you wanna go out and issue 87.4. It just represents your financial flexibility to the rating agency. And then of course, we mentioned already the 97 resolution, and there's a calculation that basically speaks to 3% of your equalized value if that was the case that number would be the $73 million number. Okay. So again, just for you to have to help you through the discussion. The last page, and this is purely considerations for city administration and council. Okay. I've talked to you about the rating process and how it goes through the methodology and what might be in the mindset of the rating analyst. However, it does not and is not intended to anyway address what decisions that you're faced with in terms of your capital project needs about the cost to do them or impact to do them or the cost not to do them or impact not to do them. Also, we talked about extraordinary projects such as the city hall. That isn't something you do every single year. As an extraordinary project, when you bring extraordinary projects to a rating agency, they look at that as an extraordinary project. They say, okay, you're doing a municipal facility. That's not something they expect to see happening every single year. So that is treated a little bit differently with regard to that subjective part. They'll look at debt policies and funding your projects. What other sources of revenues may be available? And I know that you've been talking about that as well. Where does the money come from, including using fund balance? How does that work when you talk about fund balance? Well, you not only have your budgetary cycle that you talk about fund balance, you also have to think about, are there any other commitments for your fund balance? Do you want to apply fund balance for projects? Because all of those things are going to make a difference when you go through the rating process. And it's not just a rating process for one year. The rating agencies look at your historical trends, your historical policies. If you're going to make changes to them, they're going to expect you to explain why you're making the changes. They will like to see a plan. Rating agencies are very much into what is your plan? Okay, so just want to, and that's what I'm giving you under number six there, the last item. It's going backwards, looking at what you've done, how you've adhered to your policies. It's your current year experience. And it's also going forward. So the rating process really encompasses all areas. Things that are under your control, things that are not under your control. So now that you've heard about all this, now you understand before they had a scorecard where at least they're trying to be a little more transparent to share with you their thought process. When you ask them a question, such as how much fund balance do I need to have, the answer was it depends. Carol, thank you so much. Darrell, I appreciate your presentation. At this point, we'll open it up for discussion. All the person who'll show. Thank you. I guess my question is, by borrowing 10 million, you can't tell us how that's going to affect our budget. No, I can't tell you how it's going to affect it, but what you would do is you have to be prepared. I've given you kind of a peek at how your scoring is and nothing more than your scoring. However, if it is something, as I mentioned, for an extraordinary project, that is one explanation. If it's something that goes beyond that, then they expect, and they will ask you, what is your explanation? It's not that it's good or bad. It's just you need to be prepared in order to provide that explanation. So that's how you get through your rating process. And there are times when you will impact your rating. If you do impact your rating, I've tried to help quantify what that means to you. Okay, in terms of there's a cost that way. There's no way of knowing how this is going to impact. There is no way of knowing, and matter of fact, I went one extra step where I've talked to people at Moody's, not the rating analysts, because that's not their department, but I have talked to people that offer the services for Moody's. And one of the services that they have, that the city would be able to take advantage of is called a Rating Assessment Service. I had that discussion because certain services aren't allowed for certain scenarios. And I explained, I says, is there a service? Or would this service allow us to come with a scenario that talks about issuing debt and or possibly fund balance or any other things that we want to present? Would you be able to give us some type of information or feedback? And this Rating Assessment Service, matter of fact, he just got back to me as I was driving up here today, so we've been chasing him for a couple days. And he said, oh yes, they've decided they can do this. It's fairly new since they've come out with the methodology in 2014. But they would also do it for a fee of $30,000. All the person who holds you, when you asked your question, you mentioned the $10 million. Just so you know, the resolution you're voting on only includes 6.3 million in that capital improvements program. The capital improvements commission did not include the $4 million that's on your sheet for City Hall renovations. That's just a 6.3. That's all they've approved, yes. And that 6.3 doesn't have any of the money coming in for the garbage fee or what we're getting from this county. Are any of those dollars going towards any of these purchases? Can you explain how those are being treated? I do not think the five-year cap improvement includes that additional revenue source. The 2017 budget does take that into consideration, but the five-year cap improvement does not. Just because when it was initiated, those numbers, some of those revenue sources weren't identified. Thank you. Moving on to the next person, Alderperson Heidemann. Yes, thank you. I guess, do they look at the impact on a community that's borrowing $6 million that's had a garbage fee that also has a wheel tax and also is now paying a higher percentage sales tax onto our rating, in our rating system? So you got three hits, now we're gonna give them another hit as far as the community's concerned. Is that of any negative? What they're going to look at is your ability to generate revenues. What is your flexibility to generate revenues? They will look at your debt service payments in terms of how affordable they may be, and they do that by measuring it as a percentage of your operating budget expenditures. So they don't do it like you and I would normally think about, we've got these charges, right? And that's not the way the assessment is done. They look to you, especially municipalities that have levy limits, and they say, do you have any other options available because of levy limits? And so you say, yes, we have this fee, we have the sales tax we have. So that's what they're looking at. They're not looking at how it's impacting the individual residents. Okay, thank you. Thank you all. Person Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. Let me just start by saying how irritated I am that Moody's rating service, which deals in hard, concrete, fast amounts of money that we need to deal with, has a subjective, below the line scoring system? Yes. That is incomprehensible to me, not your fault. I just wanted to say that in general principles. No wonder the economy went to hell in 2008 with these folks in charge. In any event, so as I'm analyzing this and I appreciate your, this information is very helpful. It seems to me where we really have some problems in terms of maintaining our rating is if you look at the full value per capita and the socioeconomic indices, those are single A's. And I am going to suggest, and not to in any way, discount the low borrowing limits that we have had in the past couple of years and that have reduced our debt to 28, I'm sorry, it's a 28%. 28.5% of our legal limit and that's down considerably in the past seven or eight years. We've done that by not doing some things that we need to do in order to maintain our city. And it's okay to do that for a couple of years, but it's not an ongoing solution. As I've said before, and I know you're tired of hearing me saying it's like not painting your house in order to save money, not putting on a new roof so that you can save money. The problem is that when you finally get around to painting because the city is making you do it, it's gonna cost you more money and the roof is gonna cost more money. In our case, the roads are going to cost more money. The equipment that we're looking at is going to cost more money. We may decide philosophically that we don't like 3 million or that we don't like 6.3 million as opposed to 3 million. I'm going to suggest to you that that may have some impact on the full value per capita and the socioeconomic indices, but we need to understand that if we decide that a smaller debt is more important than getting things done, if that's what we decide, we need to understand that there are implications, possibly for the moody rating system, but also for our community. This, and I've said this before and many of us have said this before, Sheboygan is changing in the last couple of years the level of economic growth, the 1.9% growth in our equalized value. The city's kind of in a really good way on fire. Good things are happening and that's happening because it's a nice looking city where you can drive down the road, most roads without taking out your transmission. I'm going to suggest to you that this 6.3 million dollars is a real investment in our community. It's something that we need to do. I think it's economically reasonable. I think we cannot make this decision on the basis of the moody rating. One, the amount of interest if we do go down a notch is relatively small. It has to be on the fact that you don't want to spend, you don't want to take out 6.3 million dollars in debt, you only want to do three. And I'm just going to suggest from every perspective that you look at this and also as I understand and I would defer to Darrell on this, this doesn't change our tax levy. Our taxpayers aren't going to be paying more. They pay $1.27 out of the $9.52 rate per thousand. That's not going to change because we borrow more money. Do I have that right? Yes. I get this stuff wrong sometimes. So it is not, there is additional debt but it's like the debt when you take out a loan to repair the roof on your house and so forth. So I really think that the 6.3 million dollars is supportable. I think as Darrell has pointed out, it's been talked about six different times in public and I think it's a result of a lot of hard work and I think we should support it. Thank you for those comments. Alderperson Bellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to present the opposing viewpoint to Alderman Donahue. I think this is reckless and irresponsible. What we're doing here is we're looking at $10.3 million. Whether you have the City Hall in there or not, if you take the City Hall out, it's $6.3 million and then if you index that 97 resolution, that's 4.5 million. So any way you look at it, it's a wild departure over our normal practices and a radical change and that's something that the Moody's Committee does not look favorably upon. So I'm against this and we're looking at doing 10.3 this year, 6.8 next year, 4.3 the following year, 7.5 in 2020 and 5.4 in 2021 to run it up to $34 million. That's the five-year capital plan. We're used to doing $3 million. If we were to take the 10.3, which we want to borrow for this year, that's a 243% increase over the 3 million that we usually spend or borrow to address our city's infrastructure's needs or capital needs. So if you take the 6.3, it's 110% increase over the 3 million that we usually do. So what I would like to do is I would like to amend it like I did two weeks ago and put a cap on it for $3.5 million, which would be a double-digit increase and be 16% over what we've been borrowing in the past. It would address all of the mandatory projects which equal $3.1 million and still give us money left over to do some of the other rated projects that we could do in the future with the extra money. And then again, on a separate note, I would like to address the borrowing for or the funding mechanism for the city hall too. But first, I would like to amend this to have a cap of $3.5 million. Second. We have a motion in support under, we'll have discussion then on the amendment to limit the borrowing to $3.5 million for our capital improvements program in 2017. All the person, Wolf. Thank you, Mayor. I guess we've been talking about this for far too long and I want to compliment everybody in the council this year and past years. I think we've done a great job reducing our debt, trying to be good stewards, but I also want to point out the fact that year over year we have not, as it was brought up before, have not been fixing the continued infrastructure of the city. And I really think that just because we're talking about some large numbers, this year it seems that we're finally looking at the budget and everybody's actually looking at it under a microscope compared to years past. And what we need to understand is that for many, many years, since 1997, we haven't been spending the appropriate amount of money. We've been focusing on paying down debt, which is a good thing. It's what everybody should do personally and in business. But if we continue on the road that we're on, no pun intended, we're gonna have roads like we do outside. If we look at the mandatory items, it's over $3 million. Our actual allotment of spending is $3 million. And our citizens have told us boldly that they want the roads fixed. We know that it's gonna take what I think the last plan was 15 years, 14, 15 years. That's a long time. We look at our mandatory projects and we say, okay, well, maybe we gotta stop purchasing those or obviously like we've done, we haven't been fixing roads. Right now, our debt is low. We are looking at making a big change. Our interest rates are good. I disagree. I'd like Carol to explain that the AAA isn't something that Shubwagon is going to even be able to achieve. So having said that, the only thing that we can do is either continue to keep our AA2 or move up to AA1, which again is just going to fluctuate our really good interest rate a little bit. Right now is an opportune time to get in while we can with the interest rate. Get this stuff taken care of that we owe it to our constituents. It's not affecting their tax and fix things that we know need to be done. City Hall, that's still on the table for discussion for the future. I support the 6.3, thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? Aldermen, Person Jose. I'm gonna vote in support of the CAP proposed by Aldermen Bellinger. It's really easy when it's not your money and it's not our money. It's the taxpayer's money. It's really easy to borrow and put it on the tax of our kids and our grandkids and I'm just not gonna do it. I think it is reckless to borrow at that level and so I'm gonna support Aldermen Bellinger's of the CAP. Thank you for those comments. Any other discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment. Everybody know what the motion is? Yes. Susie. Got it. Seven eyes, seven nose. I vote no. The main motion is back on the floor. Any other discussion on the main motion? Aldermen, Person Holschew. I just wanna have some clarity. All these items that you wanna do add up to 3.0, correct? If you take the city hall renovation out that would come to 6.339, 909 million dollars. That's what passed and was prioritized by the Capital Improvements Commission. They took one million dollars worth of projects out of the plan and they approved 6.3 million and that's what you have before you with the exception of the city hall number. That's correct. Correct. So what's happened? Could this be diverted over some other? Can you review the subsequent years and the total borrowing in each of those years? The remaining years of the 2017 to 2021 Capital Improvement Plan, again as you're aware, 6.3 for 2017, 6.8 for 2018. That includes another 4 million for city hall. 2019, 4.3, 2020, 7.5 and then 5.4 for 2021. And these are the geo-borrowing amounts. Does that answer your question, Aldermen Holschew? Yes, thank you. Next, Alderperson Bellinger. Thank you. Obviously I can't support this. I believe this is wildly reckless and irresponsible. It is a complete departure from what we've done in the past and we've heard from Carol who was kind enough to drive up here today that the rating agency and the committee does not like radical departures from what your normal practices have been and it may have unintended consequences down the road and everybody seems to be cavalier here in their attitude that well, we don't care if it goes down a little bit and affects our interest rates a little bit. We want to spend the money now. Alderman Heidemann mentioned earlier, we've incurred or we've passed a wheel tax. We've put on a extended the garbage fee. We get that fantastic money again from the county, from the sales tax that they're giving us and we're feeing and spending and borrowing ourselves into oblivion. I think this is crazy that we're going down this road. So I think there's gonna be unintended consequences. Will it be this year? Maybe, maybe not. But if we go down this path and extend the borrowing out in five years to another $35 million, we're back where we were seven, eight years ago when we tried to get our debt down. So I just cannot support this and I can't tell you how disappointed I am in the leadership and that we're even voting on this. Thank you for those comments. Alderperson Donahue. Just to start a point of clarification, the five-year plan is just a plan and we are not committing ourselves year over year to the five-year plan at this point. That is correct. All right, so this is a projection and certainly up for debate each and every year. Yes. I'm just gonna take exception at being called wildly reckless and plotting to drive the city into oblivion. That's not the case. I think that one of the reasons that we grab at various revenue sources is because our levy rate has stayed virtually the same since 2005. We're 11 years into this absolute steady rate. And sadly, no matter how many people we cut, how many benefits we cut, we still have inflationary pressure and it has led to more and more and more cuts. I understand it out of the $9.52 per thousand that each of us is going to pay. In 2016, we paid that amount, $1.27 cents went for debt service and that's the same amount that's going to happen in 2017. This is not wildly reckless. We are not driving the city into oblivion. What we're trying to do is preserve the economic growth that we have going on now and I would suggest that to the contrary, this is economically and governmentally sensible and a good way to move forward. Thank you for those comments. All their person seal. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate both sides that I'm hearing tonight. I do think 6.3 is a little bit high. I think all the person, Bellinger's offer of the 3.5 that we just voted on, I think it was a little bit low. I think we really need to find a happy medium in there. I really think we do need to spend more just by looking at some of these numbers here. I'm really thinking five grand is probably a pretty good number. It gets us- Five million? Five million, sorry. Five grand. Yeah, that'd be nice. I would support five grand. Would you? I don't. Five million I think is a pretty good number. It gets a good chunk of those roads done that we're looking to do because obviously I definitely support getting the roads done. Some of these projects could come in underneath that wheel tax and as all the person Bellinger says, the greatest money from the county that we get. So I really think five grand is a good number that we should be really looking- Five million. I keep saying five grand, what I said. Five million dollars I think is a good number for us and I would make a motion to put it at five million dollars on five grand. I'll second that. Okay, we have an amendment on the floor to amend it to five million dollars. Discussion on that amendment. Seeing no discussion, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment for five million dollars? Give me one second. I'm sorry. I did. Thank you. 12 ayes, two nos. Motion passes. Okay, now we have a motion on the floor that's been amended to five million dollars rather than 6.3. Any further discussion on the motion as amended? Seeing none, will the clerk please call a roll for passage? 13 ayes, one no. Motion passes. Moving on, item 7.3 is RO number 111 of 1617 by the city planning commission to who is referred? General Ordinance number 16 of 1617 by Alderperson Thiel and Lee Wendalski and RO number 101 of 1617 by the city clerk amending the zoning map to change the use district classification of property located at 1123 North 29th Street from class SO suburban office to class MR mixed residential classification and recommends approving the ordinance. Alderperson Bellinger. Thank you, mayor. I move to accept and file and pass the ordinance. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? 14 ayes. Motion passes. Next we'll go on to other matters. City attorney. 8.1 is an RO by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending December 31, 2016, June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018. That'll be referred to the law and licensing committee. 8.2 is a resolution by Alderperson Bellinger authorizing the purchasing agent to enter into contract for the testing of incoming and distribution of electrical power systems for the regional wastewater treatment plant in three outlying lift stations. That'll be sent to the public works committee. 8.3 is an RO by the city clerk submitting a communication from the Wisconsin Historical Society, notifying the city that an adequately documented nomination for Washington Elementary School, 1238 Gile Avenue has been received. That'll be sent to the historic preservation committee. 8.4 is an RO by the city clerk submitting a communication from Alderperson Lewandowski on behalf of Betsy Metcher, requesting a streetlight to be installed in the block on 25th Street between Erie Avenue and Ontario Avenue. That'll go to the public works committee. 8.5 is a resolution by Alderperson Donahue adopting the 2017 city of Sheboygan compensation program for nonrepresented employees. That'll go to salary and grievances committee. Next is a contemplated closed session. Alderperson Donahue. Thank you, mayor. To convene in closed session under the exemption provided under section 1985 sub 1, the Xavier of Wisconsin stats where competitive and bargaining reasons require a closed session related to development opportunities for the founders club LLC. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Will the clerk please call the roll for closed session. 13 ayes, one no. Motion passes. I just want to let our viewing public know that we have a committee of the whole meeting scheduled after the council meeting adjourns. So we'll be back in a short period of time to hold the committee of the whole meeting.