 order. This is a special meeting of the Common Council and our city clerk Sue Richards will read us the most timely quote of the evening. Okay, you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. Thank you Sue, roll call please. Belt? Here. Warren? Here. Carlson? Here. Yecker? Here. Hammond? Here. Heidemann? Here. Cot? Here. Kittleson? Here. Maddochek? Here. Racler? Here. Samson? Here. Vanakren? Here. Vanderweel? Here. And Versey? Here. We have a quorum now if we can all join Alderman Samson in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you Kevin. Moving on the agenda, Mayor's comments I'll be brief. This could be a long meeting this evening. One thing I would like to institute this evening seeing as this budget has been discussed at length is that on each motion that each Alderman speaks no more than twice on each motion. So when there's a motion, you know, that way we're not going back and forth all evening long. We have a lot of work to do tonight. My goal is that when we leave here we will have a balanced city budget and I'm sure that's your goal too. I'm more than willing to spend as much time as it takes to come up with a responsible budget. I've spent several ideas that have been floated. In my opinion, the most fair of all resolutions that have come through the council is to institute a city services fee of some sort. That city services fee will cover what we have as a deficit. If we look at 2011 because of the number of retirements that we've had in the city, we are facing in 2011 approximately $450,000 deficit. This is a one-time cost due to the number of retirees that we are having in the city. Looking at 2012 and Jim Amodio will explain this at length, but right now we are looking at in 2012 approximately $585,000 of a deficit that we're facing at this moment and a $470,000 shortfall in the general fund reserve balance. The general fund reserve balance by ordinance passed I believe back in the 80s requires us to have 18% of our revenue annual revenue in a general fund reserve balance. We are $470,000 short on that. So that total is about a million and a half dollars that we need to work through this evening. There's been several different ideas. One is to cut all departments accordingly across the board. In my opinion that's irresponsible. I think we need to look at as a city what we are all about. What are we? What services do we provide? The services that we do provide we should provide to the best of our ability. To do a across the board cut I think is irresponsible. We can look at privatization of some services. In my opinion core services of the city are number one public protection and safety. That is a core service of the city. Library is a core service. Streets, sanitation, core services along with parks, snow plowing, road repair, etc. Those are our core services. All of those services we should provide to the best that we can and if we get to the point that we cannot afford to provide those services in the manner that the public deserves for the tax dollar, we don't belong providing those services. So those are the decisions we need to make. If we were to do a city services fee we're looking at a million and a half dollar deficit. A city services fee we can peg that as a garbage fee. Okay this is a garbage collection fee. In essence it's not just a garbage collection fee. It's a fee that covers keeping all of our core services at the same level that they are right now in the year 2011. Keeping the same level of service in 2012 that we are providing in 2011. And I think that's the way it needs to be looked at. Alderman have to ask themselves would you raise the tax levy in order to provide those same services? Obviously the answer is we can't raise the tax levy by the governor's budget but would you raise the tax levy in order to provide the same core services for 2012 that we are in 2011? If that answer is yes then we would be providing the same services obviously. So I think we need to keep that in mind. But we will start with matters laid over. President Decker. Mr. Mayor I move that we accept and file all of the our roles to include 15-18, 15-23, 15-28, 15-39, 15-40, 15-55, and 16-16. And to accept and adopt the following RC's 14-27, 14-28, 14-29, 14-30, 14-31, and 16-34. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. A motion and a second under discussion. Alderman Van Akron. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Can I ask that you take 16-34 for a separate vote? I would like to take 16-34 for a separate vote. 16-34 being the recommendation to the full council for their consideration to privatize garbage stipulating a five-year contract. Do you like that for a separate vote? Correct. Is there a second on a separate vote on that? Second. All in favor of voting separate on that C.I.? Aye. Post. We'll take that for a separate vote. Thank you Alderman Van Akron. Alderman Bourne. I just caught the tail end of President Decker's. Did that include 16-35 and 16-36 Alderman Decker? No. Just through 14-31. Thank you Alderman Bourne. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor of passing with the exception of a separate vote on 16-34 and obviously 35 and 36 are not included. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. We have one no. We'll do a roll call vote. Bourne. Aye. Carlson. Aye. Decker. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Manichek. Aye. Racler. Aye. Sampson. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Banderweal. Aye. Percy. No. And Belt. Aye. 14 ayes one no. Motion carries. To 16-34 Alderman Van Akron wanted to take this for a separate vote under discussion on 16-34. There is no discussion on 16-34 roll call please. Carlson. Aye. Decker. No. Hammond. Aye. Hammond. No. Heidemann. No. Cough. No. Kittleson. No. Manichek. No. Racler. No. Sampson. No. Van Akron. No. Banderweal. No. Percy. No. Belt. No. And Bourne. No. Two ayes 12 noes. 16-34 fails. Moving on to 16-35 RC number 244-11-12 by committee of the whole ordering the 2012 budget appropriations for the city of Sheboygan funds. Resolution 93-11-12 by Alderpersons Hammond, Bourne, Manichek and Van Akron. Ordering the 2012 budget appropriations for the city of Sheboygan funds. Alderman Bourne. That must have been from before, Mayor. No, you can do the motion. It's a committee of the whole document. Yeah, it's a committee of the whole document. Okay. I would move that the report of the committee be accepted and adopted and the resolution be put upon its passage. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept and adopt and put the resolution upon its passage under discussion. Under discussion. Under discussion. There is no discussion on 16-35. Alderman Bourne. Just take a look. That's fine. Okay. If there is no discussion on 16-35 roll call please. Decker. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Cot. Aye. Kittelsen. Aye. Manichek. Aye. Reisler. Aye. Sampson. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Banderweal. Aye. Percy. No. Belt. Aye. Warren. Aye. And Carlson. Aye. 13 ayes, 1 no. I'm sorry. 14 ayes, 1 no. All right. We're down to one document, folks. 16-36. This is fast work tonight. 16-36. RC number 245-11-12 by committee of the whole ordering the 2012 budget appropriations and the 2011 tax levy for use during the calendar year 2012. Committee of the whole, Alderman Bourne. Thanks, Mayor. I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted and the resolution be put upon its passage. Second. We have a motion and a second under discussion. Under discussion we have Alderperson Kittelsen. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Can you just, I guess I'd just like to go over this one more time. Is it the fund equity applied? Can you review on that? Just what are we from the general fund? Could I ask Director Amodio if he could just clarify that for me, please? Mr. Amodio, if you'd like to come up to the podium. I want to bring a seat. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I just wondered what I mean, what are exactly are we're approving this from the committee of the whole and and what is the line item that we were looking at? It is the at it is the the the under the general fund the 947 377 right and passing this document we would take $947,000 out of out of unfunded general fund reserves okay and that's okay that's what we're here tonight I think to resolve and that's how that okay thank you under discussion Alderman van Akron thank you Chief Administrator can you can you go over again the budget situation I know the mayor just touched on it but if you can kind of go over where we're at and I also give us I believe the numbers you received for your garbage quotes at this point sure Jim according to the document we just referred to there's a $950,000 shortfall in the general general fund as we speak in addition to that as we spoke last time elections would add another $80,000 to it there'd be two elections for the mayoral and there'd be two probably for the governor's position in addition we set aside $100,000 for airport side prep for the river dredging next year which would bring the shortfall in 2012 to 1 million 130 we also went through some reductions to that after this was published one was a public works restructuring of about $270,000 not replacing the public works director which would save an additional $125,000 also saving a one-fire mechanic for $80,000 the mechanical work would be done by the motor vehicle fund and also with the one ratification of police supervisors would save a $70,000 the total of those savings is $545,000 subtracted from the 1 million 130 would leave a shortfall in 2012 of $585,000 in addition we have the one-time shortfall in 2011 with the added retirements we had a $450,000 and then additionally a $470,000 shortfall to meet the minimum requirement of our general fund reserve balance so that would take the total of those three to 1.5 million dollars not included in this is the police patrol which potentially could save us $230,000 that's going to mediation in the near future from that could go to arbitration inconceivably we couldn't have resolution till sometime next year so to be unfair to calculate the potential savings that we could have from that negotiation if that answers your question I think so what was your total number again at the end 1 million 505 okay answer your question Jean yes thank you thank you Jim next we have Alderman Raceler I didn't finish I think Alderman van Akron's part two we received two quotes back they were not hard quotes because we didn't have time to go through all the detail but the lowest of bitter was $9.50 a month per household for garbage pickup and recycling I'm sorry too and that was the lowest that was the lowest what does that come out to nearly cost them 1 million 9 that was a five-year contract with a CPI clause in it that said that would escalate by the amount of CPI each year over five years which is not uncommon also provided for the use of city trucks there was no estimated start time as you know we hadn't laid out all the ground rules and not really gotten into all of the details of that contract based on what happens tonight if anything does happen we would pursue that if it didn't happen that that's what we wanted to do then it would end there thank you Jim answer your questions Alderman van Akron yes thank you Alderman Raceler please looking at I can remind everybody this is a council meeting when we ask our questions if we can okay just I thought the attorney was going to jump in Mr. round to make a motion to add a five dollar city service fee on to cover the shortfall of approximately one million thirty five thousand and we would continue to run with a shortfall in general fund second okay we have a motion and a second on instituting a city services fee of five dollars is that per household per month yes per household per month yes okay that's a motion in a second under discussion we'll just be under discussion on this subject only at this point five dollar fee Alderman born thank you mayor Mr. Amorio how much would the five dollar fee raise a million dollars one million one million oh 50 so we're still short five hundred and five thousand bucks that even with about four hundred and fifty thousand we'd be short okay and that would be that would be that would be short than in our reserve fund correct correct thank you thank you Alderman born all the person Kittleson thank you mayor thank you I guess what would rather than five what would what would make that up I believe divided the million five oh five by seventeen thousand five hundred households we would get problem eighty would we get eighty six dollars yeah it'd be roughly seven dollars and eighty one cents okay so we could say to have that replacement or that services fee if it weren't five we could the cover that we could cover the shortfall if we easily said eight dollars correct thank you okay right now our discussion is motion in a second on a five dollar city services fee under discussion president Decker you didn't buzz in oh I'm sorry we're backwards here the board hasn't changed yet vice president Hammond please just to keep you on your toes mr. mayor I'm actually in favor of the fee I think it's a good way to go although I think it may need to be a little bit higher I don't think any of us are looking for ways to charge more fees these are all very difficult decisions we can't raise the levy part of the reason we're in this situation is because I think and very nobly the levy was kept frozen for the better part of five years well the challenges our cost for core services still continue to go up with that levy was staying frozen so again in business your revenues flat and your costs are going up eventually that's going to come back it would be about seven dollars and sixteen cents to cover per household based off the seventeen thousand five hundred number that we've been kind of bantering around to cover the one point five and bring the general fund back up to where it's at that said we don't know where police patrol is going to be so that could be upwards of two hundred and forty thousand so I would I guess offer an amendment to the motion that we go to seven dollars sixteen cents okay we have a motion in a second at the five dollar per month per household city services fee so everybody okay with that term we have a motion a friendly amendment is this this is a motion this is a motion okay do we have a second we have a second on this motion could you repeat what president decker did you make that second could you repeat I'm sorry Alderman Hammond what it was seven dollars and sixteen cents seven dollars and sixteen for the same that alderman racer said every household correct okay okay alderman racer you put through forth the original motion at five dollars that was seconded by we would vote on the we would vote on Alderman Hammond's first unless there's okay we have another motion in a second at seven dollars and sixteen cents and that raises that brings us whole million five seven sixteen okay one question I pose to the council if I may is this a garbage fee we're calling it a city services fee or is this a fee that covers all services core services we are providing in the city okay the question I'm posing to the council if this is a fee for all core services do we include in this fee commercial industrial manufacturing prop properties because they use also all core services that's a question I'm posing to the council for information there's approximately 1700 of those properties in the entire city moving down the line here Steve thank you your honor I just want to point out the legal distinction here between tax and a special charge the statutes allow for special charges for specific municipal services and it specifically includes garbage collection I think if you start talking about fee for core city services you're talking about taxes and the advantage of a special charge is that that can be statutorily if it's not paid on time it can be added on to the tax rolls as a special charge and collected delinquency is collected through the tax through the tax collection process but I think you need to distinguish between special charge which the statutes authorized for specific city services again statutes specifically mentioned garbage collection versus a fee for general city services that in my view would be viewed as by by a court as a tax in another name what other city services would be could be included under that we've got time I don't think we're going anywhere okay under discussion we have two two motions we have one motion for a $5 fee we have one motion for a $7.16 fee next on the board we have Alderman Carlson okay we're just speaking on the 716 Alderman Carlson pass Alderman Hammond mr. Mayor you asked the question that I was going to Alderman Boran for the second time thank you mayor this is on Alderman Hammond's motion for the 716 Alderman Hammond I'm wondering if you would be willing to amend that to make it 716 for 2012 and make it $5 thereafter with a sunset in January of 2015 because the 716 is really to fill the hole this year we're not going to have the it should not have the expenses next year I'm wondering if you'd consider that if I would make that motion yeah I accept that friendly amendment would you like to repeat it Alderman burn yes the $7.16 would be for tax year 2016 and I mean I'm sorry 2012 and then we would revert back to $5 a month for 2013 and the $5 fee would sunset in January of 2015 and if I just give an explanation on that we're we're our property tax levy is going to be frozen for 12 and 13 14 potentially could be an uncapped year and then the council in late 14 could revisit that it would it would sunset in January of 15 I believe is is the property tax levy frozen for 12 and 13 12 and 13 13 is CPI right CPI correct yeah okay we have a motion we need a second on this motion did we have a second second okay it was a friendly amendment to Alderman Hammond's and so Alderman Hammond and Decker both agree with this who put forth the original motion so the amendment is that in the fiscal year 2012 which also happens to be calendar year there will be a $7.16 cent we're referring to it as city services fee at this point till Steve comes back your 2013 that will reduce will drop to $5 and $5 and 14 or $5 and 14 and January 1st of 15 goes to 0 it's sunset and if that council at that time wants to carry on they can but that gives them an opportunity to take a look at it at the end of 14 see where we are okay question to if I may chief emotio does that make sense financially for 13 as far as our cost for 13 yes okay mayor can we clarify you were talking about commercial properties is that included in the motion or not well I think you know I put forth the commercial properties if this is a city services fee I think we're waiting for turning McLean to come back and explain exactly what can be included in the city services fee if that needs to be specified as garbage or can it be police fire etc thank you mayor yeah and there's no reference in the statute to the city service fee but statutes talk about special charges for current services and energy and water efficiency improvement loans and service includes snow and ice removal weed elimination street sprinkling oiling and tarring repair sidewalks or curb and gutter garbage and refuse disposal recycling stormwater management tree care removal and disposal dead animals loan repayment soil conservation work snow removal that this is all counted under city services under services yes that you can charge you can fee special charge for yes that sounds to me like that services as defined by the statute and the next section just references that any feed is imposed by a political subdivision shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed I think that would go without saying but I believe that all of our properties in the city probably get street repair snow removal etc etc that animals removed so I would think what we're talking about here probably would fit under the state statute of services that could be feed that a fee could be applied to woman Hammond can I add that to your heart can I add that to your motion according to and and then our city clerk posed the question which I asked earlier do we include do we include not in residential properties being a commercial manufacturing etc because if it is a city services fee sorry about that that was a calculator that just started buzzing at me if it is a city services fee and it is defined as a city services fee which properties receive city services so that's the question I pose Alderman Bennett again you need to bear in mind that any fee imposed bear it needs to bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which the fee is imposed you're talking about imposing a fee on commercial properties that already have garbage collection you're gonna have to allocate what what portion of the fee is going for what particular service and and those services have to be provided on a reasonable relationship to the services that are actually provided to those properties you can't just you know literally say that everybody's going to get charged you know five dollars for garbage if they don't receive garbage collection from the city that's where you get into attacks as opposed to a fee for service if it would come to so what you're what you're saying attorney McLean if we were to charge a fee for snow removal with snow removal fees have to be charged at linear feet of road frontage no but the fee would need to bear a reasonable relationship to the service that's being provided so you look at what your budget is for snow removal and you could allocate that on a reasonable basis but it would need to be done on a reasonable basis and that could be you know per per parcel perhaps the real estate in the city but you have to look at whether that was reasonable for different categories of properties okay Alderman van Akron thank you Mr. Mayor based on Steve's comments it seems like there's certainly some great deal of concern with just applying a generalized service fee I think we need to consider how to word this appropriately or if again we go back to a strictly a garbage fee I also want to question if it's going to be a service fee we need to talk about the seventeen thousand five hundred number that number I received from the Department of Public Works and that is strictly based on their garbage pickups that doesn't include apartment buildings businesses and so on I think we need to make sure we have a hard number on exactly how many residences we're talking about because if we're including all residences and businesses in the city for this service fee of some kind it's going to be well above that seventeen five and I don't think we'll need to charge nearly amount that we're talking about here so I would like to get a hard number on what we're talking about if that's the route the council wants to go with a service fee that is applied to all addresses within the city again it's going to be well above that seventeen thousand five hundred number and we certainly wouldn't need to charge everybody seven dollars I think we could probably lower that and lower the impact to our citizens by doing that but I would like a hard number I don't know if Chief Administrator Imodio would have that or if Deputy Director Bebo would have a number on that but I think we need to clarify exactly how many residences and businesses we're talking about. As far as the commercial properties go we have a number of sixteen hundred and seventy eight that is non-residential now when it comes to multi-unit apartment buildings I don't know and I don't believe those are included in the seventeen five because the seventeen five is what we figured for garbage pickup so I don't know if Nancy Jim anybody has something that could lead us in a direction there but the question is what are what are we doing are we charging if we're imposing a sanitation fee an environmental services fee something that has to do with garbage that would obviously just be the households that we pick up garbage that would not include commercial properties that would not include multi-tenant apartments because they already have dumpsters of their own excuse me yes two family and below with the exception of some of the older neighborhoods with broken up houses that are some of them have three and three and more but in one standalone house so Alderman Heidemann thank you mayor okay I kind of agree with Alderman Van Ackman there we got to we have to broaden our scope as far as who's all going to pay this this does this also include non-profit organizations that own property in the city of Sheboygan I mean you're gonna you're you're throwing in police fire garbage everything at one time again that number would not have to be as high as 716 if you included everybody which would actually make it a lot fair not that I'm in favor of instituting any type of fee and I was glad to see that at least that somebody pointed out that there's going to be an end of the fee in 2013 which is important what 2015 it's going to be it will go through 14 to 14 okay well thank you but again we need to determine is everybody going to be covering it's going to be contributing to this fee not just the seven the people that get garbage pick up thank you Alderman Heidemann and that brings us back to what is this fee and is this a you know from what I read in the statute it says things about snow plowing road repair dead animal pick up weed tree maintenance you name it a lot of the things that the city does on most properties we indeed plow with the roads in front of every property but is this a you know if this is segregated down to being a garbage fee for lack of prettier words which is what it comes down to then it obviously would just be households if this is you know I think the spirit behind this is to keep all core services going and therefore I think it extends beyond just households so Alderman Versey Mr. Mayor I'd actually like to have that answer to that question before I ask my following questions here so we can figure that one out before I which question and if this is going to be split up between all businesses and houses and everything else or just a garbage fee to the residents collecting garbage once we get that answer then I have some. Okay do we have any discussion from the council the question posed by Alderman Versey is this going to be in I think Attorney McLean needs to chime in on this going to be a city services fee I mean the I think the spirit behind this fee is to keep all core services intact and that would be obviously everything from garbage to the library to police to fire to snow plowing road maintenance etc. A lot of those I see are included in that statute if this could be a city services fee as far as covered by whatever stat state statute that is it could include all of them that makes sense to me but obviously I'm not the attorney. Your Honor I think if you're going to do that you need to have some delineation of what all those costs are and then allocate that reasonable basis to across the board if you're talking about snow and ice removal and so forth weed elimination and tree care and so forth I think you need to itemize what all those things are that you want to include in this and then come up with a per parcel cost for that or fee for that but I caution you about including in garbage collection into that list if all the properties that you're going to be assessing the fee to are not receiving garbage collection for instance. And I pose a question on that attorney McLean you know right now garbage collection is 100% funded by the tax levy. The tax levy is based upon value of property and not based upon if you get your garbage collected or not. Commercial properties are obviously paying more and yet they have to pay for private garbage pickups. Right and that's why it's a tax it's not a fee for service. There's a difference between a tax and a fee for service. Alderman Versi. Thank you Mr. Mayor. So I guess I see make this as simple as possible. Make it what it was originally discussed as the garbage fee to the citizens using the garbage right now and also may I remind everybody that this is we need a lot more than this. This is a band-aid for this year to cover it up. We are looking forward to a bigger deficit looking forward so one thing is not going to be the solve all just so everybody remembers that part. This is not the one and only thing to fix everything moving forward. We have to look for a long term so there's other things we need to look at as well on top of this. So thank you. Thank you Alderman Versi. Alderman okay moving on Alderperson Koth. Thank you Mayor Ryan. I'm assuming that with the core service fee we're also looking at vacant land. The proposal by Alderman Versi was strictly a garbage fee a core services fee. It would probably include vacant land you know but I mean a vacant land doesn't have an address everything is done you know. Tax bill. There is a tax bill. Alderman Van Neckron for the third time fourth time. I have a question for both of them I guess. Attorney McLean would there be anything in your statute that would borrow us from doing some type of public safety fee all parcels in the city obviously have public safety usage and services that are supplied to them would there if it was worded that way would that meet your statutory requirements. Is there anything that bars it something I mean that would be specific I guess I'm looking for some guidance because you certainly seem to be cautioning us not to go down the road of a core services fee. I guess I'm looking for some guidance as to what types of verbiage and specific use of fee we could look at for this type of thing that would cover all parcels and if I can just kind of kick this over to chief administrator as well if you have the numbers on how many parcels that would include businesses multi families and those kind of things do you know what those numbers would be. Well from a residential standpoint we have 16,000 roughly 800 parcels in the city. The 17,500 numbers what we get off the water utility for residential households. The difference there is that some residences have more than one meter. It doesn't mean that every one has a meter like for a fourplex. It could be one meter or you know duplex could have one meter but it says that in that mix we've picked up roughly 700 additional households for multiple family. In addition there's roughly 1678 commercial not for profit manufacturing meters in the city as well. If that answers your question. It does thank you. And you had a question on a public protection fee. I think if you could identify what is included within that protection fee and come up with a dollar amount as to what the city expends and allocate that on a reasonable basis to all the properties I think you could do that. So based on different ideas that have been thrown out here including closing fire stations you know cutting budgets towards the police department. If we went this route as a public safety type fee to ensure that we maintain the same level of public safety services that we supplied last year. If I'm hearing you right that would then meet your statutory requirements. You know the problem you got is the difference between a tax that you can't raise and fees that you can set. The more it looks like a general tax the less likely it's going to pass muster as a fee. Fees are designed to cover current services rendered by allocating a portion of the service to the user. Now if you can allocate particular fire services to users you can reasonably charge a fee for that service. Now I need to also give a caveat there's another provision in the statute not about public service fees but the before you can establish a special charge for street tiring or the repair of sidewalks curb and gutters you need to have a public hearing before you can do that. The other items that I mentioned that are specified in the statute you don't have to have a public hearing in advance on but the broader you make it and the less you tie it into particular services provided the more it's going to look like a tax and I think it's the more questionable it becomes as to its legality. Okay thank you Alderman Van Akron and Attorney McLean. Alderman Carlson. Thank you Mayor. At the beginning of this discussion I could take this at face value and accept it but the longer we go especially with some more legal definitions from the attorney here it's getting harder for me to accept this for a couple of reasons. First it's going to come down to what it sounds like is we're going to just charge a fee for service and obviously everybody knows I mean not to apologize to PETA lovers out there but not to be the dead horse here but I've already said my piece about charging service. I think instead of just putting an additional fee and charging even more money for the same service that we provide we should just privatize it. This way we know what we're going to what the residents are going to pay over the next five years. It's a five-year contract with guaranteed the yes there will be CPI increases but it's guaranteed we'll know that for the next five years. We keep it in-house we have no idea where the budget's going to go. We can slap this fee on it this fee can go away in 2015 but we could also have to raise the fee next year or the year after and that raise could be even more than what the private industry is going to do it. That's why how this is going now I can't accept this and when we talk about core services I don't consider garbage service a core service because somebody else can do it. Nobody else can do police no one else can do fire even I kind of put library in the middle there somewhere because I think some of the top echelon needs to be cut out but that's that's for a different topic here so once again I don't think garbage is a core service and if we're just going to slap a fee on it I can't accept that. Thank you all to me Carlson vice president Hammond make sure make sure that calculator doesn't start bugging at you. It's a calculator for all the people at home. So is mine. You know I think we're just trying to come up with semantics and how to best decide describe the word fee you know realistically the reason we're putting this together is to keep garbage in-house so let's just call it what it is it's a fee to continue to keep garbage in the city of Sheboygan. So that said you know you put the the fee on top of of where we're currently at we're still cheaper by far than what some of the numbers that have been been quoted. I'm not as concerned about the CPI but I'm I'm concerned with things like fuel surcharges and various other types of things that just kind of happen to arise and obviously we haven't seen a contract from those guys so you know let's just call it what it is it's a fee to keep garbage inside the city of Sheboygan. So I would say you know while we're going back and forth on what this really is it's a fee to keep garbage inside the city and should be for the residentials. Okay thank you Alderman Hammett. So we are discussing a solid waste pickup fee at this point I guess. Alderman Carlson mentioned privatization which for the general public was document number 1634 which was voted down by the council all but to voting against privatization of garbage services. I somewhat agree with Alderman Carlson on privatization if we look at it if we're going to charge these citizens a fee and we're going to call it a a solid waste pickup fee or a garbage fee. We do believe we can get another year out of our out of our present garbage trucks that we have that will get us through 2012. They don't get cheaper every year. 2013 we're looking at if we have to purchase new garbage trucks we're looking in 2013 of 1.6 million dollars they're about that obviously we have to to fund to buy new garbage trucks. One thing if we did privatize garbage now we don't lay off any employees because we thought with all of the retirements we would lay nobody off if we privatize garbage services this year. If this is something that comes up again in the next budget year we now have 10 people on the payroll that would be laid off. So to keep that in mind on that in my opinion if we can you know if we're going to charge a service I'd rather see it just privatized we're out of that business because another thing is once we're into that business again we have employees we have capital capital equipment we're in that business and we're in that business to stay for that that duration. Another thing on straight fees for service it's easy for somebody to run for any public office and say I'm going to get rid of this fee. I'm going to get rid of the garbage fee it's easy to do it's an easy way to get elected to offices I'm in a lower taxes I'm going to get rid of fees I'm going to do this or that the other thing it's easy to run on it's hard to do because we end up in a deficit situation once again and we're doing the same thing over and over again. So I look at privatizing garbage is this is the one opportunity to do it if it's not done now it's not going to be done for the next five years plus that's the way I'm looking at it we don't have to spend 1.6 million dollars on capital we lay nobody off we lay nobody off. There's been talk about competition in the private sector right now there's not much competition in the garbage market in Sheboygan in the city of Sheboygan there's a reason for that because 17,500 households are now picked up by the city. Man it's a lock which is a free for all up there for lack of better words has four garbage companies. They have a problem was brought to my attention that one garbage company was formed by former city employees that started a garbage company picking up garbage now the way they do it up there it's just everybody contracts their own garbage pickup I don't believe that would work in the city of Sheboygan at this point it would be too easy to not contract garbage pickup we'd have alleys and everything else full of garbage I'm not looking for a city full of garbage but if we were to privatize garbage pickup charge a fee according to the people that get the services for whatever that may be when that RFP comes through and is clean we're out of the business we lay nobody off we don't have the capital expenditures in the future you don't have somebody coming along saying I'm gonna get rid of that fee because we're not in that business so that's my own personal point of view you know I look at things some things if the private sector can do it government probably doesn't belong in it that's one thing that that I believe in this this is the one opportunity to do this if it's not done now it's not done for five years we don't know in the future how our budgets are going to go 716 for garbage this year five bucks five bucks on sets you know that the cost of doing business is going to continue to go up during that time it may not be this council it may not be this mayor but there's going to be 16 or eight people or however big the council is and maybe a mayor or half a mayor sitting up here that's going to have to make these same decisions so I think it's easier to make that decision now make the hard decision all of them born please thank you mayor I just wanted to expand on something you mentioned about getting another year out of the garbage trucks in some discussions I had today with David Bebel from Public Works we may be evil we may be able to get more out of the chassis and just replace the Packers that's another option if David would want to expand on that a little bit where I know we're going to be talking about it come on at at the Public Works meeting but there's some there are some opportunities not to have to replace all those trucks maybe just the Packers and I believe Mr. Bebel said that possibly it would be an expenditure of about half of what we're talking about of the 1.6 million there's a possibility of doing two front loaders and just replacing the the packing units on the other trucks and that would be a substantial savings those trucks that we have right now those diesel engines the chassis have about 50,000 miles on them at the most and of course diesel's run forever but Mr. Bebel told me that sometimes there's problems with corrosion and transmissions but still there's an opportunity that we can get a lot more life out of the existing trucks without having to spend 1.6. Thank you Alderman Boran Dave do you just anything to expound on with that? Master of Public Works Dave Bebel. Yeah we're constantly evaluating garbage collection system looking at our equipment and one of the options is just that using the existing chassis the the chassis themselves are in very good condition the packing mechanisms are getting worn we talked with our mechanics we can probably get another year it's going to take that long anyway if we would get permission to order new trucks it's going to take us time to develop the specifications go out for bids and get those ordered so we're still evaluating all those options every year we come in with a budget and next year and the year after we'll continue to provide the best budget that we can provide that service and equipment's part of that budget if I may before you sit down Dave and and we have here two gentlemen Dave Bebel who's in charge of Public Works we have Jim Amodeo who's in charge of the finances of the city what is your opinion on the city privatizing garbage keeping it in the city where what makes financial sense what makes sense for DPW in terms of privatization can it be done the model is clear you can privatize work that the issue in Sheboygan is we're competitive now financially when you just take our operating budgets moving forward down the line we have fuel costs we have equipment costs and Jim's right he's run the numbers on the capitalization when we do have to purchase those new garbage trucks it's going to be a cost and that cost is going to go back to our operating budgets which affects the general fund I guess my take would be that if we're going to privatize we cost avoid laying people off and we cost avoid capital shorter that if the decision is not to privatize what's which to me makes the most financial sense is that next time around when we buy trucks we finance the trucks I don't necessarily agree with just replacing packer units because if we did that we wouldn't be able to finance those but if we went out and purchased new vehicles would be able to finance the new vehicles probably get some trade in value or residual on our current vehicles the cost of garbage collection would go up by the interest we would pay but we would avoid spending capital in the motor vehicle fund for other uses okay under further discussion alderman born did you get your answer and that was it thanks okay thank you all the person kiddlesen thank you mayor and I guess I just would remind council that we just did a study a whitewater study here where people do consider garbage pick up a core service and there's 86 or 87% of the people said it's an excellent service and they and the majority of calls that I've gotten and the people that I talked to on the street and when I'm out and about ask please do not privatize the garbage they appreciate the service they want that service that is a core service of the city thank you thank you all the person kiddlesen alderman raceler thank you mr. mayor I'm gonna call the question because of this motion does not pass we're going to be here for a long time so I think we need to kind of move on okay we're calling the question on the motion of vice president Hammond and president Decker 716 for garbage pickup or in 2012 calling it a solid waste removal fee something of the sort five dollars in 2013 five dollars in 2014 nothing in 2015 call the question does anybody second calling the question we have a second all in favor of calling the question opposed okay the question is called we'll call vote please and I vote will set the rate at 716 and 12 5 and 13 and 5 and 14 a no vote will not height of him no cut no kiddlesen I Maddachak no raceler I Samson I then Akron I Vander wheel I mercy no belt I boron I Carlson no Decker I common no oops had that going too fast and Hammond nine eyes six nose motion carries so where's this leave us this leaves us with the original motion to pass the resolution I'll withdraw my five dollar one right and alderman raceler just withdrew okay alderman waste raceler withdrew his original amendment so what we have now is we have 1548 we're speaking of here correct 1548 amended to include a $7 in 16 cent solid waste removal fee in 2012 $5 in 2013 $5 in 2014 sunset in 2015 excuse me which documentary referring to the only document we're speaking of tonight 1636 thank you in order to have a clean document I think it would be important also to have some motion Mr. Modio provided numbers that was adding to the various appropriation items and I assume those aren't in the printed document that's right I think there should be a motion to to amend those documents to reflect the numbers that Mr. Modio just provided before you act on the final package second okay motion in a second to adjust the numbers and the numbers are adjusted as 585 for 2012 no not not those I'm talking about like there was a reference to additional $8,000 for elections I don't know what the laundry list Jim can you of the additional items but currently the proposed resolution is that the the following appropriations as printed here would be approved as the appropriation but we're talking about the list we went through was in addition to that 947 80,000 for elections 8 0 80,000 for elections 100,000 for airport site prep 100,000 fit into the budget document here under expenditures or we could put it in public works yes elections would obviously be under city clerk it'd be under elections first elections we have elections okay 80,000 there site preparation for river dredging under public works yes of a hundred thousand yes okay there would be a reduction in the fire budget of 80,000 okay fire department there would be a reduction okay of 70,000 in the police department there would be a reduction in public works of 395,000 there would be an addition of 450,000 in general government 450,000 to cover the retirees I guess in the same place I put the 470,000 if I if I may ask with everything we've done here with the $7 let's talk about 2011 and 12 with the $7 and 16 cent fee in 2012 what does that do as far as covering our million 505 that we attempted to cover that covers it that's what it covers okay million set 503 I believe and change vice president Hammond please I was just gonna ask attorney McLean in here we also have that we're gonna apply 950,000 ish of fund equity from the general fund do we need to amend that out of here too I think you want a clean document when you get done tonight so the numbers should match so we should amend to put a special charge of the million 503 and pull out the 950 of fund equity applied originally this document we plugged our hole in this document with taking money out of the general fund reserve assume you're putting it in some revenue category and I think that should that should go away we've added the cost and I think we need to increase revenue by the 1,000,000 five so I just want to make sure it was legally correct can we do that Jen Steve and not go to jail okay with that yeah I think it probably fit under charges for services so under revenue we will do where will that go under revenue which which line item charges for services okay million 503 and change and we're taking out the fund equity applied correct of 947 out of the general fund correct okay everybody's straight on that anything else just had somebody beep in I have a bunch of old lights up here Alderman Versey did you does anybody else have any other discussion here on the board I just I just wanted to okay just a moment I'm going to turn these off and if you have any other further questions if people can be been Alderman Versey thank you Mr. Mayor so with our new fee that we established that's covering the 505 what are we facing for 2012 for 2013 2014 the numbers that you have we already had a deficit what's that deficit that we're facing depends on CPI at two and a half percent in 2013 it'd be roughly 850 to 900,000 for 13 again whatever CPI would be in 14 if it were the same at two and a half percent it'd be roughly the same number it's likely higher Alderman born did you have something else I just wanted to ask the eventually we're gonna get a new copy of the updated all these I've jotted them down but we'll eventually copy of this right it'll be a new it'll be a resolution as amended okay thank you thank you Alderman Heidemann did you have something thank you mayor so if I understand this right you're going we're going to take in correct me so there's 17,500 people that are going to be paying an additional $86 a year correct that's it so no nonprofits no no corporations no businesses nothing they're all get the free ride because there's 1700 or 17,500 people that are willing to pay this $86 fee you got to be kidding but I wouldn't know again okay thank you Alderman Heidemann thought the way that this was word it is a basically a garbage fee those are the people that get the garbage picked up vice president Hammond exactly I was gonna say four plexus greater businesses they're already paying for their own garbage collection and amongst many other fees that they pay for all we're doing is from what I'm hearing from people and many in this room have been hearing from people they like the service they get from the city and are willing to pay to keep that service inside the city so to me it makes a lot of sense it's kind of a no-brainer okay I've got a few lights coming in as we know the document has already been passed Alderman Van Ackerman did you just hold light Alderman Boren just kind of follow up on what Alderman Heidemann was saying I certainly don't I certainly don't like fees but I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for this because it is going to be going down to $5 for 13 and 14 and has a chance of going away in in 15 so had had the had the motion not passed earlier about this thing eventually sunsetting I wouldn't have supported it because I don't like fees either but I have been hearing from my constituents over the weekend and I've talked to quite a few of them that they do want to keep garbage and they are willing to pay a fee and I think I can explain to them that I was talking about a $5 fee and I think I can explain to them for at least the one year to get us out of this binder in that that I think they'll be willing to pay the 716 but I think there is light at the end of the tunnel and 15 the council can take a look at it maybe if times are better it can go away thanks thank you Alderman Boren I apologize to the council this document is not passed the amendment was passed okay Alderman Heidemann so so the document is still open the amendment was agreed upon but the entire document is not passed as of yet Alderman Van Akron now that it's not passed I will speak on it I to agree with Alderman Boren I like the fact that this is sunsetting in three years I think it gives us the opportunity to get our financial house in order it gives us the opportunity and we have to deal with the financial reality of today and next year which this certainly covers and by 2014 I hope as a group whether it's myself still on this council and whoever else is still here that we get the opportunity to decide what services we end up having to cut between again finding financial efficiencies or growth in the city I hopefully we can see an end to this fee and you know get back to not having to charge a fee for service and that certainly is my goal and I certainly will work over the next year to certainly accomplish that so that is my hope I do agree that unfortunately do the financial reality this is something that is needed I'm not happy about it I don't think anybody's happy about voting for it but the financial reality is you know this this solves our financial problem for this year it solves our financial problem from last for next year excuse me and everybody I've heard from two is is willing to pay a small fee to keep the quality service that we have the mayor touched on privatizing and I understand that he's in favor of that however if private sector could do it cheaper than the city I think I'd take a look at that but in this case private sector can't do it cheaper than what the city is offering I think it's important that we give our citizens the best deal possible this is the best deal that we can give them again I'm not happy about it but but I think it's the financial reality we find ourselves in so I will support it and I hope that this council can move forward from here thank you're Alderman Van Akron all the person cut thank you mayor Ryan so it's my understanding this will go on the water bill and then next year to go on the tax bro Jim I think the intention is yes that this will go on this year's tax bill tax bills are already out it will go on the water bill water bills come out monthly however they they are for every quarter they send out six thousand a month this would go out on the water bill probably the first one in February it would be retroactive to January obviously so it would be the fee would be imposed if this is passes to January 1st 2012 we come out on the water bill this council could decide in 2013 to put it on the tax bill but obviously it's not happening we have to have a hearing to put it on a tax bill as Steve alluded to earlier so it would be on the water bill for 2012 during 2012 we could have hearings and put it on the tax bill and probably save the forty thousand dollar fee we'd have to pay to the water utility for collecting the water utility will bill as forty thousand dollars a year to do the billing process for collecting further comment okay we have a motion and a second as amended correct Sue correct as amended we all have the numbers scribbled on our document do we all understand that I'll understand the numbers okay any further discussion if there is none on document number 1636 roll call please as amended obviously cut no Kittleson I Maddachuk no Racelor I Samson I Ben Akron I Vanderweal I versey no belt I boron I Carlson no Decker common no Hammond I and Heidemann no I heard no nine eyes six nose motion carries any other further business this evening okay thank you everybody I know it's some hard decisions to make here this evening I appreciate everybody speaking their minds and remaining very civil in the process we're done motion to adjourn all in favor say aye opposed Joe are you opposed to no okay Joe even says I motion carries thank you everybody