 Okay, we'll call the 18th regular meeting of comic council order Pat. Would you call the roll, please? Thank you, Your Honor. I would move that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting as entered on the record and the same stand approved. Second. Moved and seconded the minutes of the past council meeting to be approved under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion to be carried. Pledge allegiance this evening. All of them under your will. Would you leave us please? 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. Confirmation of appointments. We'll hold that. Okay, for 1739. Public form. Sorry. Bob Melanek. Bob Melanek. I guess he didn't show up. Marge Segali. Good evening. My name is Marge Segali and I first of all would wish to extend to you and your families a very blessed holiday season. I reside at 2732B North Savannah Circle and I am a member of the Sheboyka Action Group. Approximately five hours ago I received a call from Alderman Warner stating that he had replaced me on the investigating committee looking into the ethics code violations. I felt that it would have been unethical for me to serve on this committee since I am one of the co-assigners of the complaint. Now with all due respect to the other council members here in attendance I would like to address Alderman Warner. At one of the council meetings you made two comments that I felt were way out of line and one of them was calling that ethics code violation complaint a frivolous piece of paper. For it being a frivolous piece of paper it sure has opened up a Pandora's box here in the city of Sheboyka and the citizen taxpayers are watching to find out what is coming out next. The second one was you called it smell of rotten eggs. Well the only place that I smell the eggs Alderman Warner is from your chair and you seem to be sitting in them up to your eyeballs. I think that that was very wrong of you and being an older person representing the citizens of Sheboyka you really had no right to make comments like that. I want to thank you for letting me speak. Okay next. Henry Capitolo. Henry Capitolo. I'm here to speak on behalf of one of the items that you have in your agenda and that's the property on John Court. I had first of all I'd like to thank the assistant city attorney Chuck Adams for drafting the agreement that we looked to enter in. I think also the building inspecting department. Mr. Vander wheelie who did sign the agreement and also Pete Fullerton from city development which they did take time to review the agreement and did sign that. I know that we've been on opposite side of the fence on this but I really appreciate that they did look at this and did sign that. The reason that I'm here is that we didn't really intend our wanting to fix a house that really need a lot of work to cause as many problems as it has. The concern was basically to get a low income family to fix a home that was applied in the neighborhood. We didn't know that there were going to be so many landmines in the way or maybe we would have not looked at it. But that really doesn't change anything. We did look at it. We went through the whole process and I know that there is an issue with the property taxes and maybe making some kind of precedence on that. We really did not have that as one of our reasons for doing this. In some way I would sympathize with you that you do have a hard choice and in your seats I don't know what I would do. But as the organization that's looking to work on this home we would definitely would like to have you consider it. Like I said we understand your position. We know that this is something that is different that no one has come before you to ask for this assistance for the reasons that I heard at the finance committee that this may set a precedence. We did not intend for that to happen. That is something that came about through this whole process. And whatever happens here tonight however the vote goes or whatever you decide to do with that we definitely will live with that. We will understand even though we may not agree on a lot of the things we do respect your concern and your opinions. And some of the reasons why you may feel that this may not be appropriate for us to do. In closing I would like to again thank the city departments that did take the time to look at this. Even though I know that they were quite against the project. The building inspecting department the city development and Chuck Adams from the city attorney's office. They had some major concerns on this but you know what they still went and they still did do the paperwork. And they gave us the benefit of the doubt and I appreciate their professionalism to do that. And although they did not agree with me and where we stood on this I respect that they did go through this process. Thank you very much. Okay Alderman Gough. Thank you your honor. Consented agenda which is items 18-1 through 18-23. I would move that all ROs be accepted and filed. All RCs be accepted and adopted. We pass all resolutions, substitutes of resolutions and general ordinances. Move to the second item. All ROs be accepted and filed. All RCs be accepted and adopted. Resolutions and substitute resolutions and ordinances. Thank you your honor. I would like to pull item 18-8 and ask for a separate vote on that. Okay. And the reason is because today I talked with assistant attorney Chuck Adams. He gave me the impression that there's a chance that we will get the back taxes back from the property owner. But there's also a chance, a better chance that Home Inc. will fix up the property and we can get it back on the tax roll sooner. So with that I would like to see the property back on the tax roll so we can start getting money from those taxes. Is there any other discussion? Alderman Reinflesch. Thank you your honor. The document that we have simply is the report and does not have the attached agreements that apparently we're deciding not to go with or that they have looked at with Chuck Adams. And so on. I don't have that. Take a separate vote. I'm uncomfortable doing that right now because I don't have the ability to see what the agreement was at this point in time. And ask if we do do that, that we hold off until our next council meeting. Okay. Is that a motion? Also move. No second. To the second. That was to what? Have a layover? Because I haven't got access to the document either. So I would have to come from the assistant city attorney, I would imagine. We haven't got anything on our office. I'm going to address that. I believe the communication came into the council. The document that our office prepared was an agreement with Home Inc. as far as holding off on the raise order. And that would stand. That's an effect. We won't execute on the raise order. Home Inc. has 45 days in which to correct the problem with the foundation. And that's done within 45 days. And then we've got another 45 days in which to correct the exterior violations. And property would not be raised during that period of time. That's what that agreement addresses. But I believe the communication that came into council dealt with other issues. You're still on. Thank you. The original communication I remember having, but the details I did not see. But if we're simply filing this today, we are in effect giving them what they were asking for. Is that correct? No. Okay. That I'm uncomfortable voting on this because I haven't seen what they're asking for. You have seen what they're asking for in the original communication on October 20th. You did get a copy at that time. So there was no other agreements done? No, there was nothing since then. So we're simply filing what we originally had at that point in time. That's what is being filed here. Okay. Alden Graf. Excuse me. I just wanted to say that what we're filing here, what finance is recommending to file is that the fact that the concessions were not approved. And the concessions that were asked for was half the taxes being paid by the city, which was setting up a precedent as Mr. Keppel pointed out. And we'd have to get money to pay that because the taxes are owed to the county, if I recall correctly, how this goes. And then the other concession was to pay for half of the fencing or the cleanup or something of the property. And we also said no to that. Oh, we have a motion to hold. For layover. He wants to speak again. Correct? Knowing that that's the concessions because the original communication didn't have specific concessions in there that I would back adds. Knowing what the concessions that they asked for, I'll remove my motion. You're over your second. Okay. We're voting on this separately. All in order. I think I would just like it to be clarified if we vote aye or nay on this, what we're doing to it. I am filing the communication that came in October 20th asking for various concessions from the city. What are they wearing here? Okay. Just one other thing that Steve pointed out before. If this is voted to file the agreement between the city and the building inspection department can still be signed and acted on. And they can still keep the house and make all those put it back on the tax rolls, but it won't get the concessions will not be granted. Excuse me. Alderman Montemire. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Alderman Graf is right in that that he still could proceed with the city plan, but without the concessions, he can't proceed with the city plan. And I also want to thank Alderman Graf for holding it over and letting us speak a few more times with the committee. And thank you Alderman Doyle for researching all sorts of things. I appreciate that. Thank you. The way it sounds out there is everybody's getting what I had about two weeks ago. That's not funny. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess I don't have a real problem with the concept of trying to help people out with certain things like this occasionally. But in this case, the Public Protection Safety Committee recently denied Habitat for Humanity the waiver of building fees for construction of their buildings. And why did we do that? Well, first it's still a cost to the city to go inspect these buildings. We have to be very careful when we're doing something like this that we don't set a precedent. I think it does. The next thing you know, like with the Habitat for Humanity situation, every person or charitable organization of any kind that comes forward has to be treated the same. The next thing you know, anytime a taxpayer has trouble maintaining their property, they're coming to the city. I've got this idea. Pay the county their taxes using city taxpayer dollars so that we can fix this house up and get it back on city property tax rolls. I have a real problem with that because who starts to decide when and who we do it for? It's just not a good idea. It's setting a poor precedent for the city and we should file this. And if they end up coming up with a way to get the money on their own and building inspection in that then can help them out. That's something we can do. But in this aspect, it would not be good for the city. I would recommend filing it and they can go through the other route working with building inspection and hopefully come up with the money. Okay, I have a motion. Steve? Senator? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to get my two cents in before you vote on it too. Apparently the request for concessions, if you will, had to do with the some assessments that were put on special charges for picking up garbage and things from the site. That's one issue in my view. The other issue is abatement or refund of taxes. I think that's a constitutional issue and I think it's in my view, and I'm not an expert in this area, but I've never seen it done. And I think it would possibly violate the uniformity clause of the Constitution as far as uniform property taxes. I would, again, could be wrong on that, but I would strongly advise against any abatement of real estate taxes. I think the council, if they wanted, could wave or do whatever you want with the special charges for garbage collection and things like that. The same issues don't apply there, but I strongly advise to stay away from anything dealing with the real estate taxes. Okay. Pat, would you call the roll? I don't need one. I need one. You need one? Bonne? Aye. Doral? Aye. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Mondermeer? No. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rindfleisch? Aye. I'm sorry. Aye. Stefan? Aye. Van Ackeren? Aye. Berg? Aye. Thirteen Highs? Two Noes. Motion carried. Okay. Everything else from 18-1 through 18-23? If there's another discussion, would you call the roll, please? Doyle? Aye. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montermeer? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rindfleisch? Aye. Mungerman? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bowen? Aye. Berg? Aye. Boney? Aye. Fifteen Highs? Motion carried. 18-24 by redevelopment authority, recommending favorable action on document granting permission to the Great Lakes Company's Inc. and Blue Harbor Resort Condominium LLC to commence early excavation and construction of the foundations for the 16 condominium buildings subject to various conditions. Alderman Von A. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to file their report and put it upon passage of subsequent resolution. Moves in second to accept and adopt the report and pass the substitutes resolution. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the, oh, Alderman Rindfleisch. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess I would just like to ask the particular reason why we're going ahead at this point in time. With the early pouring of the concrete, what's the status of it? How many condos have been sold? What's the story of why we're doing this right now? Tom? I have to open the floor, Tom. And I'll move to open the floor. Thanks. I'm Tom Sather with the Great Lakes Company's. The reason that, try me this. Hang on, Tom. Hang on, Tom. Hang on a minute. All in favor, open the floor. Aye. All those, motion carried. All right, Tom. Thank you. Thanks for asking for the early start permit for the foundations. Make a long story short, originally we had planned on selling the resort condominiums as securities. It's what we were advised to do by the lawyers. And what happened is, as we got through this process of putting the documentation together, the approval process of the federal government, which is normally 90 days is now almost a year, as we've been told, it would have pushed our sales starting date way into next year. I think everybody wants the resort condominiums open as soon as they can. And so we had to go to a more traditional route, kind of shifting gears to sell them as typical resort condominiums. So basically all the legal documentation got thrown out, made it start all over again. So right now, the status is we've been marketing for, I think about a month or so. And it's been going very well. We've got 28 deposits and reservations for units right now. But until the very last condominium documents are completely inked, they can't legally transfer them into real estate purchase contracts. It's a legal issue. We're probably a week or two away from that. But in the interim, winter is coming at us real hard. And what we brought from the gentleman from Kramer Brothers here, if there's more technical questions that come up. But in the interest of time and expense and difficulty of construction, we're asking to be able to put the foundations in and are posting assurity that for some reason something blew up. The money would be taken back out again. But this is really an effort to make sure that we don't waste any money in the construction process. And also to ensure that we can deliver as many of the condos as early in the process as possible. But things are going, I would say, probably ahead of schedule in terms of the sales effort. Excellent. Go ahead, question. One of the condition on this from the city's end, and it's set forth for the council in the RO by the redevelopment authority, is that the Great Lakes and the Marshall Group would agree to consent and subordinate to this declaration of restrictions that needs to be placed on the property as far as the underground piping. Your in-house council, at least verbally advised that that wouldn't be a problem. Is that your understanding? That is my understanding. I haven't heard anything from the Marshall Group, and we need to hear from them on that before you can start getting on the ground. Okay, well, if you would pass this subject to that tonight, I can make sure Michael takes a look at that first thing in the morning. Thank you. Do we need to amend this right now? No, it's in here. It's in the resolution. With Marshfield, though? Yes. That's already in there, okay. It's the last paragraph of your substitute resolution. Tom, you give us a call tomorrow morning. Brokaw, please. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Monda, Mayor? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rinfleisch? Aye. Neckron? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Wongerman? No. Warner? Aye. Baumann? Aye. Berg? Aye. Boonee? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Fourteen, aye. One, no. Motion carried. Thank you for coming. 1825 through 30 to be referred. 1831 by Alderman Warner, the applicant for the 2004 comprehensive planning grant funds. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. I believe I need to ask for suspension on this, or don't like that. No. On that, I would make a motion the resolution be put upon its passage. Moving in second, the resolution be put upon its passage under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, this is a resolution authorizing the Department of Planning and Development to partner with the colony of Sheboygan as applicant for State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration, and the fiscal year 2004 comprehensive planning grant funds. And if Paulette has a brief explanation on why we're putting this through, I would like her just to address that. This would be a grant with the county, and it's for, it has to do with smart growth, and currently the city has a smart growth ordinance in place, and what this will do is it will update it, and we're going to look to beef up certain sections. And it's a $50,000 project, and the city would match it with $25, and we'd utilize CDBG planning dollars over a three-year period. Thank you. Paulette. Okay. If there's others. Your Honor, I'm Gabby today, I know. The city match, that's already in the budget, or is that something we have to find later on? It's a part of our entitlement dollars, and we did get approval from hot out of Milwaukee to use those dollars for that purpose. Okay. Okay. There's another discussion. What do you call the roll, please? Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rindfleisch. Aye. Steffen. Aye. Van Ankerne. Aye. Vanderbilt. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Bowman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Doyle. Aye. That being referred 39-40, lie over. 1740 along with 1741. ARO by the city clerk submitting a communication from Attorney T. Winkle regarding entering into a waiver of conflict, letter, as he has being considered for appointment to the special audit committee. All in order. I thank your honor. On 1740 I would make a motion to accept and file an RO. On 1741, I would make a motion that the resolution be put upon us passage. Senator. Moved in second to accept and file the R.O. on 1740 and pass the resolution on 1741. Under discussion. Under discussion, your honor, on 1741 as a managing partner of Rody-Dales LLC, or LLP, excuse me, it is prudent to waive any possible conflicts in regard to Mr. T. Winkle serving on the Special Audit Committee. The waiver ensures that no attorney-client relationships exist between Rody-Dales LLP and the city. Further explanation would be, Steve, if needed. Alderman for us. Thank you, your honor. And I don't know if I'm coming up with the same thing you had, but I know I had four wisdom teeth pulled out Monday to Friday, so it may be why I'm talking a little funny. I guess I'm going to vote against the both of 1740 and 1741 primarily because I know that there's more than one attorney in the city of Sheboygan that could more than adequately perform the same duties that Mr. T. Winkle is going to perform. We talk about set in precedence, and we talk about being careful, and we talk about not putting the city in any position that may be detrimental to its status in the future. And here we are, waving conflicts of interest, which we have no business doing. I would understand if Mr. T. Winkle was the only attorney in town, I'd be the first one making the motion to do so. He is not the only attorney in town. And along those lines, if I may, ask Alderman Warner what the criteria was for selecting Mr. T. Winkle as chair for this committee, how many people did he interview? What type of interview process was involved? So at least the council and the community have an idea of what the process was and how exactly we arrived from over 100 attorneys to this one and then have to wave potential conflicts of interest. Thank you, Your Honor. I would be glad to answer that question. First, this is an unusual request in any way she had performed. Anytime an attorney does something for a city where their law firm may be working, you know, Rody Dales doesn't just have one person. Mr. T. Winkle is a managing partner of Rody Dales. So his law firm works on things throughout the whole city and throughout the whole county and possibly the state, as do all law firms. Any law firm that came in here and was going to be doing this as a chairman, who happens to have something with the city at this time would ask for a waiver because it's attorney client privilege that they're waving. It has nothing to do with anything other than that. He doesn't want to look like he's representing the interests of the city legally in his work on the committee or here. And that's why I would ask Steve, that's from the legal standpoint and that's what I was looking for, to explain what the waiver is in a legal form. Why do they do this? It's common. There may not be actual conflicts of interest, but I know Mr. T. Winkle represents a claimant who's filed a claim against the city that may result in litigation against the city, the Tejanos restaurant. I believe he's also involved in another matter where he's working with either current city employee or former city employee over a potential, and it's just a potential at this point, the claim of violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, one of those things. And it's basically a way for him to advise the council that he's coming in with the perspective that he's representing clients against the city and wants you to be aware of that and to recognize that he feels he can serve on this group, but he wants you to say, okay, I recognize those things and we'll let you still serve on the group even though you have potential actions that are adverse to the city's interests. If I may, Your Honor, what this does in my mind is it makes him even more likely to be more objective and much more careful on how he deals with these situations. As to how did Mr. T. Winkle get selected for this, well, the first thing to do is he started thinking about people in the community and throughout the community who are hopefully well-known, have a very well-established reputation, have dealt with government and with private business. I looked at things like that and he was one of a number of people I called. Some I would not reveal their names as they declined and it would be improper to do so without their permission, but when I talked to Mr. T. Winkle and he agreed, we had a good discussion on how he would like to look at filling out the rest of the committee and I made it quite clear that it's not Alderman Warner's committee, it's a committee put together by him and by this council of people that would look at things objectively in these issues and that's how it came about. When Mr. T. Winkle agreed to this and was willing to do it without any pay or compensation whatsoever as are all the rest of the committee members, they're doing it without pay or compensation given up their own time to look at these things factually. I think Mr. T. Winkle as a former Wisconsin State Senator, as a candidate for Wisconsin Attorney General, is obviously very well-qualified to do this and I don't think that he's quite capable of removing any interest he has in the city from his job as it would be on this committee. And Alderman Perez, you had another question for him? Yes, I did, Your Honor. I guess I just wanted to make clear that I have a lot of respect for Mr. T. Winkle, which goes way back to when I first ran for state assembly. I walked the streets for him passing literature and I would do it again for him. My problem is not with the individual. My problem is with the process, as I said. This was the only attorney that lives in the city of Sheboygan. I would be the first one making the motion to do so, but he's not. And we really have no business putting ourselves in a position where we waive for anyone, any potential conflict of interest. We're only asking for trouble. The other thing that I would ask is related to this that I won't be able to point out in the upcoming resolutions is that Mr. T. Winkle, having Mr. T. Winkle as an attorney, Mr. Wells as an attorney and an accountant, I believe, they're going to incur a lot of time and a lot of out-of-pocket expenses and so forth. I'd like to see something in writing, because this is what got us in trouble in the first place, something in writing from all these individuals telling us that there won't be a penny charged to the city of Sheboygan for any amount of time or anything that comes out of their pocket that they're going to put into this case. At least in that sense, I would feel a little bit more comfortable, but I don't feel comfortable at all with waiving any conflict of interest for anybody. Alderman Warner? I think this would be, I'd be speaking beyond my normal permitted time here. You're answering questions right now. I'm answering the question, and yes, they have stated emphatically they're doing this for nothing, for free on their own time. The only thing that will have to be done is the city clerk's office will have to post an agenda. So their meetings are open to the public, we can all go. All 16 of us, all their persons, everyone out here in the audience in the whole city of Sheboygan can come to those meetings that's completely in the open, will be publicly noticed. We have some great people on this committee. I know that they'll do their job and come back to us with what they believe, what the facts are and their conclusions, and the council will have its say on what those are, and we do not have to agree with them. But I think that in this case, we have a very qualified person running this who has made his name known throughout the state as someone that can be trusted, and I think we should move forward with this, and the waiver is something in this instance that is needed to protect the city and to protect this firm. Alderman Rainfelsch? Thank you, Your Honor. With much thought in this past week and much consideration, I too will vote no on 1740, 1741, in addition to 1720 and S-10-1. All these documents do relate to the special audit committee. I did originally support the concept of the audit board, a committee outside the ethics board, so that we could avoid the perception of politics in any result that may come up with this. But the perception right now is that this independent audit committee within the community isn't going to give an answer that they can be comfortable with, that they trust. The reason mainly is because the process used to this point in time, one that we did not have open nominations within the ethics board to submit and vote. We're talking about the waiver on this one, not the other documents? I'm getting to that too. Two of those recommended come from out of the city, which requires then us to waive the residency requirement, which requires us to waive the conflict of interest as well. When I think it's clear that there are others in the city willing to do this that don't require changes within the city code. Again, my concern isn't that I'm not confident necessarily in the end result that the community may find, but I know my constituents are very uncomfortable with the end result. And what I wanted to do is be able to move forward, be able to do the investigation, move forward, but do it in a way that we don't have to keep coming back to this point in time. I instead recommend referring the previously filed documents to the ethics board because I think it's easier for us to examine the state code within the group here in open, in public, where people can watch this on TV8 right here and look at several other state statutes that are called into question. And I point out from the municipality magazine that we all get, there's a Q&A section regarding agreements there. There are a few things I think... Hold on a minute, hold on a minute. Can we talk about these two? Stick with the document, please, then we'll get on to the other one. Okay, well, I'm voting against these as well as the other ones, and I'll talk about those later, I guess. Right, what do we bring about? Mainly because I think that there's a better process that we could have used that would have given us the public the confidence that we're doing what we can. Within the city, using our city tax payers in positions in this committee. Alderman Wernher. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Alderman Wernher. I very much like to hear those words, no pay or compensation. That's kind of what we were all expecting and hoping, and now you've said that for sure. And the meeting is open to the public, good to hear. The waiver of conflict, educate me, protects Attorney T. Winkle from us, or us from him, or protects both ways? That's my question. Thank you. Alderman Munchmeyer, it's a request that the city enter into a waiver of conflict letter. It's for possible conflicts. It's not necessarily actual conflicts. But it would say that this committee is not really providing legal advice to the city. So it's not a real actual conflict situation where he's also providing legal advice. A direct conflict would be where an attorney represents both sides in a case. Here, letting the council know that he's represented and is currently representing private individuals against the city in various matters unrelated to this. And asking you to recognize that and wave the fact that that creates a conflict for him so that he can do this. I also have one more question. Yes? Okay, thank you. Okay, the waiver of conflict, am I right that it provides that we should not in the future charge him with conflict of interest? Or he, I guess you have to educate a non-attorney. What you'd be saying by agreeing to enter into the waiver of conflict, and I don't have the text of it in front of me, it would be helpful if I did. Hang on. The letter would signify the agreement of the city with our law firm that his participation on the special audit committee does not create an attorney-client relationship between Rody Dales and the city, and that Rody Dales could continue to represent its current clients against the city and could continue to represent other clients on claims against the city on the same basis as a proposed appointment to the special audit committee had never occurred. But he doesn't want to be in a position where by being on this committee he can't represent Mr. Ramos in bringing out an action against this. And you're agreeing that you understand that and that he can continue to represent those private individuals against the city. That's basically what you're agreeing to. Thank you, that's clear, thank you. Alderman Winnie. Alderman Warner, do you have something held up there? Yeah, thank you, and I just want to say I think that attests to his honesty coming forward and saying I do have cases that are being looked at in the city and that's why we need to end it. You have to dwell on the fact that it's a waiver of attorney-client relationships between the city and its firm and that's all it is. If he does something illegal, be like if anyone else, this is, it's just a common thing to do out there. Roll call, Pam. Montemayor. I don't have that on my sheet. Moody. Perez. Rindflash. Stefan. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderwill. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bowman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonnet. Aye. Doyle. No. Graf. Aye. Manny. Aye. Eleven ayes, four noes. Motion carried. 1720 resolution by Alderman Warner, establishing a special auto committee to determine facts and allegations of ethics violations by the mayor and city attorney. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor, prior to asking for a passage, I would like to make some amendments. No. May I ask for a passage first? Your Honor, I would make a motion. The resolution be put upon its passage. Second. Move to the second resolution be put upon its passage. Again, under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, I would like to amend the document. Okay. And the first amendment I would like to make is on the first page. In the paragraph titled Obvious Further Resolved, in the last sentence between the last comma and the second last comma where it says, and present said report to the common counsel, I would like to change that to read and present said report to the ethics board of the common counsel. This is in regard to the ethics issue. And also in keeping forward with that, if you go to the back page of your resolution, in the second last be it further resolved, the first sentence says that the special audit committee shall report to the common counsel on its findings and conclusions so forth. I'd like to change that shall report to the ethics board on its findings and conclusions. So I'll replace the common counsel with ethics board and that be it further resolved and to the ethics board of the common counsel in the first one. Okay. We have an amendment on our floor under discussion of the amendment. Your Honor. Hang on. Alderman Stephan. I guess I'll hold it. I didn't plan on talking but I think this is part of the problem in the community is the people, it was my understanding when we approved this that we were going to have this outside group look at this and then they'd report back to the ethics committee. You know, I mean, so we're taking an extra step. You know, instead of just going from A to C, we're putting B in there to make sure that people can't say, well, of course the council looked at it near the same as the ethics board. So I thought that's why we agreed it to do this is exactly what we're doing now makes it clear to the community that we're not skipping a step. We're adding another step in there to be extra sure. Kind of like double begging your groceries. I guess my one question tonight in lieu of what we received from 1991, would it be more appropriate to send this report to that salary grievances committee? Like I guess it says it should be and then let them also report it off? It's just a question. I mean, I'm not going to argue but I guess, you know, when I saw this, the first thing I thought was they should be involved because that's, you know, they're the subcommittee for the ethics committee. So that might be an option too, but I can support either one. I don't know if that's a question of me. I don't know if I'm the right person to answer that. I would think you'd probably want it to come to the full world instead of the committee. Well, I mean, eventually what? The way the city attorney explained it earlier, the subcommittee was more for a routine type small thing like we had with the letter from Julie Lam, not a big issue. I think the big issue should come, I think that's what you meant by that. Okay, we have amendment before us. All in favor of the amendment? Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman Warner. In your honor, there's one other thing that the President of the Council, Alderman Groff pointed out, in the first be it resolved, and that's a special audit committee, it says responsibility to bring to the Common Council its findings and conclusions. His question was, should that be ethics board also? I think the ethics board is part of the Common Council, so in that first resolved it could stay as it is. And the issue regarding the ethics would go to the ethics board and the issue regarding the Blue Harbor Project would go to the Common Council. Do you want to change the name to? Yes. Yes. I'm not sure. Better answer this question, I think. The other thing I need to do is I need to amend the document to strike Ms. Mark Sagali's name and add the Reverend Greg Welton's name in her place. Do I have a second? Greg? The Reverend Greg Welton, right. W-H-E-L-T-O-N, I believe it's the correct spelling. W-H-E-L-T-O-N, he's a pastor at St. John's UCC. Okay, I'll call there to get... Hang on, I got some discussion coming, so hang on Alderman Warner. Under discussion, Alderman Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm thrilled to hear that we'll have a Reverend in the committee. Would you please tell us a little bit about Reverend? I actually have quite a bit to say about him in here. You want to hear it right now or? I didn't get a second. When there was a problem, do you have a second? I do have a lot. Yeah, we do have a second on that. Say it here. Hang on one more second. Before you get into that, Alderman Warner, you want to speak on... Not in this motion. Okay. Alderman Perez, I do have comments and it does include something about Reverend Welton. Okay, before we vote on it, you want to... Yes, actually I would. We have so many things going on here. So on that, I would make a motion that the resolution be put upon its passage. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're going to speak on... We're going to talk about him. Okay, Reverend Welton. Reverend Welton. The Reverend Greg Welton is a senior pastor at St. John's United Church of Christ as an ordained minister for over 26 years. He will be an asset to this committee. He's been the pastor there for the past 13 years and he's been involved in the Ministerial Association for Shrouding County and many other things throughout the city. Okay, now on the amendment, we will be voting on this amendment. Was that what your discussion was on? No. Okay. All in favor of the amendment? Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carried. Okay, now Alderman Warner. I would make a motion the resolution be put upon its passage as amended. Second. Moving to second that resolution be put upon its passage as amended. Now, under discussion, Alderman Reinfleisch. Thank you, Your Honor. I would make a motion that we amend the resolution removing in the last or the second to last be it further resolved on the second page and the sentence be it further resolved that the Special Audit Committee shall report to the Ethics Board now on its findings and conclusions regarding the ethics issue within 60 days period and remove the February 2, 2004 meeting whichever comes first to give them a full two months to do the investigation rather than a month and a half to do it have right now. We have motion before us under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, that really this action gives them two extra weeks no matter what happens. 60 days, this gives them both. If they can get their work done by February 2nd, they will if not, they still have 60 days. It's a move point. No, it doesn't. Whichever comes first, it says. If you wanted to amend it, if you wanted to amend it to say 60 days, that would be fine, but it says whichever comes first. So if they don't finish by February 2nd, they do not have the 60 days. Okay. Is that your intention? That's my intent. Just if you want to just amend it to make it 60 days and take out the February 2nd, that would. That would work fine. Make the motion. You already have it. I thought he said deleted. He just said delete everything after 60 days. Okay. Okay, we have motion before us. In amendment. Okay. Needed the second. All in favor of the amendment. Opposed? Motion carried. Now, again, as amended. I'm going to make a motion. The resolution be put upon its passage as let Alderman Groff clarify something. You know what he wants to do? Let's just bug at him. Yes. You know, I mentioned that in the result column, or in the result paragraph, where it says that the Special Audit Committee is hereby established with the responsibility to bring to the Common Council its findings and conclusions regarding said ethics violations and the Blue Harbor Project. There, I think that still should be the ethics board because you're changing the same thing down in the first bit for the result by saying rather than the Common Council, they are supposed to bring their findings, the facts and conclusions as to whether ethical violation was to the Common Council, but now we just changed it to the ethics board. So I think that first one has to be ethics board also. One says all of these issues would come for the Common Council. The second be it further resolved there says that the ethics issue will go to the ethics board and the final one on that page says that the Blue Harbor issue will go to the Common Council. So that's where it's separated. We could have, if you wanted to change it in there, I guess they mean the same thing, really. Only press. Your Honor, it's going to be pretty difficult for me because I guess we really don't have the assistance of council being that Steve is involved in this, but this is quite a mess, guys. I think it's the problem that we have here is that from what I recall the complaint said dealt with the payment of the overcharges. And all of a sudden we've got three more things that the ethics board or the committee is going to be looking at and I think people are still trying to figure out who's going to do what. I don't know that we should be acting on it tonight. Somebody might want to take it back and take a look at it with the assistance of council. As I said, Steve's in a very awkward, unfortunate position here to even be given this advice. I empathize with you. It's a sad situation here, but at this point the council has no assistance of council. We really don't know what we're doing. All right, Alderman Vanderweel. We have a motion on a four. So you're speaking on a motion? I have a motion, but no second. As after as the minute. Okay, Alderman Vanderweel. I just wanted to say some concern Alderman Perez had said, would it be beneficial during this process to have Chuck Adams assist us with this rather than Steve? I can give you my legal opinion that if that our office has really detain Chuck works for me, I hire him so he would be influenced potentially too. Alderman Warner. Your Honor, first I think the resolution is pretty clear on what the council's intent is here. We did change it to get the ethics issue to the ethics board and the issue dealing with Blue Harbor and they're looking into the legal documents of that to the common council. It's as plain and simple and clear as that. There's two issues, the ethics issue and the legal documents of Blue Harbor. Are they right for the city? The ethics issue is going to the ethics board. The other issues going to the common council, which actually is the ethics board also. I think we're fine with that. The amendments we made actually are I think very important. I don't see any need to redo this document and that I would say it's a goal of the special audit committee via this resolution to determine the facts regarding the ethics claims and then present their findings and conclusions to the ethics board. In addition, they'll examine the Blue Harbor project legal documents and report to the council on their findings. This will provide assurance and guidance to the council and the public to ensure the validity and accuracy of the project. This special audit committee made up of individuals who are professionals in their field and dedicated to the truth will provide a fact based assessment of the ethics issue as well as the Blue Harbor project. These individuals will provide this community service without compensation for the record objectively and with the best interest of the people and taxpayers in mind without compromising the true facts. As chairman, attorney and businessman, Bill T. Winkle will provide impeccable leadership. As a UW Madison Law School graduate and managing partner of Rody Dale's LLP, Bill's experience will be an asset to this committee. Mr. T. Winkle is the ethics advisor for Rody Dale's and as a former Wisconsin state senator as well as state attorney general candidate, Bill's familiarity with legal and government ethics will provide a great deal of guidance to the committee. Attorney Robert Wells, issue Boygan resident and attorney Robert Wells, issue Boygan resident, our former district attorney will certainly bring a great deal of experience and legal expertise to the special audit committee. His past experience will be invaluable. Robert is a respected and capable individual and will be an integral part of the special audit committee. Mr. James Graven, a certified public accountant with Schenken Associates in accepting this task will provide expert financial insight into the Quarles and Brady contract as well as the financial aspects of the Blue Harbor Project. Jim's service will be very important to the conclusions of this committee. Mr. Allen Rudnick, as a city business owner will be very important, a very important contributor to the committee. Mr. Rudnick was born and raised in Sheboygan as the owner and operator of a family business that has been in Sheboygan for over 90 years. His commitment and dedication to Sheboygan is second to none. Allen will add a very important balance to the special audit committee. He will serve with distinction as a dedicated and responsible local business owner. The Reverend Greg Welton, senior pastor at St. John's United Church of Christ as an ordained minister for over 26 years will be a great asset to this committee. Pastor Welton has served at St. John's for the past 13 years and has been involved in many community organizations as well as the Sheboygan County Ministerial Association. Pastor Welton's addition to this committee will be very beneficial to its success. These people, their willingness to serve and their credentials will provide unbiased and objective opinions based on fact, providing the ethics board and the common council. But most importantly, the taxpayers and voters, the assurances and answers needed regarding the ethics and financial questions surrounding the Coralzenbury contract as well as the Blue Harbor Project. Can I have another page? Call them about. Seriously, when a special audit committee has completed its work, their findings regarding the ethics issue will be brought before the council's board on ethics. Giving each and every older person an opportunity to review the facts, make their conclusion and take appropriate action. Sixteen, all the persons, 16 people capable of making a vote. In addition, the special audit committee's report to the common council regarding the Blue Harbor Project's legal documents and contract will provide the council with facts and findings in these documents that will clarify and clear up any concerns we may have. They'll also be able to provide us with recommendations to address any concerns found, if any. I would add again, these citizens will be providing their time and talents at no cost to the city or its taxpayers. And their community service should be applauded. I ask for your full support to remedy these issues in the open with facts as a guide and the truth as a goal. Thank you. Alderman Redflesh. Thank you, Your Honor. I agree with the words that these members of our community willing to act on this committee should be thanked for their community service. But I think we're seeing some of the confusion that a community has come out right here in our council right now. They don't understand why we're doing a separate committee. And my initial reasoning for it, to keep politics out of it, again, I think people see that politics is entering into it right now. I think that we could do it ourselves more quickly, more easily. Again, point to the questions that we saw in the municipality. Four state statutes paraphrased here that I think that we could quickly ask some difficult questions, get some reasonable answers, and move forward. Statutes, four statutes. First one establishes that unless otherwise provided by law, city funds can be paid out only by authority of the common council. Another statute. No debt may be contracted against the city nor evidence thereof given unless authorized by the majority of all the members of the council. A third one, in cities, the statute mandates that counter signatures of the city comptroller or officer performing his or her duties on every municipal contract. The statute further provides that the comptroller may counter sign a contract only when the necessary funds have been provided for and approved by the common council to pay the liability that will be incurred under the agreement. And the fourth one that I saw was pertinent, was a statute that established that a contract not counter signed by the comptroller is invalid. These are four very tough questions. I think we can put together, reasonably discuss the issues, get some answers, move forward in a way that the community senses that we've got a confident answer. We're going to report back to them with the results and we can move forward. That's all I'm asking for. So I will vote again, no, on this special law committee and hope that we go back to bring the original documents that we filed back to the ethics board, meet as an ethics board and go forward from there. Thank you. We have motion before us. Does everyone understand what the motion is? Do you want to restate it? The motion is to pass the resolution. As amended, okay. Amended three times. Okay. Call the roll. Moody? Aye. Perez? No. Rindflash? No. Stefan? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderwill? Aye. Wongerman? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Burd? Aye. Bonney? Aye. Doyle? No. Graf? No. Mootman? Aye. Modemire? No. Motion carried. Can I use five minutes? Motion carried. 1739, resolution by Alderman Warren are authorizing the appointment of a study committee to examine the quality of life services received by city taxpayers. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion and the resolution be put upon its passage. Moved and seconded resolution be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. This is a resolution authorizing the appointment of a study committee to examine the quality of life services received by city taxpayers in the city of Sheboygan. Whereas the interests of the taxpayers of the city of Sheboygan require that the possibility of escalating property tax be curtailed whenever possible. And now therefore be it resolved the quality of life services advisory committee is hereby established whose responsibility it will be to look at the needs of the city taxpayers and make a recommendation to the common council by July 30th of 2004 as to which city services should be adjusted, eliminated, or enhanced. Be it further resolved that the quality of life services advisory committee shall consist of eight city residents appointed by the mayor. Your Honor, this committee will provide information of an advisory nature to the common council regarding the importance of city services. The committee will be made up of a cross section of city residents and will provide its recommendations, if any, for changes in city services. As we approach the 2005 budget process, it is very important that public input be part of our decision making. And I believe this committee, the quality of life assurance advisory committee, will provide a valuable link between the taxpayers and the local government. Let's pass this ordinance and let's ensure the citizens get their voice through this committee. Thank you. Alderman Wright. Thank you, Your Honor. The now therefore be resolved paragraph sounds like what we already have established here, the common council. Are we so far out of contact with our own constituents that we need to have another bureaucracy to tell us what they want? I have a lot of phone calls on a given day. I knock on doors, find out what my constituents are looking for. Sounds to me as we're adding another layer of bureaucracy to tell us something that we should already know in our position as council members. Thank you. If there's no other discussion, Pat. Don't need one. Don't need a roll. Did you want to speak again? I'd just like to add, Your Honor, this doesn't have any Alderman on it. Right. Keep the politics on. All in favor of the committee? Opposed? Motion carried. 1721, Resolution by Alderman McGraw, Foreigner Monet and Stefan. Repealing resolution that established a self-insured unemployment compensation fund. Alderman McGraw. Your Honor, that resolution along with 1722, which is a resolution transferring appropriations into the 2003 budget, and then 1723, which is a resolution transferring funds to establish revenue and appropriations for bond anticipation notes series 2003C, and then 1724, that resolution, which is transferring funds to establish estimate revenue and appropriations for motel taxes in the tourism fund and 1746 resolution transferring funds in the 2004 budget for establishing capital outlay appropriations in the general fund, and then 1747, that resolution, which is transferring funds in the 2004 budget for a reinstatement of appropriations from AFSCME local 1564 concessions. I would move that all six resolutions be put upon their passage. Second. Move it in a second. At all six resolutions be put upon their passage. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll? Perez. Rinflaesh. Stefan. Van Akron. Vanderwill. Wongerman. Warner. Bowman. Berg. Bonet. Doyle. Groff. Aye. Manny. Montemayor. Aye. Moody. Aye. Fifteen. Ayes. Motion carried. 1747. Nope, we just did that one. 1737. 1737. General Orrins by Alderman Van Akron, Wongerman, Winninger, and Perez add and delete various positions in the finance department and the city development TO. Alderman Van Akron. Move it in a second to Orrins be put upon its passage under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Rinflaesh. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderwill. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Bowman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Groff. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Moody. Perez. Fifteen. Ayes. Motion carried. 1735, General Orrins by Alderman Warner, Doyle, Moody, Wongerman, and Vanderwill amend the channelized intersection regulations to include Wilson Avenue at South Business Drive and State Highway 28. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. Make a motion that General Orrins be put upon its passage. Not the next one, sir. And also in General Orrins 530304, that's document 1736. I would move that that General Orrins be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, on 1735, this is in order to amend section 118, one of the municipal code relating to channelized intersections so as to include the intersection of Wilson Avenue at South Business Drive and State Highway 28. For the eastbound traffic and the westbound traffic, this will have an impact by creating right-hand turn-only lanes, left-hand turn-only lanes. Sheboygan Police Officer Greenwald has advised the Public Protection and Safety Committee through Sergeant Tarkovsky our traffic control problems at this intersection that the city has experienced. And the committee recommends this change to promote better traffic flow and for public safety. I'd like to thank Officer Greenwald for bringing this to our attention. Thank you. And on the other one, 1736, this is an ordinance repealing and recreating subsection A of section 118276 of the municipal code so as to prohibit people from causing vehicles to be abandoned on highways or public or private property within the city. Your Honor, this will allow police and building inspection to more accurately deal with abandoned vehicles and ensure that the cost to deal with these vehicles would go to the owner of the vehicle. In some cases, it seems to be falling on property owners. In some cases, people move out of a house and leave their vehicle behind and it's improperly registered. This will help address some of those problems also. Thank you. Just another discussion. One question for Tom Holm. Tom, Highway 28, State Highway 28, South Business Drive. Opening date? Very good. Got a lot of calls on that. People are waiting for it to open. So, good. Would you call the roll please? Stephen. Hi. Ben Adler. Hi. Dandewidge. Hi. Born to me. Hi. Warner. Hi. Solomon. Hi. Bird. Hi. Bullney. Hi. Doyle. Hi. Brown. Hi. Mamie. Hi. Mountaineer. Hi. Moody. Hi. Chris. Hi. Chris. Hi. Hi. Motion carried. S-10-1, General Ordinance by Alderman Warner. Amending the municipal code to exempt members of the Special Audit Committee from residency requirements. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion. The General Ordinance be put upon its passage. Moved in second. Ordinance be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. This is an ordinance creating subsection 29-3B-6 of the 1975 Shibuya Municipal Code exempting members of the Special Audit Committee created by way of resolution number 1910304 from the residency requirements. What this does, Your Honor, is allow members to live outside of the city and serve on that committee. This ordinance change will allow the appointment of members to the Special Audit Committee to be finalized. This is not an unusual process and has been done for other committees to allow non-residents to be voting members. At this time, they could be members, but they couldn't be voting members. Well, committee without voting members is probably not a good way to go with anyone. But the last recorded allowance was for the Mayor's Special International Committee in November of last year. The council approved that. The residency requirements have been lifted for the Business Improvement District Board, the Shibuya Development Corporation, and the Marina Committee as well. There's also allowance for members of the Board of Heating Examiners and License Members of the Board of Electrical Examiners. Again, it's not unusual to allow non-city residents to serve as voting members on city committees of this nature. In this case, each of the two non-resident members of the Special Audit Committee have businesses in the city and both have been born and raised in Shibuya. And I think that's an important distinction. The Special Audit Committee will be an independent committee with three members that reside in the city and two that do not. If anything, I believe the non-residents will add more objectivity, not less. We need a balanced and objective group of people. The allowance of non-residents to serve on the Special Audit Committee will ensure that. We've done this for other committees where objectivity and mixed skills and opinions were required and needed. And I'm convinced it will work well for this committee as well. Let's move this forward. Let's let the committee get started on its work and let's stop dividing the city and trying to stop the finding of truth. Let's allow the process to work and we'll find resolution to the issues at hand. The search for the facts and the truth should not be delayed any longer. And I ask you to do what is right for Shibuya and the people that live here and move this document forward. Thank you. Alderman Prez. Thank you, Your Honor. I spoke against this particular issue last time and I will take exception to Alderman Warner's comment that people should stop trying to divide the community. Simply because somebody speaks against something doesn't mean they're trying to divide anything. Here we go again doing something we've got no business doing and is waiving residency requirements for an individual who is a very respectable man but really just doesn't live in town. The residency requirement is fundamental to our former government. If you want to participate, process, live there. If you don't move, people are chosen to move. This is nothing to do with the individuals. We've waived potential conflicts of interest. Now we're going to waive of residence requirements and we talk about not setting precedence where we keep doing it over and over. The same thing people say we're taking out. We seem to be putting back in and that's politics. Now I heard that Alderman Warner made a comment that he could have appointed the Pope and people would have been pleased. Well, I consider that in my humble opinion and bless with me, but nonetheless, nobody has complained about Mr. Wells or the accountant or the Reverend that was just appointed. Which tells me that the criticism and the disagreement is just and fair because what we're saying here is we're making, we're going out of our way to put two people, God knows why, when people are telling you don't. All they're asking you is put somebody else. It's not like we don't have people in this community. We have lots of people that are very competent and qualified to do it. That is my problem with the way this thing is going and again, nobody is trying to divide this community and I resent anybody saying it. Alderman Warner, I would just say your honor that I really do believe that having two people from outside the city who have ties to the city, strong ties to the city, but yet may not be quite as prejudiced as someone who lives right in the city in some issues, actually makes the committee stronger. I think it gives them a different flavor and a lot more strength. And yes, I think that sometimes perhaps I'm wondering if people don't want the truth to come out on this issue. Why would we stand in front of the Common Council having an independent group with no other persons on it created to look at the facts and bring them back to the entire Common Council, all 16 of us. The ethics board of the Common Council to look at the ethics issues. The issues regarding Blue Harbor, looking at the legal documents in a contract, coming back to the Common Council, that's us. We have added another step. We are going beyond what would be required and we will have expert advice, expert opinions, and we don't have to agree with them, but we will have it from experts, people that are top notch in their field and they may not live in Sheboygan today, but they were born here, born in Sheboygan. Businesses in Sheboygan. Rody Dales has a business in Sheboygan. Runnix has been here for 90 years. They have roots right here in the city of Sheboygan, big roots, and I don't have any problem with these people. Perhaps if I were to pick someone who wasn't from the area or wasn't born in Sheboygan or didn't have roots in the city with the business, maybe I would even agree, but I don't. These people are part of Sheboygan and I think that they'll serve well. I'll go right back again. Again, I think they will themselves serve well, but I know the issue is why are we working? But the issue that I hear from people calling me up is why are we working so hard to put these two people who don't live in the city and pay residential property taxes either on their property taxes or their rents or however they don't live in the city. They may own businesses here, but we don't allow people who own businesses in town run for common counsel. We have standards and that's what people are concerned about. There's people within the city who may be just as fair and just as open that would be willing to help out and that's the direction I'd rather go. Pat, what do you call the roll? Van Akron. Van Der Wiel. Longman. Warner. Bowman. Berg. Boney. Doyle. Groff. Manny. Montemayor. Moody. Perez. Rindfleisch. Steffen. Ten eyes. Eleven eyes. Motion carried. Let's take this up please for that committee before we forget or you want to do that at the end. Okay. 1841 we'll go to finance. 1842 lies over. Steve. This is Mayor's appointments that played over from the last meeting. Hereby submit the following appointments for your consideration, quality of life services advisory committee. Cynthia Hare. Richard Meyer. Roy Ramos. Peter Berinsprung. Song Yang. Ronald Erlein. Ronald Beenan. And Allen Kretschmar. All terms expiring 123104 signed by the mayor. And that could be passed. I'll move it off. It's appointment to be confirmed. Move to second that appointment to be confirmed under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carried. All in favor of the motion? Opposed?