 Notice of the 12th regular meeting of the Common Council to order. Pat, would you call the roll please? Common. Here. Bird. Here. Hooney. Here. Doyle. Here. Brown. Here. Vanny. Here. Montemayor. Here. Moody. Here. Perez. Here. Grinflage. Here. Stephan. Excuse me. Ben Akron. Here. Vanderwill. Here. Longamon. Here. Warner. Here. Wieninger. Here. 14. Cormes present. Alderman Groff. Thank you, Your Honor. I would move that the the minutes of the previous Common Council be approved as entered on the record. One second. Move to second that the previous meeting of Common Council be approved under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Pledge allegiance, Alderman Van Akron. 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. How's that? Thank you, Alderman Van Akron. This evening we have an election of the Water Board commissioners, so Alderman Groth. Thank you, Your Honor. I would move that nominations be received from the floor voting to be done by open ballot and if more than two candidates are nominated, the candidate with the lowest number of votes be dropped from the list and balloting will continue until one candidate receives a majority of votes. Okay, it's been moved. To second that a ballot be voting be done by open ballot and then if more than one of the two candidates are nominated, the candidate with the lowest number of votes be dropped from the list. Any discussion? Oh. Go ahead. Nothing. Okay, all in favor? Without motion? Aye. Okay. We, Alderman Groth, did you want to have the candidates come up to the mic? I have them. Okay, excuse me. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Then at this time, I'd wish to place in the net the names of Alan Hendrickson and Frances Beach for election to the member of board of water work commissioners. It's moved to seconded Alan Hendrickson and Frances Beach. Be placed on a board of water commissioners. Alderman Groth. Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? Alderman Groth. Yeah, and then at this time, I'd ask the floor to be open to these two candidates so they can introduce themselves to the council. And if there's any questions that they might have. Don't move the motion. Okay. Gentlemen, would you step up to the microphone and give us your name? Hi, I'm Alan Hendrickson and I have served on the board of water commissioners since 1992. I think that we have good record. We're producing better water than we ever have and doing it with less people and it's safer. And I'd really like the opportunity to serve for another three years. Thank you. Frances? That's it. Okay. Would you pass the ballots? The open ballot, remember open ballot means that you put your name on here and then who you vote for. Alderman Montemar. How many positions are we filling? One or two? One. Thank you. Alderman Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess I just had a question as to I see Mr. Hendrickson is here. Was Fran given the notice that she could be here too? Or did she know that this opportunity was going to be given to her? Did anybody say? We never notify anybody. We've never notified anybody for any position. We've never notified anybody. Unless it's for an auto person. Yeah, the notice is in the paper. She sent her resume. I realize that, but did she know that the election was going to be held in this manner with an opportunity to speak to the council? That is my question. It just seems a little unfair to have one candidate be able to speak and not the other one, especially when the other candidate had no notice of. I'm just trying to be fair about it. We didn't give him. We did not send out a notice, no. We have never done that, like that said. Is there a huge necessity to carry this election today without it is? They have to be appointed by the beginning of October. The term starts at the beginning of October? Somewhat awkward. Okay, thanks. Allen Henrickson, 14. Each number. Congratulations. Okay. Public forum, Pat. Yes, Carl Table. Remember, Carl, you have five minutes. Honorable Mayor, Aldermen and Alder women, and shabuitan citizens. I'd like to speak about the three C's this evening. Compliments, concerns, and cuts. As far as compliments are concerned, Mr. Mayor, a special tribute to you and your team on the fine celebration of Shabuigan's 150th. To Pat, I want to compliment you for downsizing your staff. To Silas, a special compliment for those wonderful writings about our city. To Jerry Doyle, Juan Perez, and all members of the council, I continue to ask those key questions in your deliberations. And to Mike, my Alderman, continue to do the fine homework that you do on all issues. Concerns. First concern, and not mine alone, but of many neighbors and many citizens in our community. As far as a stormwater use fee or tax, please vote no. Regarding a will tax, no increase, vote no. The Shabuigan Armory, don't play with that armory. That it was a special project with many federal funds. We can't just sell it. If you don't want it, then at least give it to the school district that they can have an athletic complex and rent it out for the many groups that want that facility. Regarding the future police facility, I wish you the best and they need a new facility. But whenever I'm downtown, I see a police officer walk between City Hall and the courthouse, keep the facility downtown. And the last, the other two concerns are, I'm really concerned that our population is not growing. I love this community. And the last concern is, are we still paying rent for the department of development and city attorney's office? I questioned that two years ago and I would appreciate members of the council that you would investigate. Now my recommended cuts. You have a difficult job to do. And it was more joy whether it be a school administrator and alderman that you could add to a budget. The following were searched. I went through all of your departments and I recommend the following over half a million dollar cuts for deliberation by the council. I would recommend that you cut at least one position in the office of the mayor, the assessor, the city attorney, the finance department, the purchasing department, informational systems and human resources to be at the discretion of the administrative person or head of that department. I would delete the position of the deputy director of public works. The four others can report directly to Tom Houlton. I would merge the planning department into the public works department and have needed employees report to Tom Houlton. Delete the director of city development position and investigate the merger of city purchasing department and merge it either with the county or the Sheboygan school system. These permanent cuts as recommendations this evening would be a savings, Mr. Mayor, of over a half a million dollars. Thank you. Thank you, Carl, for your input and ideas on the cuts and for coming up and sharing them with us. Thank you very much. Dulcey Johnson. Good evening. Mr. Johnson, 1306 North 3rd Street. Dulcey, can you just tip that down a little bit so we can hear you? Okay. Thank you. Mayor Shram and members of the council. I had the opportunity to this weekend to read the agreement date at July 30th, 2003 between Great Lakes and the city for the Blue Harbor Project. There are numerous things to question in the documents such as how does one have a property tax shortfall or a room tax shortfall. But one of the most disturbing aspects of this project is the fact that it required 57 private lenders to come up with financing in addition to the city's four million dollars, which means an average of less than half a million dollars per lender. And I think it's a testimony to their lack of faith in the viability of this project. I was encouraged, however, to read that Great Lakes intends to fully repay the city's four million dollar loan. Early on, Great Lakes decided that the resort project was not feasible without a convention center and so the city is complying with that. And incidentally, the 8.2 million dollars, as you know, is really 16 million when you add the interest. So the city is gonna own the convention center and the restaurant will not collect any property taxes. Great Lakes will lease and manage the convention center and receive the profits. The city will get a dollar a year for 99 years. Although in the lease situation, the less he usually pays the fee in this instance, and I quote, as rent under the convention center operating lease, Great Lakes will guarantee that the room taxes generated by the hotel and condos will equal or exceed the guaranteed room tax payments. In other words, Great Lakes will lease the convention center rent free because they are of course obligated to pay the room taxes. A schedule-entited convention center project costs includes an amount of $200,000 identified as project management fees to be deposited in a condo completion escrow account. The convention center project costs will be repaid with room tax revenues. And the $200,000 condo completion escrow account can be used under the reimbursement agreement to repay any real estate and room taxes that cannot be paid by Great Lakes. In other words, as I understand the document, the city could ostensibly pay the real estate and room taxes owed by Great Lakes if they can't pay them, unbelievable. Information presented at the Committee of the Whole on May 12th included a table showing the estimated debt service for the convention center funded by the room taxes generated by Great Lakes. It included figures on the guaranteed room tax, debt service for the convention center and half of the parking lot, and a column headed difference which totaled almost $10 million through 2028. Rumor had it that the difference was going to be given back to Great Lakes. And so I asked several elected officials what was going to happen to the $10 million. No one I asked could answer. I know others who asked the same question to no avail. And most recently were informed through an email request that the request was denied because it's not a matter of public record. Excuse me, the city is not accountable to its taxpayers for $10 million. Interestingly, the table with the three columns has been reduced to one column in the July 30th agreement, guaranteed room tax pay rent. The difference column is missing in action along with any explanation of what's happening to the $10 million. Maybe it could be used for stormwater management which brings me to my final thought. If you had not pledged $12 million to Great Lakes you would have had the borrowing capacity to build possibly two mini storm sewers. Instead your constituents are now going to be double taxed for stormwater management costs with the prospect of building up a capital improvements fund with enough revenue to build one mini storm sewer several years away. I remember my conversation with Alderman Van Aker and some months ago during which he told me that my taxes were not going to go up because of the Blue Harbor Project, not so. Elected officials have a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. I feel betrayed by your actions. Renee Susha? 303 St. Clair Avenue in Sheboygan. I'd like to read something to you that appeared in the Sheboygan press last month under the section of 10 years ago today. They had talked a little bit about building the marina and what to expect from it. It said current projections have the facility beginning to show a profit in 1996 with the big payoff estimated at $3.4 million coming just after the turn of the century. Here we are in 2003. We don't have that extra $3.4 million and the marina is still costing the taxpayers money because it is not turning a profit. I thought that perhaps Mayor Schram and other city leaders would have learned from this experience and perhaps when drafting the new development agreement with Great Lakes that some changes could have been implemented and we would not find ourselves in the same predicament 10 years from now. But when I read the redevelopment agreement I noticed that there were a lot of documents that were referred to but they were not found in the appendix. So I utilized the open records law and I requested copies of these documents that were mentioned in the agreement but not found in the appendix. And there's one thing I wanna make clear tonight. I know that Mayor Schram and others said trust me, trust me, trust me. This is good for the city. I wanna talk about the $4 million loan that the city is giving to Great Lakes to build the resort. $4 million that we're lending them. When you actually request the additional information, the reimbursement note and the payment schedule what you find is that as long as they pay their guaranteed property tax they don't have to repay the $4 million. As long as they pay their property tax they don't have to repay the $4 million. The other interesting thing that you will note on this chart is that their property tax are frozen for 14 years. They don't seem to have an increase in their property taxes. Now in my opinion, if you are given this money and you don't have to pay it back and all you have to do is make sure you pay your property taxes this really isn't a $4 million loan. Let's call it what it is. It's basically a $4 million gift that the city is giving them to come here. You can say gift, you can say bribe, you can call it what you want but this $4 million does not have to be repaid as long as they pay their property taxes. Now I live in the same TIF district. There aren't many homes I believe that fall in this. Now I wanna know can I apply for this type of loan where if I guarantee to pay my property taxes for the next 14 years could you please freeze them for me too and could you guarantee that I don't have to pay back any of my amount of my loan? I don't think so. So then you turn the tables a little bit and look at what's this mean to the people of Sheboygan. You've just recently passed a stormwater management utility and I think a lot of people in Sheboygan have two false conceptions about this. Number one is that we're actually going to be doing more projects similar to the Bluff Avenue project that was just completed. But in reality when you look at the stormwater utility at the rate of $3 you'll find that a lot of it is going for administration and regular costs that normally come from the regular budget to keep our streets in good operating condition. A couple things to note, one is that the same type of utility was presented a year or so ago to this council and it was called a tax and obviously you voted it down but the administration cost at that time was only $42,000 and now it's jumped up to $121,000. But the interesting thing to point out is the capital improvements are only going to be $132,000 next year. That's not going to buy you anything when you're talking about new stormwater equipment and things under the street that are going to run in excess of millions and millions of dollars. So you're really not generating the type of money that you need to redo anything that needs to be redone. And I want to make it perfectly clear to everybody who's really paying for this. Every business in Sheboygan is going to have to pay the stormwater utility. But everybody, every church, hospital, the Red Cross, United Way, all non-profit organizations will have to pay this fee, including the homeowners. But let's think about this for a minute. Who goes to the churches? Who goes to the hospitals in Sheboygan? Who's really going to ultimately pay for this? It's all the citizens of Sheboygan. So I'm a little confused why the mayor thinks that we can give $4 million to a developer to come here to build a hotel. And yet the people of Sheboygan and the churches have to pay the stormwater management utility. I think the taxes in Sheboygan are a little bit out of hand. A couple of months ago, or weeks ago. I'm sorry. Oh, $4.42. Okay, thank you. Oh, I'm looking at the clock behind you. Andrew Hop. Mayor Shram, members of the Common Council. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'm here on behalf of my church, Zion United Church of Christ. By now, you should all have received a copy of a letter that our church leadership sent you, opposing the stormwater tax. I am here tonight to emphasize how strongly we are opposed to that tax. And also to let the people of the city of Sheboygan know that are watching on TV the reasons for our opposition. To that end, I would like to read the letter publicly tonight. The letter reads as follows. We, the elders, deacons, and pastoral staff of Zion UCC, would ask you to reconsider applying the stormwater fee slash tax to church properties. Most of our church members are residents of the city of Sheboygan and will therefore already be paying this tax as on their personal residences. Those members who own and operate businesses in the city of Sheboygan will be paying this tax on their business properties as well. The idea that a portion of our members' offerings will additionally have to be used to pay this tax is appalling. For the past 150 years, the Lord has richly blessed our church and its members. This has allowed us to support the community through many varied local mission efforts. We support such local programs as Harside, Habitat for Humanity, the Boy Scouts, Bridgeway House, the Sheboygan Food Pantry, Rainbow Kids, the Clothe the Children voucher program, et cetera. The financial burden of a stormwater fee slash tax will reduce our ability to support these local mission projects. The tradition that church property be tax exempt should not be abandoned to reduce the city of Sheboygan's budget deficit. Please reconsider your support of the stormwater fee slash tax on church property. Thank you. This letter was approved unanimously by all present at our last Consistory meeting. Those that signed the letter are as follows, the Reverend Steve Peterson, Senior Pastor, Cliff Hage, Youth and Outreach Director, Robert Schutt, President of the Consistory, Diane Rosenthal, Treasurer, Fred Groobie, Secretary of the Consistory, Kevin Hilbling, Elder, Andrew Ha, Elder, Carol Garnett, Elder, Rich Cameron, Elder, John Moulson, Elder, and Kimberly Schmidt, Elder, Bob Heimerall Deacon, Chris Kennel Deacon, David Mayer Deacon, Carolyn Miller Deacon, and Larry Whiting Deacon. Mr. Mayor, members of council, again thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you. D. Olson. I just wanted to make mention that on August 25th, which was the evening that the common council agreed to adopt a stormwater sewer district, I had indicated that neither our chamber board nor our executive committee had had an opportunity to take a look at that. That stands true still. However, I am receiving lots of comments from the business community with regard to this. I was asked to try and set up a meeting with the city and our business community, which I have done today with Tom Houlton to meet on September 22nd, which is the same evening I believe you're having a special committee meeting of the whole. Or maybe it's a special- Yeah, council meeting. Council meeting. We will be meeting at four o'clock from four till 5.30 and then you will meet at six o'clock. That doesn't give a great deal of time for you to hear the comments from the business community, digest those and if necessary, depending on how that meeting goes, you find it necessary to call another special meeting to take into account the comments that are shared that evening, it would be greatly appreciated. We really want to give our business community an opportunity to be heard on this. It will be very costly for them and I know that there are some serious concerns with regard to how that could impact some of the businesses. So I would appreciate you being open to not coming in with a canned proposal ready to go and adopt that evening without having taken into account the input that the business community will provide you because I think there's enough concern out there that they need to be heard and you as a council need to do that. Thank you. Thank you, dear. And that we will do. That's it. Okay. To the consent agenda. Everything from 12-1 through 12-14, Alderman Groff. Thank you, Your Honor. I would move that all RCs be accepted and adopted. All ROs be accepted and filed and that we pass the resolution and substitute the resolutions. Moving in second, all ROs be accepted and filed. RCs be accepted and adopted. Resolutions and substituted resolutions be put upon their passage under discussion. This is from 12-1 through 12-14. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Boonee. Aye. Doyle. Groff. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montameer. Aye. Moody. Perez. Aye. Rindflige. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderwill. Aye. Warner. Aye. Winninger. Aye. Bowman. Aye. Verde. Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carried. 12-20 through 12-30 to be referred. 12-31 will lie over. 12-32 through 35 to be referred. 12-36 by Public Protection and Safety recommending denying beverage operators license application 5602 612 and 611 based on the complete applications on habitual law violations. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that we accept and adopt the report of the committee. Moved in second that we accept and adopt the report of the committee. Alderman Doyle. Thank you. Is Jennifer Hartman, Brandon Doyle, or Brett Ginther here to speak on their own behalf tonight? Okay. I'd like to make a motion to open the floor to receive public input on this matter. This is a matter of the Public Protection and Safety Committee, the liquor licensing committee part of it has denied these three people a license and Jennifer's here to speak on her behalf. Jennifer, no, please speak, please step up. Thank you for listening to me. I just feel I need to express how important this job is to me. Just like every one of us, I have bills to pay and whatnot. I have not had any citations or fines within the boat probably since last Thanksgiving and I feel that I've been doing good. I realized that I failed to mention a few things because I didn't know the dates of a few of my fines, but I did let them know that there were some out there that I wasn't sure of. I don't know, I have my boss here with me to support me. I don't know, I just would really appreciate if my license wasn't denied. Any questions, Alderman? Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Doyle? Thank you, Your Honor. First of all, I'd like to explain how the committee works just a little bit. Well, the committee itself is Alderman Warner, Moody, Vanderveel Wongam and myself. And the purpose of our committee is to accept or deny applications to be bartenders in the city of Sheboygan. And we feel that it's absolutely important that Sheboygan have high quality bartenders that are monitored carefully by the city. And so we look very carefully, especially at new applicants for a license to make sure that they well conduct themselves properly. In the case of Jennifer Hartman, why did we reject her application? Well, first of all, she's 20 years old and under Wisconsin law, you can't drink legally in a bar until you're 21, but you can be a bartender in Wisconsin under age 21. So Jennifer is 20. She's had five arrests for underage drinking with three of them happening in the year 2002. She also had two arrests for possession of drug paraphernalia. Our committee concluded that we don't believe she has the good judgment and matured to be serving alcohol to adults at this point. Our typical procedure is this, so that she's not barred forever from being a bartender. We tell them routinely that after six months, they can reapply and if at that point they've had no further issues with the law, we typically approve them. Alderman Doyle, one thing. Jennifer's boss is with her and she would like to speak. You mind opening the floor to her? No, that would be fine. Okay, please. I move that we open the floor for the she may speak and Jennifer be. Please step up the microphone. Hi, my name is Kimberly Reese and I'm... First of all, we have to, excuse me, a vote to open the floor. They just have a vote. Stay there. All in favor. Aye. Both motion carried. Okay, please. Thank you. My name is Kimberly Reese and I reside at 1248 Los Angeles Avenue and I'm representing Harbor Lights and also Jennifer Hartman. Thank you for allowing me to speak, although I'm screwing things up. I'm not just Jennifer's employer, but I'm also a friend of the family and I've seen Jennifer since she was 13 years old. Jennifer has had quite a lot of teenage problems. I will attest to that and so will she. However, as most of us, and I'm a mother of two teenagers of North High as well, so I'm no exception, most of us watch our teenagers grow up, create many problems, fines, hassles, hindrances, breaking laws, ordinances, as well as adults. However, I'm very nervous. However, once they get to a certain age, as I did and you're thrown out into the community, that is when you become a member of the community. When you are paying your own bills, your own rent, your own taxes on your employment, that's when you're actually a member of that community and following your neighbors and society and et cetera. And that's what Jennifer has been doing. Up until that point, she was being a teenager although she was not, but legally she was because she was not allowed to be an adult to drink. Now that she is in her own apartment and her own dwelling and she is sustaining life by herself through employment, she, it's not long term, but she is on the road to responsibility and I have to say by far, she is probably better than any employee I've had in a long time and she's 20. And I ran tri-pire for 10 years. I heard many people of all ages and forms and she has more responsibility in the workforce. In her personal life, I can't guarantee that, but in the workforce, she has a lot more responsibility. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Alderman Rainflesh. I have a question for, I'm sorry I didn't catch your name, but it would it be acceptable if I ask a question? Yes. In her employment, if the license is denied, would she still be allowed to work for you but not close under supervision or would she not have a job at all? I believe that if she's denied a license, she would not be allowed to be employed. Wrongs, wrongs, not to be a license, wrong. That's not fair. She may be employed as long as she's working. I know someone that has a license. She cannot be alone, but she may work without a license. If you're there, she can work. If another place is far-tendered, is there, she may work. Correct. She just may not work alone. Correct. Typically in a smaller town business, there's not a real necessity for two persons either. However, generally her father is there in the evening with her because she is young. And it's apparent I'm getting my daughter home safely. Is she? Just a follow-up then question on that. Alderman Doyle mentioned that the standard procedure. Can you take up, please? Better? Better. Alderman Doyle mentioned that the standard procedure is to deny, come back in six months, reapply. And at that point, it may be accepted as long as there's no further behavior problems. Is that correct? That's correct. We've had these situations before. And the applicants that we've denied, when they came back after six months, they did have a clean record. And they were approved by the committee. Would it be possible if her father would get a license if he's there anyway for the next six months? And then she may reapply if her record is still clear? If she starts at two in the afternoon, it has to work till 10 at night. She's still not closing. But then, now her father, or somebody else, would have to be in jail. So she would also have to be in court or in prison upon her father. Typically, he'll come close to the end of the evening when the father such can ensure her safety and help her clean up and ensure her safety if you turn into her home. Which is, like, I'd want her just since they live but then not to disturb each other. So I guess my final question then would be if denied and offered six months to keep her record clean, will she have employment somehow? Thank you. All in favor? Thank you, Your Honor. Perhaps I'll address this question to Alderman Doyle. What would happen if the council were to grant the license and she were to commit another violation of the law? Would that license be taken away? Not automatically? I've got a cross-eyed judicial hearing to take it away. Steve mentioned that. I think Alderman Doyle can explain how the committee works, but generally, the committee finds out that there's been a violation by a licensed bartender. They'll generally call them into the committee and have them explain circumstances and they've got a standard policy for dealing with the violations by licensed bartenders. But the applicant would have the option to surrender their license themselves. That may or may not be called for on a first violation. That's, I think Alderman Doyle could probably address. That's why the committee is quite strict on new applicants. Why, if the committee is concerned, we deny because under Wisconsin state law, once the person has the license, it's extremely difficult for our committee to take it away. You, it's a very challenging thing and can even end up in the courts and so on. And so we try to catch the problems right away. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. As chairman of public protection and safety for the last three or four years that we've been, had the license function of the Common Council under our committee. We look at every license that comes through very seriously. We have concerns. Our job is to make sure the public is protected. When they, when they go out to the establishments where licensed bartenders are working. And in a case such as this, we did consider Ms. Hartman's situation and looked at the length of time that the number of infractions were occurred in and considered that something that was pretty compact. And so what we do look for often as Alderman Doyle has mentioned is if a new, a newly licensed bartender comes back or one that was denied comes back in six months and has a good clean record, he could come back in three months and, and we would give it reconsideration at that time. They don't have to wait six months. It's not a magic number, but typically that's pretty close to something that we look for so that we can see a year span of time where, where they've actually obeyed the law. It's a real concern when you're looking at this and we take it very seriously because we know we're impacting not only people's jobs and their livelihood but also the owners of the businesses who need good employees. We don't do this wishy-washy or with any, any ill intent. Our real goal is to protect the public and make sure that, that things are running well in the, in the bars. And obviously there's many reasons for that. So I would just like to make that known. And I can guarantee if Mrs. Hartman comes back to our committee and has a good record, the results would probably be different. Alderman Doyle, did you want to vote on this one separately? I would have seen you do it. Yes, I think Pa would tell us we have to vote separately on this one and then come back and vote on the other two. Pardon? I think we ought to vote separately on this applicant and then come back and do the other two. Alderman Manning. Thank you, Your Honor. Quick question for Alderman Doyle. How long is the license period before renewal comes to bear? Two years, I believe. Two years. This would be 2005. I would support granting her the license based on nine months of good behavior and based on the word from her employer that she's a great employee. If I were the employer, I'd rather have someone like her than someone older with a clean record and background but who didn't work well. I think she's turned the corner. One second. Okay, call the roll. Okay, this would be just for Jenner. And I would be to grant it. No, and I would be to deny it, excuse me. I would be to deny it. Doyle. Aye. Grodz. Aye. Manning. No. Montemayor. No. Moody. Aye. Perez. No. Rindflash. No. Van Ankerin. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Wongerman, excuse me, Warner. Aye. Winniger. Aye. Bowman. Berge. Aye. Bonaire. Aye. Ten highs, four noes. Motion carried. Mayer, can you explain what that means? It is denied, the license is denied. For Jennifer. Okay, Alderman Doyle, do you want to, okay, put the rest of the passage, okay? Pat, would you call the roll on the rest? Same scenario, I would be to deny the other two licenses. Grab. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rindflash. Aye. Van Ankerin. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Warner. Aye. Winniger. Aye. Bowman. Aye. Berge. Aye. Bonaire. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Fourteen highs. Motion carried. Alderman Berge. Before we go too much further on this one here, according to Pat now, but she can still work there if a licensed bartender is there. Yes. So she could work for the next six months, have a clean record, come in and apply again. Yes. So in other words, she's not losing her job. Well, I don't know. That's up to the boss. That's up to the boss. But I mean, as long as licensed person there, she can still work. Correct. But I mean, I'm just saying she couldn't, she's not necessarily out of a job, which is strictly up to you. Thank both of you for coming up. Okay. Move on. 1237 to be referred. 1238 will go to finance. 1239 by public protection and safety, submitting report relevant to recommendations of the strategic fiscal plan committee for the 2004 budget. Public protection and safety. We have them all together. 1239, 1240 and 41. Did we want to act on all of them together? Do you, each committee want to do their own? Yes, we'll have each committee do their own. Okay, fine. On that, I would make a motion to accept and adopt the report of committee. Move to second. Accept and adopt the report of committee under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, these are the budget items that came to public protection safety via the strategic fiscal plan committee. And the committee did address these recommendations and sent them on to council. Under discussion, Alderman Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. I take it we're acting on 1238 to 1241. Not 38, that's going to finance. Just going back to finance. What are we acting on? 1239. Just 39. Just 39. And I have nothing to say on that. Okay. Please move. All in favor. Opposed? Motion carried. 1240 by public works submitting the report of the strategic fiscal planning committee for the 2004 budget. Public works. Alderman Obama. Well, thank you, Your Honor. We did also discuss very thoroughly in committee. I need a motion first. I'm sorry, my apologies. I move that the report of committee be accepted. Second, Your Honor. Move to second that the RCB accept and adopt it. Okay, proceed. Okay, under committee at our very last meeting we did discuss very thoroughly, even though we did not have full attendance due to one person being out for a funeral. All of the items which were brought before committee from strategic fiscal planning committee, transferring the salaries and benefits, no problem. Transferring some more salaries and benefits, no problem. Eliminating city purchase of Christmas decorations. This is more or less a favorable, but I'll explain a little bit on that. What that is is that we will not be purchasing new decorations, but we will still be putting up existing decorations until the point of no return to where they are no longer usable. Close the water feature, which was a favorable recommendation. What that would be basically is to turn off the water. It is a very expensive thing to operate and it is still a very pretty thing without the water running. And a lot of people in summertime will actually go down there, use the library's example, sit on these little stared areas and read and or spend their lunch breaks or whatever down there too. So it's one of the things too that we'd also recommend it. Number five is a very touchy item. This was closing the armory after the convention center is built. Granted, as our former alderman did explain to us earlier, that this was a very nice thing to have and still is. And his thoughts were very well received. But again, how much use will this actually be getting after the convention center is built? So it did come out of our committee as favorable. And number six, of course, was to eliminate all state and national conferences and department budgets. And of course, this has already been taken care of mostly through the mayor's budget. So again, this is a discussion that I have to offer. Thank you. Is there any alderman rank question? I'm not sure, Alderman Baldwin, but there's also number seven on the back side. My apologies. Number seven, it was eliminate all currently unfilled but funded positions, but of course do not fund all current unfilled positions, but leave positions on the table organization. And it sounds like a bunch of words, but it just means what it says. Eliminate all currently unfilled but funded positions. Alderman present. Thank you, Your Honor. Items one and two transfer of 25,000 and 20,000 to wastewater. Why are we transferring money to wastewater? Don't they have their own separate budget? They do have their own operating budget down there, but city attorney does work for wastewater. HR does work for wastewater, and safety does work for HR, does work for the wastewater. So it's the fairness on a percentage basis that the wastewater would be kicking in with a low percentage of, to those departments. Building. So we're in effect building wastewater for services performed. Yes, exactly. Thank you. And on item number five, close the armory. Do we have an idea if that's going to cost us any money? A lot of times closing it doesn't eliminate the problem if we do have one. And the second question is close it and then what? No, we talked about it in a great deal on committee, and we wouldn't close it until the conference center was open and see what the history is, what the use is. Right now it's only rented out maybe 20 times a year. If we just closed it, we'd have to maintain some level of heat in there. So we might be looking at $6,000, $7,000 for heat, and we still have to cut the grass and shovel the snow. But the only way to be at zero on a budget if we would sell it. Because according to Steve McClain, we can sell it if we need to. But we're going to wait and see how the conference center is operating and what that does to take business away from the armory. Okay. I'd hate to vote against the entire document, Your Honor. I am going to vote against closing the armory at this time with caveat that I might change my mind later on, but at this time it just doesn't know. It doesn't quite grab me to close the armory. So should we pull that item out for a separate vote? You can. You can. Then I move that we put- Number five. Pull out number five. Yes. Okay. We'll have a separate vote on that one. Okay. Oh, under discussion. Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you, Your Honor. When do we plan on closing the armory? There has not been a date picked. It'll be up to the council. We want to get a history of what's going to happen when the conference center is open and what that takes away from the armory. And maybe some of me want to buy it, too. There has not been a date picked. On our reservations, we've had for two years that the city reserves the right with 90 days notice to cancel a reservation if something would come up that it would be sold or closed. So it'll probably be a year or two before we close it? I don't have an answer to that. As soon as it would be, it would probably next year mid-to-late next year, probably the soonest. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There's no further discussion. We'll vote on closing an armory. Please. I'll take a roll. Thank you. Alderman, you're right. Thank you. Before we vote. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. We were looking at, in Public Works Committee, how things that might be possible are up for further discussion down the road, simply by voting for this or not, voting to close the armory. We want to make that clear. There is no date. There is no motion to do so. It's something that, and Public Works Committee, we cited. The budgets are tight. We have to look at everything down the road and see what opportunities come up. And I hope that all the elements see that we're simply looking at recommendations that we're not actually taking action on closing the armory. Okay. Alderman Orner. I think, I'd like to thank Alderman Reinfleisch for pointing that out. It's the same thing I was thinking in the back of my mind. None of these are things that are absolutely going to happen, probably 100% for sure. They're things that were recommended by the committee and they still have to actually get to the point to where they happen. As you go along with the armory, it may be there for six months and it may be there for six years. We don't really know that. But this is what the committee found when they discussed this issue in their committee. And I think we should always try to support these unless it's a major issue. In this case, naturally, if there's use for the armory, it's going to stay. And if not, maybe someday it will be sold. It's a prime real estate. We never know. But at this point, I think we should support the committee recommendations. Thank you. It's good to see that committee thinking and coming up with some recommendations for this budget. So thank you, Alderman Baldwin. Okay. And I will be the same like the last time. It's opposite of what you think it is. And we'll be accepting and adopting number five that the armory would be closed. Eventually. Eventually. Possibly. Okay. Manny. I think I'm voting no. You want to keep it open. This morning the document is written. No, you want to keep it open. Then you got to vote no. If you want to keep it open, you vote no. You're voting on it. You're voting on it separately. If you agree that you want the armory closed, you vote aye. Aye. If you do not agree, you vote no. Montemayor. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. No. Rindfleisch. Ben Ankerin. Aye. Vanderwill. Aye. Warner. Bowman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonnet. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Graf. Aye. Thirteen ayes, one no. Motion carried. Okay. 1241. We've got to finish the rest of the document. Oh, that's right. No. The rest of the document. Then she can do a voice vote. If there's another discussion, all in favor of the rest of the document? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. We have a second of recommendations of the strategic fiscal plan committee for the 2004 budget. Alderman Van Ackert. Your honor, move that committee report be accepted and adopted. Second. Move to the second. That committee report be accepted and adopted. Under discussion. Under discussion, we have eliminate H&R professional services and ads and recruitment, eliminate all state and national conference in department budgets, eliminate all current unfilled but funded positions. That means the same thing. to be in the DO, but they will not be funded. There's another discussion, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. 1242, by finance, recommending favorable action on substitute resolution establishing a debt issuance policy for 2004, Alderman Groff. Your Honor, I'll move that the RCB accepted and adopted, and the substitute resolution to be put upon its passage. Let's move to second act, RCB accepted and adopted, and the substitute resolution to be put upon its passage. Any discussion? Alderman Wright-Blesch. Thank you, Your Honor. It took me several times reading the original document and then the amended document to figure out what it is we're looking for. I ask that perhaps we give an explanation for the viewing audience at home of what this document says and what we're looking at doing. Alderman Groff, or are you on rich? Rich, Rich? Previously, the council had a resolution setting a policy of debt issuance of $3 million per year for the capital projects away from the TIF projects. This document would amend that to limit the 2004 borrowing to one and a half million dollars. The concerns that started this discussion was more on the 2005 budget of what the tax levy at that time of the increase is around 2% like we were looking for for this 2004. And if we have a $3 million borrowing in 2004 that the principal and interest payments that we required for the 2005 budget will probably take up all that 2% increase in the levy and there would be nothing available for operations for the system and their cost increases. So that's what was kind of the point of this discussion and the focus of it to try to get the balance. Obviously, both operations and capital improvements need to be funded. At this point, they are competing for resources and this is a balanced compromise at this point to go to the million and a half. Alderman Perez. Thank you, your honor. So a while back when some Alderman said we're not really voting to increase taxes 2%, we're capping it at 2%, this in effect raises 2%? No, it does not. It's just what I'm referring to as a 2005 budget projecting out and this would lower the principal and interest payments for that year, which would mean there would still be something available for operations if the council wishes to continue having a limit of 2% for 2005. So we're projecting out another year out. But that was the concern at that point of if we're going to have a low tax levy increase, how much is going to capital improvements for debt service and how much is going to go to operations? Still, like for 2004 budget, the majority is going for debt service. And the concern was for 2005, if we continue with $3 million, all of it could go for debt service. So that's why it's being lowered to the million and a half. Rachel, what was the savings on there? Do you remember? To go into that, probably for 2005, it isn't that substantial, it's probably about 75,000 compared to a 3 million because you're just paying the, you're lowering the interest cost in half. But there is a savings. There is a savings. Good. Alderman Montemire. Thank you, Mayor. The document from August 4th, the first few paragraphs are the same. And then August 4th, it says the city of Sheboygan intends not to issue new general obligation debt, not to for 2004 non-TIF projects. And the new document, the city of Sheboygan intends to one and a half million debt. I mean, I thought it was zero debt and then now it's one and a half? What am I not understanding? Yeah, the first report was from the finance committee at zero then was referred to strategic, strategic recommended one and a half million. And then that came back to finance committee and finance after reviewing that agreed with the one and a half million. Okay. So the zero is basically being filed or it's been, the new one is being substituted for that at one and a half million. Okay. So yeah, the first thought of a three million dollar debt issuance was thought to be, no, we won't do it, it'll be zero, but now we're going to do half that amount. Right. Thank you. Okay. Pat, would you call? Yeah, we need a call to roll. Montemayor? No. Moody? Aye. Perez? No. Rindflash? No. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderwill? Aye. Warner? Aye. Wieninger? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. 11 ayes, three nos. Motion carried. Okay, 1243 by public works recommending entering to a contract for professional services necessary to develop and implement a stormwater utility billing database and system. Alderman? Bolland. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd move to accept the report committee and pass the attached resolution. Move the second to accept and adopt the report to committee and pass the resolution under discussion. Alderman Pritz? Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to ask where that money's coming from. Of our stormwater management account and some of it's coming out of contractual services that we already have on hand. So what is it that we won't be doing in order to cover this cost? If it's already budgeted, it was budgeted for something. We're taking it out to pay for something. We have carryover stormwater management that carries over year to year to year and we're taking out of those funds and we have contractual services that we have for whatever comes up that we need consultant help on and it's not airmarked for a particular project. I am going to vote against this, Your Honor. I just have strong feelings as far as going outside of the city when I think that we should have adequate personnel to do this. Spending 46,000, nearly $47,000 at a time where we're talking a $3.5 million deficit is something that puzzles me. We should be, if we are scrambling for money, that's $47,000 right there. Tom, any comment? Well, we are using a staff person to help with this work. The engineering, we're down to employees now. We don't have enough people to keep up with what we have. We don't have the expertise in setting up a billing system. We don't have the amount of eyes to look at our aerial photography to make sure that all of our polygons in previous areas are closed so we can come up with an area. We are doing some work in-house. That the original contract they brought in that was probably closer to $60,000 and we whittled it down by doing some work in-house. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess a question for Tom. If you had to hire somebody capable of doing this work, would they cost more than $46,000, seven and a half on staff permanently? Sure you have. And how long would they take? So they probably cost an engineer, engineering degree, $60,000, $75,000, $80,000. Some of it would be all engineering or some of it engineering, but there's more than one person. There's probably six or eight people of this firm that are doing this work or doing it in a short timeframe. So in effect, although I don't think we're saving, many of them are spending it, they probably, at this point is a wise choice because we're spending 46 instead of eight people at $50,000 a piece would be $400,000 or whatever. Thanks. Alderman Rainflesh. Thank you, Your Honor. I do like to point out that this did not come out of the Public Works Committee with an anonymous vote on this one, unanimous vote, excuse me. I did vote against it. I think my thoughts on the rain tax have been heard. I just want to point out again though, I think it's going to create reasons for people to move into the town of Schwoigen rather than in the city. I think it's going to cause businesses to relocate and expand outside the city. I think jobs will be lost. I think it'll be difficult to redevelop our areas. I think all I have to do is look at Deer Trace and Kohler versus Washington Square in my district and who is getting more of the development than the other and it's clear that it's going out to Kohler. I think it's evil to be charging this fee to churches and nonprofits who are all themselves struggling. And I did vote against this because I think we're being dishonest with our constituents saying that we need to have this utility, this rain tax to continue our projects as we saw. We only put 132,000 in in 2004 for capital improvements. I think it should be within the budget. The Public Works should have to come to this council and ask for money. That's the whole reason we have the budget process. And I think spending 50,000 or so out of 132,000 available for capital improvements is wrong. So I did vote no on this one and I urge all of them to do so as well. Alderman Perez, second time. Yes, thank you. Just as a follow up here, are these people going to be able to tell us, I understand that the city will pay the stormwater tax also. Yes. Are they going to be able to tell us how much the city owns all the streets? Is the city going to be paying on the streets? You don't pay on right away, but we would be paying for city hall, municipal service, but we'll be paying for city-owned buildings, but you don't pay for public right away. Just as the homeowner does not pay for the sidewalk in front of their house. Okay. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. As you know, I'm opposed to the stormwater fee, but now that it's passed, I'm hoping that the allocation of it can be looked at again. And I realize that hiring a consultant to implement the stormwater fee is probably a necessary move, but I will oppose this funding unless the allocation itself can be changed so that flood control is a priority. Up until this year, sweeping the streets and maintaining the storm sewer system were a normal part of the budget through property taxes. Now we have to hire a consultant, create a plan for assessing properties and create a new billing system for this new tax, and all of these steps will cost the taxpayer more money, but the services provided will not improve one bit. Now it's come out repeatedly that, and I think Renee Susha pointed out that the amount of money that's actually going to flood control is more or less pocket change. And in fact, unless I misunderstand the formula, the few dollars designated for flood control will probably never be available. The reason is because the stormwater fee will have to be increased every two or three years to pay for increases in wages, benefits, and equipment costs for doing these tasks. I, instead, if we're going to have it, I favor that most of the stormwater revenue be used for flood control, and I really find it hard to believe that we can't legally do that. If the allocation has not changed, I predict that the stormwater fee will have to be increased dramatically within five years, and here's the scenario that I envision. We will have a big rainstorm with flooding on Ashland Avenue and other vulnerable streets. The residents and the aldermen in the flooded area will demand that something be done. City officials will say that there is no money in the budget for flood control, which there isn't. However, aldermen who support this stormwater tax know that if they raise the stormwater fee to six or $7 or above per month, that would generate some money for flood control projects, but the city can't afford that. So I think that the problem with this is that the allocation is wrong. The cost of living for people in Sheboygan will just go up in general. Thank you. Thank you. Aldermen, over here. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess it should be made clear that what we're looking at here in this document tonight is not how we're gonna allocate any monies generated by this fee should we actually put a dollar amount on the fee, which we have not done yet. The fee is zero. Nobody's paying it. We just put the stormwater management system in place. So we're not doing that tonight. That's not what this is about. This document is about surveying the city, basically. I think I'll support this resolution, and I think there's been a lot of discussion throughout the community regarding this issue. My mic is doing that thing that guy said I was gonna do. Making noises. But I guess regarding the stormwater management fee tax or whatever you wanna call it, we know churches and businesses and homeowners are gonna have to pay it. We've thought about that. We've thought about it long and hard. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think we need to implement this program, and I think we need to set a rate that is fair to everyone. One that provides the needed funding and ultimately takes stormwater management costs out of the general fund. I agree with Alderman Doyle, and I think there has been some movement and discussion on that issue. We have not decided how we're gonna allocate these monies yet. It is only reasonable and prudent that if we are going to raise costs to our taxpayers and other city organizations that we have accurate and current data to rely on when we make our decisions on the charges. I think this resolution by the Committee on Public Works is well thought out and will help to ensure that any charges for stormwater management are accurate and fair, and I think this will do that. We could allocate $700,000 for stormwater management and put $600,000 in the first year into a fund for doing major projects. We haven't decided that issue yet. There's still a possibility of doing that, or it could be $300,000. And we could build that fund up rapidly. All we really need to do with it is establish a revenue stream soon enough and large enough to pay the cost of bonding to take care of our problems. It's a self-perpetuating thing in that aspect, and I don't think we'll ever see it go to $7 in my lifetime or anything like that. But I would suggest that we pass this so when we make our choices and when we make our decisions, we can see what is really needed across the city so that we're charging the right price if in fact we do charge a price, which we are not yet. It has my support, I think it's wise. Thank you, Tom. After another discussion, one thing, Alderman Renflesch mentioned about business and moving out of town or out of the city into the town in South Business Drive. Go back a couple years, South Business Drive, Washington Square, that was a plated piece of property. We got nothing off that for taxes. Now you have over 10 to $12 million in development there, and it is growing. Businesses, if you don't have something to control the stormwater, you are gonna have businesses leaving out in industrial park. They're tired of being flooded out. They talk to us all the time about that. Either do something or we're gonna move, look for some place else. So you could lose business either way. Is that what you call the road? Moody, Perez, Renflesch, Ben Akron? Vanderwill? Aye. Warner? Aye. Weninger? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Boonee? No. Doyle? No. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemere? No. Nine Ayes, five Nos. Motion carried. Okay, 1244 will lie over. 1245 will go to Public Works. 1246 will lie over. 1247 through 1249 to be referred. 1139 will go to Finance. Correct, that's where you wanna refer back to. Aldermen Graf? 1140, Resolution by Aldermen Graf, Weninger, Steffen, Doyle, Transferring Appropriations in a 2003 budget. Aldermen Graf. 1140, which you just read your honor, as well as 1141, which is a resolution by Aldermen Graf when Steffen and Doyle transferring funds to Establish Estimated Revenue and Appropriations for Contributions from the Mayor's International Committee and 1142, Resolution Number 129, 0304, by Aldermen Graf, Weninger, Steffen and Doyle, transferring funds to Establish Estimated Revenue and Appropriations for Capitalized Interest on Series 2003, Beeban, Anticipation Notes. I would move that all three resolutions be put upon their passage. Move to second that to three resolutions, 1140, 41 and 42 be put upon their passage under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Perez? Rinfeich? Van Ackren? Vanderwill? Warner? Weninger? Baumann? Berg? Boney? Doyle? Graf? Manny? Montemire? Moody? 14 Ais. Motion carried. 1147, RC by Public Protection and Safety recommending filing documents submitting a communication from Immanuel Lutheran School, requesting a change in no parking zone in front of 1616 Illinois Avenue and passing the attached ordinance. Aldermen, Warner? I thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to accept and adopt a report of committee and pass the attached ordinance. Move to second, accept and adopt the report of committee and pass the ordinance under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. This is in regard to a communication from the principal of Immanuel Lutheran School requesting a change in the no parking zone in front of 1616 Illinois Avenue. Immanuel Lutheran School owns the building at 1616 Illinois Avenue, which is the early childhood daycare center operated by Immanuel. There is currently no parking in front of the school and this ordinance change will extend the zone to include the daycare center, which is next door. By state statute, it will be posted no parking 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., weekdays only, allowing parking by any one neighborhood residents and everyone else at all their times, nights, weekends, and holidays. Public Protection and Safety Committee recommends passage. Thank you. Under discussion, Aldermen for us. None, Your Honor. Thank you. Okay. If there's no other discussion, would you call the roll please? Renfleisch? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderwill? Aye. Warner? Aye. Wieninger? Aye. Baumann? Aye. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemire? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. 14 Ayes. Motion carried. 1155 by Aldermen, Van Akron, Wangenman, Wieninger, and Manny, delete the position of supervisor of operations and parks from the Public Works Department of Parks, Forestry, and Cemetery Division Teal. Aldermen, Van Akron. Your Honor, I move that the ordinance be put upon as passage. Moved to the second ordinance be put upon as passage. What we're doing here is we're deleting the supervisor of the parks and the division taken off the teal. May I ask what the savings is that? Do you have the price? This was done in the past. They just didn't tell me to take it off the teal. Oh, OK. So paperwork. OK. Catching up. OK. If there's another discussion, would you call the roll, Pat? Van Akron? Aye. Vanderwill? Aye. Warner? Aye. Wieninger? Aye. Baumann? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Doyle? Graf? Manny? Montemayor? Moody? Perez? Rindfleisch? Forty-nice? Motion carried. 1156 by Alderman Warner, Doyle, Moody, Hwangerman, and Vanderwill, amending the municipal code relating to forfeitures for parking, stopping, and standing. Alderman Warner? On that, Your Honor, I would make a motion. The general ordinance be put upon as passage. Moved to the second ordinance be put upon as passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, this will raise the fine from $9 to $10 for the first three parking tickets in a calendar year. That's the only change in the basic ordinance. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll? Vanderwill? Aye. Warner? Aye. Wieninger? Aye. Baumann? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Rindfleisch? Ben Akron? Aye. 14 ayes. Motion carries. 1250 will go to strategic. 1251 goes to city plan commission. 1252, city plan commission. 1253, special committee on risk management, recommending denying claim from Betty Osborne for alleged damages to her basement when it was flooded by sewer backup, water, and sewage, and serving notice of disallowance. Alderman Graf? In our move that the RCB accept and adopted and the claim be denied. Moved to second RCB accept and adopted, under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Warner? Wieninger? Aye. Baumann? Berg? Bonet? Doyle? Graf? Manny? Montemayor? Moody? Perez? Rindfleisch? Ben Akron? Vanderwill? 14 ayes. Motion carried. 1254 will go to city plan commission. 1255, RC by strategic fiscal plan committee, recommending filing various documents. Alderman Graf? In our move that the RCB accept and adopted and the documents be placed on file. Moved to second that the RCB accept and adopted and the documents be placed on file, under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. 1256, an RC by strategic fiscal plan, recommending filing documents relating to increase the motor vehicle registration fee to $10 in passing the attached ordinance. Alderman Graf? In our move that the RCB accept and adopted and that the general ordinance, along with the substitute general ordinance. No, just the substitute. No, the ordinance be passed. Everything else be filed. Oh, the ordinance be passed then. Moved to second that. Accept and adopt the RC and ordinance be put upon as passage, under discussion. Alderman Graf? Thank you. Is this notorious rule tax here? Is this the rule tax we're talking about? Yes. The ordinance is being approved now as the one that was actually being superseded by an amendment the last time. The one introduced on August 18th is what's up for passage. Right, so in other words, we're not gonna go from six to 10, right? Right. And keep it at six. But we're gonna stay at six all the way to 207, which in effect raises $12 anyway. Sure, if you go to 2004 in the past, if we were to kept up with the formula, we would have gone to $4, 205, $2, 206 and 207 phase out. Now we're gonna go from 206 to 207 and even six all the way across, which in effect raises is $12. So I will vote against it, okay? Alderman Reinfletcher? As it turns out, the general ordinance does have my name on it from an earlier public works meeting. I felt it was important that we had something to create discussion regarding the wheel tax out of that and this was the only thing that we could agree upon, at least to discuss at this point, but I make it clear that I'm gonna vote no against this and keep it as is. Alderman Bauman. Thank you, your honor. As everyone on this council does know, I am the most outspoken person on the wheel tax that ever has been, I think, on this council. As I had stated from day one, my goal was to eliminate the tax. Even though I was the person in committee on strategic fiscal plan that did come back with the ordinance change to bring it back to the six dollars, I did state very loudly that it would not vote for it. This evening I will still not vote for the change no matter what it is. Thursday, this past Thursday, I was contacted by a person that works at the motor vehicle department. This person asked me if I was the person that was not in favor of the wheel tax. I said, yes, I am that person. Well, I'm proud of you, that person said. Because there's a lot of people that have a driver's license that say they live at their home they're living in. But their vehicle registration says they live somewhere else. Their vehicles are registered in Manitowoc County or Fond du Lac County or Door County or wherever they have a cottage or if they have a relative somewhere else. Believe it or not, this is legal. You can do it. Some people do it for insurance purposes, some people do it for business because they own a business elsewhere. Other people do it to avoid the wheel tax. And the number one reason this person told me that people in this city do it and county is to avoid emissions testing. So needless to say, it's not only the wheel tax that is the problem, but emissions testing also. And because I've stated openly many a time that it's an unfair tax, I'm not gonna go into the whole thing again, because you've heard it over and over and over, I'm just more or less going to vote against it. Okay. Alderman Orner. I think, Your Honor, I agree with Alderman Bauman that it is an unfair tax. It was an unfair tax when it was first imposed and I know who voted for it at that time and I know that 15 members of the Common Council voted to have this tax reduced and eventually eliminated. And I supported that strongly and fought for it and I still agree with it. But in this case and in this instance, since we are repealing this tax in 2007 and with the current situation we're in budgetarily, I will support passing this tonight. And the only reason is, is because we're eliminating 2007. I agree you can't bind another council's hands, everybody knows that, but that is the focus. It will still be eliminated and that's why I'll support it. And I think it's a reasonable compromise that was reached in strategic fiscal planning. We've talked about raising it up to $10 again and leaving it there with no sunset clause at all. And as one of those that voted to eliminate the wheel tax, I can accept this change as long as it addresses the eventual elimination of the wheel tax. It charges only people in the city of Sheboygan for driving on the streets and not all the others that do. By retaining the wheel tax at $6 for three years, we'll help out our 2004 through 2006 budgets. The best thing is that in 2007, the wheel tax will be gone permanently. When the phase out of this tax was implemented, the vote was 15 to nothing in favor of phasing it out. It would have ended in 2006 under that plan. Now it will be one year later, but that's better than keeping it forever. This is an important part of the answer to our short-term budget needs. And I think the eventual elimination of the wheel tax is a good idea. And we've got a lot of challenges in front of us and this is one I think that we can work through without a major impact on anyone. Thank you. Thank you. Alder and Montmere. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Alderman Perez and Alderman Rind Fleischer. We promised, not me, the council before, promised that this would be reduced, reduced, eliminated. At one time I thought it was a good idea to go to six. I no longer think that. I think it's more important to do as we promised in the beginning of phasing it out. Now wheel tax would help a bit. Closing the library helps a bit. Not funding Boys and Girls Club helps a bit. Closing the senior center half a day helps a bit. But as Alderman Doyle has said, the real money, the actual place that it's going to make a difference is salaries and benefits. That's the only real cut that will make the difference. All these little pieces hurt little people and it doesn't get the whole job done. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The reason I'm going to support leaving, leaving it at six with a sunset clause is because there's a lot of people that live in Sheboygan that have five to seven cars and they all live in one house. So the only way they're going to pay for our roads is with this extra tax. It's not going to come out of the property taxes. So that is why I'll support leaving it at six with a sunset clause. Thank you. Alderman Grau. Thank you, Your Honor. I would have just as soon raised to 10, but I won't ask for that tonight. But just to remind all the Alderman, something that Alderman Montemara just mentioned, for each $50,000, we either increase revenues or we do some type of cuts, even though they might be small, we are eliminating, or we are protecting one additional job from being laid off. If the figures that were handed out regarding how much would we have a shortfall of like $2,700,000 or something around there, if you divide that out by $50,000, you're looking at, I believe, 56, 57 employees. And if we don't come up and make up something either an additional revenue or make some type of cuts, the next thing that we have to do is to prepare our list of layoffs. Okay, Pat, would you call the roll? Weninger. Aye. Bowman. No. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Doyle. Aye. I'm sorry. Graf. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemare. No. Moody. Aye. Perez. No. Rinflesh. No. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderwill. Aye. Warner. Aye. Nine ayes, five noes. Motion carried. 12.57 on their other matters. Steve. An ordinance relating to residential daytime parking privileges and resource to add the west side of the 2,500 and 2,600 blocks as North 7th Street. That will lie over. Hang on, September 22nd at seven o'clock, we are planning a special council meeting. D said six. I said seven. I thought maybe she did. Right. Seven. Seven o'clock there'll be a special council meeting on a stormwater fee unless something would happen in between now and then. We will surely contact every alderman. We will contact the press to radio station. Otherwise the 22nd will be the day we will be discussing the stormwater fee. Now if we can't get through it that evening, we'll have another special council meeting. But we will get through this, so be prepared. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?