 I think everybody heard that Mike. Mike just says, remind everyone about the mics. Will you please clip them on your lapel or your tie close so everyone can hear when you speak? Okay, excellent. We'll call a special meeting to order. Would you call the roll please? Bauman, Berg, Bonet, Serta, Graf, Laux, Manny, Montemayor, Perez, Peterson, Rindfleisch, Segali, Steffen, Van Akron, Van Der Wiel, Warner, 13 present. Quarms present. Alderman Laux, would you lead us in a pledge of allegiance 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. Thank you. We will have the swearing in of all the person Laux. Repeat after me. Hi. Hi, Gary Laux. Swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. Swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. And the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. And will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties. And will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties. Of the office of Alderperson. The office of Alderperson. To the best of my abilities, so help me God. To the best of my abilities, so help me God. Congratulations. And here's the appointment, Steve. Let me do the roll call first. Oh, okay. She did roll. Yeah, she did roll call. Pretty good. Oh, okay. What was that? All right. Everybody submit the following appointments for your consideration. Building Use Committee, Alderman Laux to replace Alderman Wongerman, who was no longer on the council. Commission on Aging, Alderman Laux. Finance Committee, Alderman Bonnie Serda to replace Alderman Dan Berg. Historic Preservation Commission, Alderman Laux. Law and Licensing Committee, Alderman Laux. And Alderman Serda is being removed from law and licensing. Public Protection and Safety, Alderman Segali to replace Alderman Wongerman. Risk Management, Alderman Berg. Salaries and Grievances, Alderman Berg. And Shpoing and Transit Commission, Barbara Felde to replace Alderman Laux, who was removed from the commission. Signed by the mayor. All in order. I think, Your Honor, I believe we need to move for suspension. Yes, you do. Remotion before is a second. Is there any objection to suspension? Your Honor, I move that our mayor's appointment must be approved. There's a motion before it's in a second. Under discussion. Alderman Perez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The question, I know that Alderman Wongerman resigned and we were appointed a replacement. But normally you would have that person replace Alderman Wongerman in all the committees. And there seems to have been a change from other committees. Is that a common practice? I don't recall that being done in the years that I've been here. Steve, would you like to answer that? I don't know that it's a legal issue. Alderman Perez, it's a mayoral prerogative, I guess, subject to confirmation by the council to change the members on the committees. It's my understanding from what I heard just a couple of minutes ago that the mayors talked with the various members who were being switched. And they're in agreement with that. But we're doing it midstream. That's OK? Appointments are made of standing committees at the beginning of the new council. What we're doing here is changing midstream, standing committee members. Standing committees on other committees as well. I understand that. I understand that. Yeah, I have to. OK. OK. Thank you. I think it's, again, it's incumbent on the council. Mayor points and it's up to the council to act on those to confirm or not. OK. Alderman Orner. I would just say one thing, Your Honor, it's very important to get these committees all filled because they're, I believe, risk management today. Didn't have a quorum. Public protection and safety came close to not having a quorum. We managed to have our meeting today and there's been other issues out there. Some of the two-person committees, or three-person committees, like building use, if something happens, then there's only two people on it, which is what we had pretty soon. If someone gets sick, now you can't have meetings. So it's important to get these moved forward. Alderman Press. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess I just want to clarify that. I know it's important to move forward and I'm ready to move forward. I would just question the change in the members of the standing committees at Meadstream because we could fill those positions simply by having the new Alderman replace of Wagamon and all the committees and they would have done it. And I did put him on certain committees that he could go to. And according to schedules and some of the other Alderman asked me to be replaced because they could not make these meetings to make the council run smoother. OK. Would you call the roll, please? Bona. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Serda. Aye. Graf. Aye. Laux. Aye. Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Perez. No. Rensleuch. Aye. Sagali. Aye. Anakrine. Aye. And Warren. Aye. All ayes, one no. Motion carried. OK. We do have a hearing tonight on our budget. It's proposed budget for use during the 2005. All taxpayers and residents of the governmental unit will have the opportunity to be heard on a proposed budget. We'll be speaking directly on the city budget this evening. Discussion on any other issues will not be allowed this evening. But if you'd like to speak on a city budget, please step up to the microphone and back and give us your name and address and where we want to start off. Thank you for the time to be able to speak before the city council and mayor. I was here at the last city council meeting, and I had. Could we have your address, sir? Henry Capitalo. I live at 1619 North 38th Street in the town of Sheboygan. And I'm here representing Holm, Inc., who owns the property at 9th and Superior, which is the old Anna Rice St. Nicholas Hospital building. And again, the reason that I am concerned is we are a property taxpayer. As I spoke last time, our tax bill was almost over $18,000 this year. And the concern that I have is basically that we hold a line on spending. And a lot of the times that I have spoken here, it has been for fiscal accountability. I will continue to do that. Regarding the budget, one of the things that I mentioned at the last city council meeting was an article by the Sheboygan press, which basically spells out the difference between the tax levy and the tax rate. For all members of the city council and also people out in the city Sheboygan, it is the November 7th issue. It was an editorial by the Sheboygan press. I think it was pretty explanatory on this process. And the reason it's important is because there is a considerable difference between the tax rate and the tax levy. The levy is affected by the expenditures of the city, meaning the more you spend, the higher the levy. And that corresponds with a higher tax rate. And automatically, the taxpayer that owns a property will automatically get an increase in their property tax just through the evaluation of the property increase in value. So even if you don't do anything, the property taxpayer will pay additional money on their property tax bill. And furthermore, there was an article also in the Sheboygan press regarding the budget. And that was in Saturday's paper. And that, again, went into the difference between the tax levy and the tax rate. Again, I would recommend anyone that really is interested to find out what the difference, and it is quite an impact that you read this. And they quoted several people there regarding property tax and how they felt that the city should hold a line on property tax. The other thing that I think would be good is if, at some point, you could have a copy of the proposed budget at some public place where citizens can actually go and review it. And if it could be either at City Hall here, or if it could be at the public library where interested parties would want to take a look at the actual proposed budget because it's hard to be able to get a copy of this. And I know that I've talked to several people that did call the city. And it wasn't that easy to get a copy of the budget. So I would recommend that you make an effort. If you want public input, it would be better if the citizens of Sheboygan were able to review the actual budget that they're going to be commenting on. Some of the things that I would ask that you look at are the salaries that you have, the levels of administrative salaries, and you look at also the benefit packages that you have. One of the biggest things, if you're looking in private business and industry in the area, the health care costs that are rising, dramatic impact on the expense of the city, I would think that it's just a common practice now that employees are paying a portion of their health care. And when we're talking paying a portion, it's not just 3% or 4%. We're talking between 20% and 30% that is being paid in the private sector in some areas. I know that this is not a popular thing. You have unions that you have to deal with. But you know what? When it gets to the point that you need to cut spending, and if you're looking at it, you have to look what's in the private sector and what they do. And the impact that it has on the private sector, you look at what the tax rate is going to be. I think in the paper it said it's going to be about for $100,000 home. We're looking at $60 or $65. Well, some citizen in the city can say, well, you know that's not a lot of money. I can afford to pay $60. But you know what? If you multiply that times the amount of the property of a big industry like Valrith Company, Thomas Industry, French, I mean, these companies have hundreds of thousands of dollars in their property. An increase of that amount is going to affect them. And if they're looking at making cuts and looking at where they're going to come up with the added increase on their property taxes, you know what they're going to look at. They're not going to say, well, we're going to increase the product that we sell. Well, they're not going to because it's so competitive right now that they can't. They have to compete with other businesses. So that means that they have to look at other ways to do it. Well, you see it now. Companies are saying, well, you know what? I can do better if I move my company to China, where I don't have to pay a worker this amount of money. I can pay them $1 or $0.50 or $2 to do what an American worker would do here. So what you're doing in the budget and how much of an increase for a property owner out there, you may say, well, it's only $65, but when you're talking about a big business, it's a lot of money. And that may make a difference between a person having their job and not having their job. And I think it's a responsibility of the alderman to keep that into consideration, to look at all the effects that you're spending is going to have on not only the taxpayer, but the industry that you have here, the companies that are already so tight on the competitive market with their product that they really cannot look at any additional increases. And that is one of the areas that you definitely have to look at. And I read in one of the articles that they were saying, well, we're not gonna have any layoffs at all in the city. If you're looking at, I know that the mayor is running for a reelection and it's not a popular thing to say, we're gonna cut jobs or we're gonna limit the number of things that we're gonna have to do. But I think that if you really are interested in making an impact, you have to take a look at the hard decisions. And the hard decisions are going to have to be that you may have to do that. And I don't think politics should take a place in this on whether you're going to do and make cuts in a budget for any political reasons. I think that you should look at it. What's the best thing for the taxpayer, the industry, the business climate that you have here. And the other area that I would say that, you look at setting your priorities that you have. Because there's some areas that as much as you would wanna cut, I don't think that you really should do any cutting. A prime example is the police department. The reason I say that is because we have officers that come into our building and I've said this here, we've never had a bad situation with any officer that came into our building. Every situation that we had with the police, they've been just superb and I would compliment them. And I think that if you're looking at keeping a hold on drugs and what's happening in the community, the police department is not the area that you should be looking at cutting positions. I think that you're looking at if anything, what's gonna keep the city safer is if you have more black and white units on the street. Because this is what's gonna make a difference. And the reason I say this because we deal with people that are through the justice system and we know what a problem it is. I think that's one of the areas that you should look at and not do any major reductions. I'm thinking if you're looking at the officers that are presently on the street or you're looking at putting more officers, that is not an area to be looking at cutting. I'm thinking if you're looking at management or other positions that maybe that would be more of a realistic thing to do, that is the area to cut. The other thing is if their response time is lessened because they don't have enough officers, what's gonna happen is a person's life may be in danger. I mean, it's, you know, my life is not gonna be in danger if my garbage is not picked up at the same time every day. But you know what, if it is, if I'm calling an officer and it takes him five minutes less time to get there because of the situation of the cutbacks. So I would say when you're looking at reducing set the priorities in some of the areas, life-threatening areas, you really should not look at making any drastic cuts. The police department, the fire department, when it comes to manpower, these are the areas that these people put their lives on the line and by reducing the numbers, it may threaten them adversely. And I think that is something that you should really look into. The other thing in closing, I would say, I have heard several Alderman that have raised concern regarding the budget. I'd like to compliment Alderman Manny for his article that he had in the paper. It was a good article, good suggestions there. Alderman Groff, he has on several occasions had brought to the attention to the entire council that the rate of the tax increased and his concern that they hold down on that. And I compliment them because I think that you have to do that. You have to make important decisions and sometimes it's maybe going contrary to what the other people may think, but you know what, people out there understand that and they will listen to that and they will know that you're actually trying to do something on their behalf. So with that, I would say thank you for the time that I was given. Can I have your name and address, please? Sure, it's Renee Susha, 303 St. Clair Avenue. And I did not talk to Mr. Capitello before I prepared my statement this evening, even though a lot of things overlap. I wanted to start off by thanking the Shaboygan Press for announcing this budget hearing on the front page of Saturday's paper. I think it's a great way to communicate to the public where they need to be and when. But I also wanted to bring to your attention how difficult it is for the public to get a copy of the budget so that they can speak intelligently at this hearing. When I started by calling the city clerk's office to get a copy, a hard copy of the budget and the executive summary, I was transferred to the finance department. From there, I was transferred to purchasing who then transferred me back to the finance department. Finally, I was contacted a few days later and told that at 25 cents per page, I could buy the 500 page budget and the two to 300 page executive review for about $175. I chose the more fiscally responsible choice and paid $10 for a computer disk. So I opened up the computer disk and there was no table of contents, there were no page numbers. The budget did not fit on the computer screen and I was welcome to scroll down for 500 pages worth of budget items. So as you can imagine, it's very difficult to read and compare in this fashion. Another thing I find interesting is that a couple of the aldermen that I contacted, I asked them if I could borrow their budget or the executive review. And maybe Mr. McClain needs to clarify whether this is public information or not because they were all afraid to give it to me. So if this is such a big secret, then we have a really big problem here. But I do have some suggestions on this situation. I'd suggest that you upgrade the computer program in the finance department. Get this into an Excel or some type of more user-friendly spreadsheet. And who knows, maybe by replacing the 30-year-old equipment that is in the finance department, you might be able to eliminate a position in the finance department which would actually decrease the tax levy. Secondly, starting next year, you need to put a copy of the budget and the executive review at the library as soon as they're given to the aldermen. What's the point of putting a copy in the budget in the library next week after it's approved? That's after this hearing is over. You really need to do it beforehand so people can go there and do some research. As for the future of the city, I did attend a quality of life committee meeting at the end of August. And I was shocked to hear the executive director of the Chamber of Commerce say that they don't have a strategic plan for economic development. I was even more alarmed when I heard the person in charge of city development say that the city does not have a strategic plan for economic development either. What direction is the city heading in? Both people agreed that we are running the city with reaction management. We are not being proactive with planning. We only react to a situation after it arises. Admitting that you have a problem is a first step. I certainly hope something is done about it because I'm very concerned about the lack of planning for the city's future. With 38% of our workforce in manufacturing, why do we only have $13,000 in the industrial park fund? How can the city capitalize on future property that is contiguous to the city when it becomes available if we don't have the money set aside to expand? This lack of direction for the future started making sense when I read the mayor's comments in Saturday's paper. He said, I would hope the council will come in and take the levy increase down somewhat. He went on to say, there's room to move it down further. The reason the city is reactive to situations rather than proactive, in my opinion, is due to poor leadership. When you read the budget, you'll see that the mayor has paid about $65,000 a year, and he's trying to blame the alderman for the tax increase, and this shows poor leadership. Most alderman have full-time jobs. They don't have access to all the information the mayor does, and they are paid only about $400 a month. It's my opinion that the mayor is afraid to make the necessary budget cuts because we're going into an election year. But since the door is open for suggestions on lowering the tax levy, here are some suggestions. Combining the city communication center with the county is half a step in the right direction. Why stop there? As I suggested when I spoke to you six months ago, be proactive now by creating a metro police station with the county. Don't waste $10 million of our tax money on an obsolete police station in Sheridan Park. There's a strong possibility that in a few years the state is going to mandate combining these types of services. Don't put us in a predicament where we have to react again to a state mandate. It's time to be proactive and think about the future of our city. As for the municipal court idea, all this does is forge a wedge between the city and the county, and I think you all know that. Our current court system works well. The city makes about $500,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing. In the area where we do need to do something is I think that you do need to thoroughly investigate all your options relating to the selling of the marina. Keep the land, sell the building, pay back the grants if you have to, just get this tax burden off the shoulders of the taxpayers. Being that I've had limited exposure to the approximate seven pages of documentation sitting on many of your desks, I do have a few questions that I would like the alderman to ask before you vote on the budget. First of all, if the city owns the water utility, why do the taxpayers have to pay the water utility $70,000 to process and include the stormwater charge on the water bill? Did they hire one or two full-time people to take care of this task? Secondly, did the changes made at the residential drop-off site save the taxpayers any money? Third, if TID-1 is generating a profit of about a million dollars, why is that going to bail out TID-6 instead of going into the general fund? Then when you look at the payments for TID-6, why are they paying the Friends of Sheboygan $291,000 plus a prepayment of $35,000 in interest? Next, I'd like to know what happened to the Industrial Park Fund. A few years ago, there was over a million dollars in it and now there's only $13,000. Initially, you transferred $1 million to the police-building account and now the mayor has suggested that you transfer $500,000 from the police-building account into the police salary account. I heard an alderman say last year that the city is hemorrhaging financially and all you're doing is putting a band-aid on the wound. In the long run, do you really think you are being fiscally responsible by stealing $500,000 from the new police station? Lastly, I think you're letting office supplies run amuck. Why does the mayor's office only spend $2,000 on office supplies? The city clerk's office spends $4,100, but nobody questions the marina who spends $10,300 every year on office supplies. I've never been to their office, but I'd like to know what makes it so darn special. Finally, I'll end on a positive note. At least nobody came up with any suggestions about raising the stormwater fee or implementing a garbage fee or a lamppost fee to balance the budget. This would be the worst idea to lower the tax levy because these revenue sources are not tax deductible for the homeowners, whereas at least the property taxes are. Anyone else? What should be heard? My name is Carter Paulus. P-A-W-L-U-S. And your address? 414 Eury Avenue. Thank you. I spoke to this body a little over a year ago and I expressed some rather negative comments at the end of it, like I felt there was time for a recall election. Well, a year has passed. You are about to study or to pass a budget. And I have a few comments to make on the past year. You have demonstrated a proven track record in not listening to the public. Now you don't even have enough money to staff your police department properly. You have to rob Peter to pay Paul. And you haven't budgeted one single solid cent for the 66 million dollars you already owe, but you do have enough money to advertise and hire a mayoral administrative officer whose job description sounds like a city manager. And he's gonna need an assistant and they're each gonna need a secretary. So we're talking about a substantial sum of money there when that comes to fruition. And you have $55,000 plus a year for favoritism renting, instead of using the space you already own at the centrally located empty rice building. And you have $36,000 plus for the Blue Harbor walkover bridge drawings, which will cost a few more million dollars. And you have $550,000, well maybe not, you just took a half a million away, for the new police department drawings on a park that 75% of the public doesn't want destroyed. And you have $55,000 for another fire station drawing right on the South Side City limits line. Oh, that's right. You will probably be a nexing part out if not the whole town of Wilson, but not before you have to annex the land for the new North Side Walmart perhaps. After all, so many people have moved out of this town since the last census because your fourth to seventh highest taxation rate around here, how else are you going to get them back into the fold, annex them? And you should start that city court and destroy the last vestiges of any so-called intergovernmental cooperation because you can't get along with each other anyhow. Besides, you need another bureaucracy like the rain tax bureaucracy you created last year so you can borrow even more money. After all, if the federal government can raise its debt limit to 8.2 trillion dollars and our state will have a one and a half billion dollar shortfall, you have some serious catching up to do. So as long as you are not trusted as a recent editorial mentioned and your credibility gap is now big enough for the Queen Mary too to sail through along with an apparent indifference on the part of the public as long as you keep all those new empty buses running, it is now time for you to show your usual fiscal responsibility and socket to the public again. And the last thing I heard is why am I even talking? I heard you've already made up your mind. It's just a matter of voting on it. We're gonna get with a 7.5% tax increase. What a bunch of you know what. No, thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? My name is Marcia Fredericks. It's M-A-R-C-I-A. M-A-R-C-I-A. Fredericks, F-R-E-D-R-I-C-K-S. And your address, Marcia? 3121 North Avenue. Thanks a lot. Now that you've had three professionals up here, I hope you'll bear with me being just a common person, but I'm gonna say what I have to say anyway. First of all, we can't afford any more taxes or fees as some of the new terms are called or service cuts. To save money, maybe we should start at the top of some of the administration, whether it's a city or the school. How about no pay increases, like many in the private sector, and some could possibly even use a reduction in pay. And does everyone pay for their health insurance and do they pay a fair share? And like someone previously said, not just a couple or percent. And possibly it's time for a change in the health insurance, like in the private sector. Many have changed it so that you can pick a plan and you pay accordingly. And most plans now are a lot less than what they were previously. As far as Blue Harbor, there was, we were so gung-ho on that with the PGA coming that it had to be built so quickly. And I didn't see a whole lot of articles in the paper about any pluses after the PGA tournament was over. How much business did it bring to the city of Sheboygan? How many people even actually came here or were they actually veered away? As far as the new Walmart, are you saying that that's such a big plus now? Okay, maybe they're gonna hire a few more people. Hopefully those from Taylor Heights will also be hired there and that this is in addition to that. But what types of jobs are these? Are they just gonna be minimum wage, part time, no benefits? We need more production companies here that pay decent wages and that have benefits. People cannot live like this anymore. How many two family incomes are part time incomes or full time with little or no benefits? It seems that we're losing control of all that. As far as the drop off site, I can't see where we're saving money since it's open longer. We must be paying someone more money in order to keep it open. We've got to stop spending money. It's time to start doing things for the people of Sheboygan and not just to them. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? My name is Roger Otten. I live at 1027 Bell Avenue. Mr. Mayor and members of the Common Council, Sheboygan is a great place to live. I've lived here all my life. We need to make it a place where people will want to continue to live. And where others will want to come to live. How can we do this? Well, we can start by keeping the taxes down. To be told that the rate was going from 1014 to $10.79 per thousand is just unacceptable. Last year, the rate was raised one cent through a shift from tax to a fee of the storm water. Really, it's only a shift of taxes. And it really hurts the people because it's not even tax deductible. People, that is taxpayers, went reluctantly along with that idea. They didn't have much choice. They expected their taxes to remain at zero, increase or go down. The city of Sheboygan should have started with a zero increase. The message to department head should have been, to quote the press editorial on the state agencies, should have been quit whining and make cuts. You as members of this council must, on behalf not only of the individual homeowner, but for the business and industry of this city. Are you thinking about them? There's work to be done. And I encourage you to start cutting. It should have been done by this time. I can understand the tax levy going up, but with the increase in equalized valuation, the tax rate should be going down or at least remain where it was. I'm not going to address any particular issues tonight in regard to the budget, but I wish you well in the difficult task before you. Thank you, thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Anyone else? Colin McGrath? I move that the hearing be closed. We have a motion to second before us. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay. Alderman Graw? Thank you, Your Honor. On the RCs and ROs that we have before us, 1541, which is an RC by finance, accepting and filing documents, submitting summary of the 2005 budget request for the enterprise funds, internal revenue service funds and the trust funds. 1542, which is recommending accepting and filing documents, submitting summary of the 2005 budget request for the general fund, the special revenue funds, the debt service fund and the capital projects fund. And should I continue to read them all or can I just read the numbers? Why don't you just highlight over them? Okay, 1520 and 1519, 1545 and 1544, and 1554 and 1547 and 1548 and 1549 and 1550 and 1543, which are all the preliminary reports and so forth that this council has held for this budget session tonight. I would move that all of the ROs be accepted and filed and we accept and adopt all the RCs. Do we have a motion before us to accept and adopt all the ROCs and pass it to all the resolutions? Is that it? ROs, excuse me, accept and filed ROs, accept and adopt ROCs. Under discussion, under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll? Burke. Aye. Bonnet. Aye. Serta. Aye. Graf. Aye. Laus. Aye. Manny. Segali. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Warner. Aye. And Bauman. Aye. 13 ayes. Motion carried. All in rock. Thank you. And then on resolution number 12060405, which is document 1535, which is ordering the 2005 budget appropriations for the city of Sheboygan funds. I would move that that resolution be put upon its passage. We have a motion to second before us for document 1535. Under discussion. It's Richard. It's a little bit of logistics here right now, but the document or the handout that you have in front of you for the recommendations from the mayor and the strategic committee, some of those affect this document so it affects the enterprise. Thank you. Some of those affect the enterprise and internal service funds. So you may wanna take the next document first because it does. In fact. The RC. Yes. Okay. Then I'll withdraw my motion. Okay. Who's on the record? I'm the second. Okay. Then I'll move to 1652, which is the RC number 24030405 by strategic fiscal planning, recommending approval of documents submitting the mayor's proposal for revisions to the 2005 budget. And I would move that that RC be accepted and adopted. Last time. We have a motion to second before us under discussion. Great. Oh, Alderman Prez. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 1535 and 1652, which would you please explain exactly what those are. The budget will be 1534, I take it. Ultimately. Correct. That'll be the general fund budget and the governmental funds and the tax levy would be the last document, 1534. Exactly. What are we doing with the 235 and 1652? 1652 is the document from the strategic committee mayor's recommendations, which is listed in summary on that document. And it's in detail in the handout that I put on your desk account by account. And basically what it is recommending is some changes in the distribution of the appropriations for the safety training, instead of being in the general fund to be in some of the other funds of the workers' comp, wastewater and the motor vehicle and stormwater funds. And that would then allow a decrease in the levy as well as funding some additional appropriations for the additional officer that the council approved before, police officer. There was $23,000 of additional appropriations that was needed for 2005 for that. And it also would fund the risk administrative officer for 12 months that was short a couple of months. Go ahead. I guess, please pardon my English here, but I'm a little confused. How are we tying all these that's happening to the new budget? How are we tying the hiring of a new police officer into the new budget? Wasn't that money in the 204 budget already? We did cover at the last council meeting of appropriations to cover 2004. This is an adjustment for 2005. What was submitted to the council on November 1st, there was partial funding for the new officer in 2005, but not full funding for the 12 months. So what we're trying to do here is cover that gap by these additional appropriations because the person obviously is coming on board here this month. Okay, okay. You look confused yet. You got it? Actually, I am. That's okay. Yeah, we were short $23,000 for what was needed for 2005 and this is the source we're looking to. Okay. No. Okay, hang on a minute. Alderman Montmere, you have a question? Yeah. Thank you. That police officer, I thought at the meeting, we were told the money is available. The money was put in place for 2004. And I think it was stated that there was a plan to put in place for 2005, which had been approved by a strategic committee. Okay, thank you. And that's what this document is coming from strategic committee to counsel with that plan. Thank you. All right, right now we're just voting on 1652. Correct. And what does that bring our levy down to before we make adjustments, Rich, and the rate? We bring the levy down to 7.7% increase. Now we're gonna continue. Alderman Groth? Vote on this document. It would bring it down to a 7.7% increase and a 6.4% tax rate. Correct? Great. Okay. Now you will bring those other adjustments in separately. Correct. As we go through here. There's other adjustments coming forward, so bear with us. Okay, if there's another discussion on this one, we'll do all the rules, Sue. Bonnet? Aye. Serta? Aye. Graf? Aye. Laux? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? There's more adjustments coming. Yes. Perez? Rinfleisch? Sigali? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Anberg? Aye. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried. Okay, Alderman Groth. Now, on 1535, I would move that that resolution be put upon its passage. We have a motion to second before us. The resolution be put upon its passage. Alderman Groth? Or Rich or? You would include the amendments that was just made by 1652. Okay. So now it's okay to act on this. The other amendments are gonna be part of 1534. Okay. Does everyone understand that? Okay. Would you call the roll please? Yes. Oh, go ahead, Alderman Groth. I guess I'm just gonna clear the ground here. In 1652, I think I know what we did and we pretty much accepted your recommendations. We still keep the budget. The tax relief at 7.7. I did vote in favor of it, but I'm not gonna vote in favor of 1535. That is going to reflect at least a 7.7 or more than a 3.5 and the same thing with the 1534, just so that I don't. Just a clarification, the 1535 would be on the enterprise funds, the utilities and the internal service funds. Okay. So the tax study is not on that document? Not on that, okay. Is there any other discussion? Okay, hearing none, would you call the roll please? Serta? Aye. Graf? Aye. Lauchs? Aye. Mani? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rindfleisch? Aye. Segali? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Ann Bonet? Aye. Thirteen Ayes. Motion carried. Alderman Groth. Thank you, Your Honor. 1534 is a resolution by the finance committee supporting the 2005 budget appropriations and the 2004 tax levy for Mr. and Calendary year 2005. I would move that the resolution be put up on its passage. We have motion to second before us, under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. Now to make some adjustments. You'll turn to the last page of this handout. The middle of the page is at 7.7 tax increase, tax levy increase with a 6.4% tax rate. Okay. The third item on the page is a merits proposal for 235 repayment of TIT 11 advances that will lower the debt service fund tax levy to a 6.4% tax levy increase and an approximate 5.1 tax rate increase. At this particular time, I would move that the $235,000 adjustment be made to the debt service fund 301, fund 1, cost center 105, 100, and revenue fund 41100. And the offset of that would be that the debt service fund balance applied would be $235,000 also. What this would do would result in the present tax rate to be 5.1% and the tax levy increase would be 6.42% at this particular time. Okay. We have a motion to second before us. Everybody's watching this sheet? Because there's another one on the bottom you have to go through. We're voting on the middle one I'm asking to bring in 235,000 offset the tax rate and the tax levy. Alderman Manning. Thank you, Your Honor. Please, Rich, explain what this would do, the consequence of this for those watching and listening. For the Alderman, we look at, it was a second to last page on the handout as on the revenues, there are the two lines that Alderman Graf went over. It does have a footnote. It says tax incremental district 11 construction fund repayment of debt service fund advance. So this was an advance that was made some years back by the debt service fund to district 11 construction fund which is the Washington Square project. At this time it has sufficient cash available beyond its project needs to be able to return that advance. It was borrowed funds a couple of years ago and it was proper that we close out those funds and repay that advance at this time. And the impact of that would be to then lower the tax levy by that amount. Okay. All right, okay. To another discussion, would you call the roll on that? This is on the amendment that you were just talking about. This is on the amendment to bring down 5.1. Graf? Aye. Laucs? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rindfleisch? Aye. Sagali? Aye. Vanakren? Aye. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. And Serda? Aye. 13 Ayes. Motion carried, Alderman Graf. Going in in regards to the library tax levy. Presently, we are showing that the tax levy for the library fund was an increase of $238,000. You all received tonight a memorandum from Sharon Winkle, the director, regarding the maintenance of effort. I'm not suggesting that we do the maintenance of effort, but that instead, we reduced the $238,000 by $150,000 down to $88,000. It would be giving the library still more than the maintenance of effort. It will be increasing their tax levy by $88,000, as I said before. The net result of this would be that our total tax levy would increase, would be lowered to 5.62% and the tax rate would be lowered to 4.4% rather than the 5.1% that it is now. And I would move that that amendment would be made. All seconded for purposes of discussion. Okay, we have more to be forced in a second. Under discussion. Alderman Montemire first. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask Alderman Groth. Reducing that amount to the library, would keep the library with the days closed that are presently closed? I wouldn't believe so, yes. They wouldn't be cut in hours? I can't answer that because I don't know how much reserve fund they have or anything else that they might be able to make up the difference. Marilyn, we have Sharon in back. She certainly could answer that question. Yes, please. The finance committee of the library board had reported earlier to the library board a series of actions that it could take if indeed there were going to be a shortfall. The $238,000 increase would keep the library operating as is. It would not add any hours of service to the library. And the finance committee of the library board came up with the proposal that if the $238,000 is not forthcoming, that the recommendation would be to reduce materials expenditures, purchases of new materials at the library by approximately $110,000, $111,000. That would be one third of the account for that purpose. It would also recommend spending down the fund balance to zero. It's approximately 90,000 now. And recommend not funding the automation reserve account, which is future purchases of computer and other equipment. So the ability to change out equipment, add equipment as it goes out of service because it's no longer working, updating equipment for use by the public and the staff would be diminished in the future. None of these things are prudent to do, of course. And the library board did not take any action awaiting the decision of this body. Thank you, Sharon. Does that answer your question? So if we do this, the library will still be closed two days and it'll be very precarious about everything of all places, the library. Thank you. Okay. Alderman Manning. Thank you, Aaron. I am the Aldermanic Representative to the library board and I can't support the cut, obviously as Marilyn Luntemure is recognizing the consequences of such a cut. Also, I do sit on the Long Term Planning Committee for the Library of the County representatives. And many people know, many don't know that in fact we do subsidize all those non-serviced folks in the county who use our services. It looks like the direction of that planning committee will recommend to the county board that we move the remuneration for the libraries that service and meet as the biggest service provider in the county for those who are non-serviced by other libraries. That that percentage will gradually over a number of years, the five year period at least, reach the 100% level as opposed to the level that it's at now, which is a little over 80%. So there will be more funding coming over some years, but in fact we do subsidize the county and those who are non-serviced at this point in time. It's important to say that publicly. I cannot support this cut and I trust that you will vote to maintain a viable and vital and powerful resource in the city that's used by many, many, many in the county. It's a treasure. Thank you. Alderman Warner. Well thank you, Your Honor. I have some real concerns about this. We asked a lot of departments to come forward and tell us what they needed to operate at the same levels as last year. We took that stance based on the fact that the council needed to know exactly what kind of numbers they were looking at to maintain service levels at the same position they were at. I do understand it's a difficult year. I think in the library's case, if we took this $150,000, they would end up with only an $80,000 increase over previous budgets and I don't think that's enough. I guess Alderman Groff is willing, I would consider a lesser reduction to allow them to keep a greater percentage of what we had already said their budget would be cut in half to 75,000 or something like that. I might be more supportive of that. So I would make a friendly amendment to lower that to 75,000. Lower to what? 75,000. We have a motion to second before us on your discussion. Alderman Montlain. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. Remember, the library took a 7% cut last year. 7% cut, not zero, not status quo, a 7% cut. They did their fair share. Thank you. Alderman Groff. Thank you, but last year was last year. This is an entirely new year. We have to be able to make some tough decisions and this is one of the first ones and because we all have our sacred cows that we will not touch, we're in a predicament that we are right now and next year is gonna be worse. Alderman Orner. I would just say, Your Honor, I just did some rough numbers here and Rich can correct me if I'm wrong, but we were looking at, by taking $150,000, we're looking at about a 5.62% levy increase and a 4.4% tax rate increase. By doing this, we'd pretty much be splitting that difference. We'd be just about 6% for the levy increase. One of the lower ones throughout the community and a 4.75% tax rate increase. So I think that gets us somewhere in a neighborhood. I'm a little concerned about reducing those items too far because we have another year coming up on us very quickly and it can't have impacts on expenditure, restraints, and other things coming up next year. So we have to be very careful in the decisions we make. Alderman Montemire back to you and then Alderman Manny. And I won't talk about this anymore. And you know what, Alderman Groth, you're absolutely right. We have our sacred cows and the library is one of mine. Thank you. Alderman Manny. Thank you. Just a detailed question for Alderman Warner. I wasn't sure about the way you noted that. And I think you were suggesting we add 75,000 to the 88, correct? But it didn't sound that way and I wanted to make sure it was clear. Reduce Alderman Groth's recommended reduction by half. So double negative, it's an app. So just reduce it by 75,000 instead of 150,000, correct? Thank you. All right, there's another discussion. We have a motion and a second be for us. Would you, does everyone know what we're voting on? Alderman Warner is to bring it down to 75,000 instead of 150,000, correct? But I accepted that as a friendly amendment. Just an amendment. Well, first we'll vote on an amendment and then we'll vote. It's the amendment right now. Right. Reduce it by 75,000. Correct. Emotion we're voting on now. Would you call the roll please? All right. All right. Lokes? No. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Perez? No. Rinfleisch? I'm sorry? No. Sagali? Because I'm not sure I can quite understand the one. It's the amendment to bring it to instead of 150,000 that Jim had just done, it's to 75,000 reduction. The 4.4 or any effect? Next vote. If it just passes it would be the next vote for that. It's not this vote yet. I'm going to vote no on this. No. Van Akron? No. Warner? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Aye. Serda? Aye. Eight ayes, five noes. Emotion carried. Alderman Grau? At this point in time I have no other amendments to make to document 1534. You have to pass. You have to pass. You have to pass that one. Don't you want to do that separately? I'm going to ask as amended. Right. 1534 be put upon its passage. Now you also have an amendment out on the floor, Alderman Grau, that was the first one, the 235,000. Do you want to vote on that first? The TID 11? We did that. We did that. Oh, we did? Yeah, we did that already. Never mind. We did that already. And as amended, which now I would move that 1534 be put upon its passage, which would now bring the tax levy down to 6.02 approximately. And the tax rate would be 4.75 approximately. We have a motion to second these parts. Under discussion. Alderman for us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I said earlier, we're still looking at a budget that reflects a 6.02 increase in the levy approximately. In talking to my constituents, they have made it very clear that the council needs to balance the needs and the services the city needs to provide with the people's ability to pay. And the people have voiced their opinion and their ability to pay in the form of a 3.5% and have asked that if it's any more than 3.5% more increase in the levy that I respond to their wishes. So I am going to vote against this budget. I think that we could have done better. We didn't. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Graw? Thank you. At this point in time, I'm just going to ask everybody, if anybody else has any additions that they'd like to make to the budget that's before us, that would reduce the tax levy by anything else. I have to agree with Alderman Perez. We could do better if we put our heads together and did something. So I'd like to see some other reductions made. Alderman Berge? Thank you, Your Honor. This is one that's been sticking in my craw ever since I got on this council. We are paying 60% of all the medical for your non-bargaining retirees. And that, I think, amounts to quite a few dollars. And I think that should have been looked at years ago, 2 and 1 half years ago when I got on here. And you're talking 3.5%. You voted, you were in favor of 7.1 for the school board. When we voted 9%. So I don't know where you're coming from on that. Thanks. Alderman Perez? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One thing I don't like to do is mix apples and oranges. And I won't mix the school business with the city business. But this night of butchering is obviously the inevitable result of a process that I think lacks in the city council. I doubt there's very many people here that understand all this paperwork that's been handed to us. And we're expected to make a decision. And we're expected to listen to the people. How in the world can we take the people's input into consideration when we have to sort through several pages of numbers, quite frankly, and that's because I'm not very smart, I don't understand. The process has to change. And it's butchering that we go through every year because a lot of us don't know what they're doing. I like to take a poll. If people were sincere with me, I'll bet you the majority of us don't know what we're doing tonight. We don't understand these numbers. But people are going to vote for it nonetheless. All I'm saying is 3.5% is what people have called me. We talk about listening to constituents. Other aldermans have done it. I am doing it tonight. They said, if it comes above 3.5, vote against it. And I will. All of them in, Segal? Thank you. I don't understand where we're mixing apples and oranges here. The bottom line is taxes are taxes. The people have to pay the taxes, whether it be 7.1 for the school taxes or the 5.1 here, which we might be going with for the city. All of this comes together, and it's what the taxpayers have to pay, so we don't mix apples and oranges here. We have to put it all together, and this is what's going to be put on the taxpayers of Sheboygan. We're at 5.1. The school is at 7.1. So we have to combine all of that together. And people have to think about that, and so do we. Thank you. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. I wasn't going to say anything, I guess, quite this way. But I do thank everyone for sharing what they believe, and Alderman Press for sharing his belief on the 3.5%. I guess I do have a few questions on that, because I don't understand how you can support that 7.1% increase for the school tax levy, which is a 6.4% rate increase while ignoring the needs of the city. And you, sir, have not bought one single solution to this council, just criticism regarding the budget. If you will not vote to support this budget, this is what I ask. I invite you to belly up to the counter, belly up to the bar. And if you do not want it, and if you do, I don't want a generalization, is we should have done this. We haven't done enough of that, or this. What I want is some facts. I expect that from every person that votes against this budget, some facts. I don't want to hear people say I just don't like this without bringing something forward to the table. Many of us brought documents into the council to look at. The staff board over these, the mayor board over these. Many of us spent hours in strategic fiscal plan and other meetings trying to come up with reductions. Rich Gebart has spent hour upon hour trying to trim everything he can across his budget. It's not pleasant. None of us likes raising taxes. Yet those that have been working to reduce increases and solve city problems deserve more than a generalization. We need solutions. If you support increasing taxes on the owner of $100,000 home for school taxes of $81 a year, why can't you support an increase in the city's tax rate for its needs? Costs go up everywhere. At home for the heat and gas that the city has to pay for. People don't want their city shut down. I don't believe that in any way, shape, or form. But I want to know what your solution is to the problem. Plainly, if you do not understand, again, tell us what your solution is. That's what I'm looking for. Is it cutting the number of cops on the street, cutting the number of firefighters, reducing public works or its activities? What is your solution? Eliminating more library service hours? We probably did that to a point tonight. It's another one of those things to get the tax rate down as much as we can. We also increased the library's budget this year. Other $238,000 original, we only reduced it by $75,000. So they've got over $150,000 more than they had last year, and they still are servicing their maintenance of effort. What should we do? Eliminate Sheboygan transit? There are people that depend on that. Majority of council. And I want to know what you propose, exactly that. I mean, that's enough said, almost enough anyway. But it's no ideas, no plan, no solutions, just criticism. And that's not enough for me, and I certainly don't think it's enough for Sheboygan. All in favor? All in favor? Thank you, Your Honor. I've taken notes this evening. Some of the suggestions from the individuals who spoke at public forum. And I just want the public to realize that many of the things mentioned here, there has been numerous of hours spent in addressing some of these issues. And if the public has some concerns, I would advise them to talk to their older persons. I know some of the city department heads are more than willing to answer some of these questions. And these things can be explored, like the combined dispatch center, the municipal court, these things are already being looked at. So I just want the public to be aware that the things that were mentioned here will be addressed. Thank you. Alderman Manny. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Three things I'd like to point out for our thought. The first is in relationship to costs. The city's budget, two year picture. If we go with the 5.1% increase, which I will vote for. And we include a 3.1% increase because the stormwater fee was instituted last year. That adds up to 8.2% increase over two years. The same time we lost 4.2% of our income from the state. You subtract that from 8.2 and that means that we're raising our costs in the city 4% over two years. I ask you, in your home, is your home budget that good? We don't operate in a vacuum. We need to note that's a reality. We lost $816,000 from shared revenue. It was none of our own faults. But we had to deal with it and labor stepped up big time to help. I thank them again. Secondly, when we look at the budget, we're looking at people 80 to 85%. I think it's 85%. 95%? 95%. Now, is people? So when we cut, we are cutting services. Note also, DPW has decreased the number of employees by 25% over 15 or 20 years. The police department has the same number of employees as they had a decade ago. We have much more work for them today. The library cut in one decade a number of employees by about 25%, correct? The labor issue is it. When I suggested a 0% increase for labor to step up and do that, offer that for one year, that would settle the issue theoretically if in fact we didn't live in a vacuum. If we lived in a vacuum, we don't. That would have taken care of that one 4.2% loss from the state. We don't live in a vacuum. Labor costs are sky-high because of insurance now. That has to change for us as a city. We can't pay double-digit increases year after year and five years our insurance costs have doubled, correct Ed? That can't continue. We have to step up. Labor has to step up. There's no other way around it. We either fire people, which means you take your garbage somewhere or labor steps up and pays a big deductible and a big copay. That's one way to go. It's the only way to go given the current setting. The third issue is our relationship to the state in the next two years. There's a big possibility that we're gonna lose further shared revenues. What we're dealing with now is potentially much less volatile than it will be in two years. In addition, with the state legislature now with the majority that can override Doyle's vetoes, we might have limitation on what we can spend by mandate from state. So if we don't give labor increases this year, we might not be able to the next year. These are all issues that surround this decision. Therefore, I think the 5.1% is reasonable given all of these other realities. Any less than that is irresponsible for labor and the future. Any more than that is unacceptable to the taxpayer. I'm one too. I choose to pay a 5.1% increase. I can't do anything else and vote with conscience. Thank you. Again, if anyone has a problem with that they don't understand the budget or the budget process, Rich is always happy to have you stop in his office and speak to him. He will explain anything you want. Or if you're in committees, the department heads will speak to you. Their doors are always open. And that's part of your job as Alderman to stop in if you do have questions of the budget or anything in the city. Please use those department heads. They're your resources. They're there to help you. Rich, before we vote on this, where are we at? There was a kind of a guest much out there, so. Yes, we'll be looking, I guess first at the general fund, the total general fund would be 33,080,258. And the tax levy, total tax levy would be 19,822,269. That would be an increase of 6.02%. Yes, good luck. 6.02%, estimated rate increase of 4.7. 4.7? 4.75. Okay, okay, again. Everyone knows what we're voting on? Alderman, right in front. I guess there's one final comment. I want to thank everybody for their work they put into the budget so far. And hopefully the public that is at home sees that. No decisions here are taken lightly. We take our jobs very seriously. And I want to thank certainly the mayor, Mike Hotz in his last budget process. I'm sure he's happy to hear that this is it. All the department heads, all the staff in the city and all the aldermen here for doing a very difficult job. We faced this last year from the state cutting back our revenue as Alderman Manning pointed out. And I think we did a remarkable job last year. The staff and the city workers stepped up to take care of that. When we're facing it again, and this time is worse. And what the crisis is, is that the state is withholding our shared revenue, which we had come to expect on, which we were able to do long range planning with because we knew what we're gonna get year in, year out, which we no longer know now. Does anybody know what we're gonna get for 2006? If anything, we don't. How can we plan? How do we do long range planning that way? And I think certainly the budget was, as Manning used the numbers, 2.0% over two years I think probably second to none in any communities around here for really when you take into account the stormwater fee and the taxes and the cutbacks and the fact we're losing shared revenue. I think we did a fantastic job that way as well. I think the real source of the problem, and you certainly heard the anger of constituents that were here today. Maybe we're trying to find that source of the problem. Really don't look around this room here. We're reacting, yes, to the problem that's been given to us. And it's a problem that we really don't have an option to be proactive with. We can't do long range planning when the state doesn't tell us year by year what we're going to get. And I don't think it's an issue of table or shared revenue formula. What I really think is, is the relationship we have with the state. Again, to use Alderman Manning's words. There is political game and ship at the budget, the state level, and we have to pay the price for that. When you look at our city budget, you have to look at the fact that it's revenues versus expenditures. And expenditures are the city services that we provide our citizens, the revenues, our taxes and fees we collect, and the shared revenue. And when we're looking at a decrease in revenue coming in, we have no other alternative but to look at raising taxes or cutting services. And those are the alternatives the state has given to us. And with this budget, in fact, we have to do both, which I don't think is pleasant to anybody here. We're going to have to look at some service cutbacks as we just looked at the library as well as increasing some form of taxes. I'm not here to say that I have any additional wisdom that what we've already debated within this common council of what cutbacks had to be made. I think we've reached a point in the consensus that that's really all we can do. And I think the rate that we're looking at right now is respectable when you look at the fact we did not raise it, well, we did raise it, but about a hair over a 0% last year and divide that 6% into two years and we're going to 3% raise each year over the last two years. I think that's pretty respectable. But I will not play the part of the marionette puppet that the state wants me to play right now. I will not vote yes to a substantial tax hike forced on us, not by ourselves or any action we did, but by the state right now. A yes vote plays into their hands. They're going to come back down to us and say, aha, see, communities are raising 6% taxes. This is why we need taxpayer protection because the communities can't handle the fact. Well, while we have to raise 7% because they keep taking our money back that we need to develop that. We all live in this here, live in the city of Sheboygan and pay taxes too. We don't want to raise it the 6%, but we keep looking at the fact that we're running out of alternatives really. Are there some long-term things that we can do? Absolutely, we can look at healthcare. We can look at our current levels of staffing. That's something that we need to continue to do and we should be doing and looking for leaders here to take that to advantage. But I do support protections, but only if the state goes back to our historical level of shared revenue, something that we can bank on, that we can know, that we can do long-range planning and if the state does the same thing. If they cap all the taxes, if they cap the income taxes, if they cap the gas taxes that go up automatically every year without a vote. I'd love to sit here and say I'd never voted for taxes, but they automatically go up every year and all other miscellaneous taxes and fees that the state collects as well. But we know that's not going to happen. They're going to continue to balance their budget on the backs of our communities and they're going to keep pointing the finger at us and I'm not going to play that game. So I don't do it out of respect or disrespect for the work that's done here. I don't think necessarily that we've done a better job, but I refuse to do it to take the blame for those professional politicians who earn far more than I do, who have a lot more power than I do. You need to sit there and point the fingers at the communities and we've done a fantastic job. So I will vote no, but it's out of no disrespect to the work that's done here. Okay, if there's no other discussion, would you call her roll please? Falman. Aye. Berg. Aye. Bonet. Aye. Serda. Aye. Graf. Aye. Laucs. Aye. Manny. No. Montemayor. No. Perez. No. Rinfleisch. No. Sagali. Aye. Vanakren. Aye. Warner. Aye. Nine eyes and four nose. We have a motion that's going to be for us to adjourn. Under discussion. Are you not in all of favor?