 We'll call the 21st regular meeting of the Common Council to order. Would you call the roll, please? Excuse Van Ankren, Van Der Wiel, Wangeman, Warner, Weninger, Corm's President, Alderman Graf. We dispense with the reading of the minutes of the previous Common Council meeting and the same stand approved as entered on the record. We dispense with the minutes of the previous Council meeting under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Pledge allegiance? Alderman Verk. 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. We have two hearings. As a matter of fact, the first one will be rezoning property located at 709, 715, 723, 725, and 733 Georgia Avenue and 1405 and 1407 South A Street. Any interested persons wishing to be heard on the hearings? Any interested persons wishing to be heard on the hearings? If you'd like to say anything, please step up the microphone. Name and address, please. My name is Todd Wolf. I'm here to represent Sheboygan Paper Box. I'm the plant manager. We have just a few things that we wanted to say with the rezoning. This is to help improve the potential possibility for Sheboygan Paper Box to expand. And we're looking at expanding to improve our ability to bring more jobs into the area and maintain the ability to assist our fellow manufacturers in keeping business in the city of Sheboygan. Also, by hiring more people and also looking at trying to increase the tax revenue that we all know we all love. So, thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Alderman Graf. The hearing be closed. Move to the second at the hearing be closed. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion to be heard. Next one, we have a quasi-judicial hearing. It's a proposed revocation of Davern Lices number 2205 held by Joseph R. Wagner. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to review with a common counsel the reason for the hearing tonight. The state allows Sheboygan to issue 110 Class B liquor licenses. All 110 have been issued. We have an ordinance in place which states that if a license is inactive for more than six months, the council has the right to revoke the license after a public hearing. El Camino restaurant has been given the right to apply for the license presently held by Mr. Wagner. There is at least one more restaurant wanting to apply for a license. Scores, a bar in the Baxter building closed six months ago. The owner of that property, Mr. Wagner, has the license now. Mr. Wagner first orally agreed to give up the license causing us to go through the process of calling in El Camino restaurant and Garden View restaurant. Then he changed his mind and refused to follow through on the oral promise thus costing us not only the time involved in preparing for this hearing and the expense of outside counsel, but also the service and postage fees involved plus any overtime that was involved. According to the code of ethics for attorneys, the city cannot use our attorneys for both sides. Therefore, outside legal counsel must be hired for this hearing. At this point, I'll turn it over to Chuck Adams, assistant city attorney to carry out the procedures. Thank you. And I'm going to introduce Attorney Joe Volkner. He is here to basically to represent the interests of the council. I'm here to represent basically the interests of the city in prosecuting this action. And is Mr. Wagner here? He appears not to be here. Just very briefly, Alderman Doyle has stated to you already most of the facts. The complaint alleges that the business has been inactive for more than six months. And that is in fact the case. And section 10-46 is the ordinance that says that that may be that the common counsel may revoke the license for inactivity of six months or greater. The code of ordinance is also provided that based on the non-appearance of the licensee, the common counsel does have the ability to simply to take the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and act on them. And the facts in the complaint are just simply that Joseph Wagner is the holder of the license, number 2205, and that as holder of the license, they have suspended or ceased doing business for more than six consecutive months. Thus, the request is to revoke the Class B and Class B Tavern licenses of Joseph Wagner. Thank you. Normally, if Mr. Wagner had appeared with attorney or whatever, we would adjourn to close session down in the third floor conference room. But since he hasn't shown up and the case has been clearly explained, I don't see the need to go into closed session unless some of the Alderman feel that they do have issues that want to be, that they want to have discussed in closed session. Is there anyone that would like to have closed session? If that's the case, I think I'll turn it over to City Clerk Pat Halosian and have her call the roll on the, and how should that be stated, Chuck? It would just be simply a motion to revoke the license. I move that we revoke the license of Mr. Wagner. Under discussion. Hearing none, Pat, would you call the roll? Berge? Aye. Boonee? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Groff? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemire? Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Stephan? Aye. Vanderheel? Aye. Warner? Weninger? Aye. To close the hearing. I move that we close the hearing. Move to second to close the hearing. Under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion to carry. Public forum, Pat? No one. Okay. There's no one here for the public forum, so I'm just going to take a moment before we move on to the consent agenda to read something here. It has been brought to my attention that some individuals in our community are opposed to my plans to work with the water utility to speed up the long-range plans to install additional intake pipe. An adequate water supply is the lifeblood of our community, not only for individual health, but also for business and industrial job maintenance and creation and community fire protection. The Sheboygan Water Utility already has plans to install an additional intake pipe. However, before this can be accomplished, there are other facilities which must be replaced, which will require a lengthy design and approval process. My intent is to do what we can to speed this process and remove the threat of another water emergency as quickly as possible. I think all our citizens, businesses, and industrial users would support this proactive stand. Results, not rhetoric, are the benchmark for which elected officials are judged. Public safety and the ability to conduct our daily business must be given priority and not politicized. I must also point out that the water utility projects are funded through water revenue and that all water utility capital investments are typically funded through the state's safe drinking water loans or water revenue bonds. No charges appear on the property tax bill. Again, no charges appear on the property tax bill. Any public input or concerns on future needs of the water utility should be directed to the Citizens Board of the Water Commissioners, which makes policy decisions regarding the operation of Sheboygan Water Utility. The Sheboygan Common Council does not set or approve their budget. Thank you. Okay. With that, consent to Jen Alderman Groth. Thank you, Your Honor. That would be items 21-1 through 21-18. I would move that all our C's be accepted and adopted. All our O's be accepted and filed. We pass all resolutions. Move to second that all our O's be accepted and filed. All our C's be accepted and adopted. And the resolutions will be put upon your passage. Under discussion. Alderman Groth. Your Honor, I guess I would just like clarification from Public Works. Maybe Tom Holton on document 21-17. The Motor Vehicle Division Sewer Jeter. Just exactly what that is and what its function is. Hang on a minute, Tom. We're getting some. Okay, try it now. That piece of equipment is used for cleaning our sanitary sewers mainly and also catch basin leads and some storm sewers. The one we have now is, I think it's on about a 25-year-old vehicle that's shot. We got from the wastewater plant many years ago. And we didn't go a little bit low bid to not meet spec. So we went with the second bid. I should believe it was about $10,000 higher. I'll have the document in front of me. It's mainly for insuring that we don't have backups or sanitary sewers. Alderman Prez. Thank you, Your Honor. I just wanted to make a comment with respect to item 21-3. Okay, thank you, Your Honor. 21-3. That's three. And what I'd like to say, Your Honor, is that I would like to applaud the 2,355 citizens who took time to convey to us their message of concerns for the city of Sheboygan. It is critical that we get input from citizens and such. Although they may have failed to secure the correct number of signatures, they did not fail in delivering a message to, I think, all of us that there are some serious concerns in the community. And I, for one, would like to thank them for their efforts to do so. Anyone else wishing to be heard? If not, Pat, would you call the roll? Buonay. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Graf. Aye. Lanny. Aye. Montemire. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Stephan. Aye. Vanderweal. Aye. Warner. Winner. Aye. Bowman. Aye. Bird. Aye. We have two on, so therefore we shouldn't be having that difficulty. I don't know if we can adjust it in the back or what's going on, but please bear with us. 2119 will be referred. Alderman Stephan. Aye. Okay. 2120 lies over. 2121 through 2127 to be referred. 2128 by Alderman Stephan, amending resolution which established a public form so as to restrict council members from registering and speaking as part of a public comment and deal with abuse. Alderman Stephan. I would move the resolution to be put upon its passage. Moved to second resolution to be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, I just wanted to give you a little history. Originally they brought in resolution that had three five minute periods. Then it was in 1999, I believe it was changed to make it five five minute periods. And that's really all it says. And all it says is there's really two components here. One is it hasn't been a problem this year, but it was a problem for me in past years with Alderman who decided they have something to say and don't want to stand up and say it from here. So they signed up for the public forum. And I feel that's wrong that you're taking the spot that is reserved for the public. If we want to say something, we can certainly tell the mayor and he will recognize this before the meeting, after the meeting, depending upon where it falls in. So I don't feel Alderman should have that privilege of that should be for the public forum. And that that's the first part of this change. Second part of the change is a bit a little disappointed at the public forum this year. And actually the council too, and hopefully with our ethics, we'll learn more about how to treat each other and what's right and what's wrong. But it seems like I don't have a problem with people coming to the public forum and telling us we're wrong. We're doing something wrong. Not a problem. But I don't feel there should be personal attacks. And all this does is spell that out. Because when I was on the county board, it was very clear you had to speak with respect. You had to speak to the body. We didn't have that language in our public forum resolution. I just think this puts it there. It says, the presiding officer decides that the comments are not relevant to city government, are abusive or have a personal attack. Presiding officer may order the speaker to modify his or her comments, order the speaker to refrain from speaking and forfeit the remainder of their time or take such other steps as may be necessary. You know, all it is is to get away from the attacking one person, attacking this person. You know, if you've got a problem or you want to bring up ideas, that's what the public forum is for. We're here to hear your concerns. I have no problem with that. But I just think we have to let the citizens know that they should speak to the body. They should criticize the body and there shouldn't be a personal attack session for political motivation. And that's why I brought this forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I ask Alderman Stephan a question? Sure. Thank you. I had wondered what the impetus was for you to ask for this because as long as I've been here, only Alderman Warner has spoken and he signed up with Pat and went to the other side and didn't seem to be any problem at all. Right. And I thought we as citizens should also be able to do that. It seemed to be no problem. As to the other, well, it seemed to me perhaps there were some hard feelings back and forth this year, but nothing we couldn't take. And it was perhaps on our side, perhaps on the public side. But that's what we're here for, to take that sort of criticism speech. Thank you. Can I answer that? Sure. I have no problem, like I said, with criticism. I just, you know, somebody not to pick on like Warner, but you know, singled him out with what I thought was an abusive shot that had no business being said. I can, you know, I just think we all deserve to treat each other. We're not going to agree on everything, but we deserve to treat each other. And I think that this office holds and I would, how do we expect the public to show that to us if we don't do it amongst ourselves? So, you know, I think this is the beginning to tell, I'm not afraid of hearing criticism from everybody saying to people, call me on the phone. They can tell me anything they want, but if they get abusive, they're certainly not going to be talking to me for very long. And that's the whole idea behind this. And like, and I was clear that this year wasn't the problem with the Alderman speaking there. It was in the past. Yes. Thank you for making that clear to me. Alderman Doyle. I favor the Alderman thing, but I'm totally opposed to the second part. And maybe it's my imagination, but I've been on the council for four years and I believe that the mayor and common council have accomplished much. There has been lots of criticism of some of the common council decisions, but this is America and criticism is to be expected and as healthy. In recent months, I have sensed that the common council and the mayor are becoming overly sensitive to criticism and I consider this to be unhealthy. In my four years on the council, I have not heard one public forum speaker who has been abusive or who has violated our country's principles of free speech. The resolution we are considering appears to be a signal to the public really that they're not that welcome here. Now, where did I get the idea that the council is and the mayor is becoming sensitive? Well, start off with a mayor with a room tax issue. When Dulcy Johnson and the others were complaining about the room tax, the mayor's son came in and gave three what I call pit bull type speeches basically that we're putting down those people that were complaining. Then Henry Capitillo on the stormwater fees, when he complained about those, I felt that the Alderman literally rushed when he came in with his building renovation proposal to get rid of that. Alderman Warner gave a speech during the public forum in which he was critical of a previous mayor who had written something to the letter, to the press. Now we've received this letter from a relative who I've heard is a relative of one of the common council members questioning the ethics of three unidentified Alderman who she says should be investigated for being anti-city, whatever that means. And now we have this resolution to control the public forum to prevent us from being abused verbally. Well, has this strategy of striking back at the critics calm things down in Sheboygan? Well, let me list the things that have happened in response to this. We've had an editorial in the press about it. Jerry Bader on WHBL had a forum where he talked about is the mayor and the council becoming too squeamish about criticism. The city now has a lawsuit against it. A community group has been formed against city government. The mayor has had ethics charges filed against him. Petitions were circulated to control common council actions. All of this has been, as I see it in response to these efforts to sort of ignore the community, now the common council efforts to suppress critics will backfire and create more opposition. As a leader, no matter how good you are, lots of people will dislike you. They will dislike your programs, and you might as well accept that fact and go on with life. For example, look at Howard Dean, the Democratic candidate for president. He had a big lead in the polls and was being endorsed by everyone. When the other eight candidates criticized him mercilessly, he cracked under the strain and attacked his critics. Now the Democratic voters have rejected him as a leader because he can't handle criticism. The same thing happens in city governments if actions like this resolution continue. It's time to stop focusing on the critics and get on with city business. Thank you. Alderman Press. Thank you, Your Honor. I am going to vote against his resolution for philosophical reasons that I have and also because I see the resolution as a little vague, or actually quite vague, comments not relevant to city government. Does that eliminate presentations? Does that eliminate congratulating our employees that too vague? Abusive is a relative word. Personal attack is a relative word. As Alderman Doyle has said, you can turn the TV on tonight and you're going to hear people hitting the United States president if he can take it. I don't know why we can't. If I can't take it, they come when I can't take it. I'm not going to run for Alderman anymore. You guys can have it out yourselves. Turn on the radio tomorrow. You're going to hear Madison at it. They're going to be at each other tomorrow. It's been all over the radio today. Alderman has ample discretion to declare community input or any type of debate out of order. We've never abused that. Alderman have been pretty good lately. In the time that I've been here, I don't know that there's been too many Aldermans to get up there and take up the time with the public, but if I take off my city Alderman hat and I want to talk to this council as one Perez a taxpayer, you can't deny me that right. You cannot. I don't have to come here as an Alderman. I can stand right there as one Perez the taxpayer and this resolution attempts to do that. You cannot do it. A citizen said to me this weekend that the people of Sheboygan have nothing to fear except our fearful government. More and more people including myself are becoming increasingly concerned with this city's councils. And, seemingly, quick willingness to over-regulate speech if not stifle it. Even the best intended act of controlling debate or citizen input can quickly become a brutal aversion to free speech. What is this council afraid of? In several instances, I have heard of city officials at various levels attempting to suppress political speech unpopular to them. In some instances, they did so simply because they feared the speaker or the message or public reaction. In other instances, it was simply a matter of having the power to do so. More reasonable person would argue against any rules of just behavior. It is not in our interest to do so. However, the dominance of prevailing opinion and attitude can sometimes confer a false legitimacy of the majority who wants to impose its own opinions and practices as rules of just behavior when those citizens would disagree with them. I fear this may be the case tonight. I cannot support any form of censorship on free speech. I cannot support any retaliatory act that would silence a person of ordinary firmness and principle from speaking against this administration if that person does not agree with the way this administration manages their hard-earned money. In my mind, this not only involves free speech, it targets it. We cannot protect our own right of free speech by denying it to those who don't agree with us. To do so simply because the overbearing majority of this city council has the votes to do it does not make it right. The true test of effective government that is sensitive to the needs of the people it governs lies in its ability to govern itself. By intolerably ignoring and twarming the right of our citizens to speak freely and without censorship in my mind effectively creates a tyranny of the majority. If this resolution passes tonight the message is clear if you're not a part of the majority of the city council if you're not sympathetic to the majority of the city council then you are irrelevant and you just don't matter. And if that is not the case someone please make me in this community feel otherwise. Thank you. All in order. I guess I strongly disagree with Alderman Prez's position. I don't think this document restricts public's right to speak at the council all in fact I think it makes it more appropriate and provides a greater area for them to speak. I fought to get these five positions on here in 1999. Me and Joe and and now a state senator Joe Lybin and a few other people fought to get these five things opened up it used to only be three so don't tell me that by passing this we'd be restricting free speech. First I think that when repeated attacks are made on people on this council floor sooner or later they have to answer it. And in the case of the mayor you can go back and look at the minutes of the meetings the people who were attacking him attacked him numerous times not just once not just twice the fourth fifth sixth time probably before something started to be done about it from people who felt differently than they did first I think this is a good idea as an older person I once spoke at a public forum I debated with myself as to whether or not it was the right thing to do on one hand I'm an elected public official and I do agree with Alderman President on the other I'm a tax-paying resident of the city and a voter however as an older person I can ask the mayor to allow me to speak here I don't have to take time up there perhaps that was an error on my fault I'm willing to accept it I know my partner here did not care for me doing it and he actually voted against me doing it I believe where else he let me know that after we're done but I guess as all the persons we can ask the providing officer at council meetings to allow us to speak on any issue we do it in our committee meetings perhaps that is the best course to take should one desire to address the council or the public from the chairs and all the person I also think that when a member of the public wishes to speak in the forum what they speak on should be relative to city government or the state or national interests as a recipient of what I would call a personal attack by someone utilizing the public forum just last December I believe it is important to allow some standards or rules to be employed as long as they do not infract upon the rights of legitimate citizens to be heard our common council meetings as well as our committee meetings are for discussion on the issues at hand debate on their merits and decisions that affect everyone it is only proper that the presiding officer have the ability to ensure that these decisions their discussions and debates are on the subject at hand and pertinent to it the work we have been elected to do should not be taken lightly and those that disagree on principle should be allowed to speak but they should also be held the minimum standard of being pertinent to the issue and not being allowed to bring personal attacks against individuals upon the council floor or any other committee meeting there are other avenues for them to air their disagreements such as the radio or the newspaper we should respect the process and ensure public access in a civil and orderly fashion just like we are supposed to behave here in an ethical manner sometimes it is hard to treat your fellow all the persons with all the respect that you would like to give to them because you disagree that is normal but you do not make personal attacks upon them and we should not do that and I think we should not allow the podium to be used for personal attacks either I think this resolution will address that I do not think it stifles free speech in any way shape or form and if you read it it clearly does not couple of comments I spoke with Alderman Steffen a couple of times regarding the content of this document that he indicated what his desire was and he asked if I would assist him in drafting the document I would like to speak on that portion that deals with the presiding officer being able to control the council meeting that is language that I found it comes not from any nefarious sources or intentions it comes from the model guidelines for the conduct of common council meetings that is published by the legal Wisconsin municipalities it has this language basically word for word as far as the conduct of the public forms now the council has strictly a council internal council whether to allow public forms and how to conduct them clearly the council has had a public forum for a number of years and has gotten along fine without having that provision in it but to the extent that the request was made to have something in our resolution that more clearly defines what the presiding officer's role is in this language as I say it was taken out of some model guidelines put together by the legal Wisconsin municipalities there was a comment made about comments not relevant to city government and where that's taken from is the current resolutions that the council has adopted to establish the public forum make that as the framework in which the comments are to be provided they need to be relevant to city government we had some discussion Alderman Steffen and I did with respect to whether or not the comments ought to relate to a matter on the specific agenda and if they did not whether they would be permitted or not Alderman Steffen felt that we ought to maintain what we currently have that citizens could speak on any topic as long as it fell within the purview of being relevant to city government and not necessarily being on a particular agenda but that's where that latter language came from it's no intent to attack any individuals or groups or anything like that okay would you call the roll excuse me Alderman Manning I agree with first resolution and believe that we in the council have full attitude to speak in the normal course of our meetings and thus we don't need public forum secondarily I at this point in time would like to err on the side of openness and freedom of of speech and let people say what they want to say and if in fact down the line it becomes a problem that we then deal with it at this point part of that is perhaps perception I don't think we're intending to control but perhaps it's perceived that way and I'd rather err on the side of openness there's no other discussion would you call the roll please Doyle Graf Manning Monta Mayor Moody Perez Stefan Vanderwill Warner Wenninger Baumann Berg Okay move on 2129 through 2131 we'll lie over 2132 and 33 to be referred 2134 by public protection and safety recommending the 9 taxicab driver of license 6268 based on a lack of cooperation with the committee Alderman Doyle Thank you your honor I move that we accept and adopt the report of committee Thank you Thank you Is Mr. Schmidt here to speak on behalf Yes, your honor proceed Would you like to make a motion to put upon the passage? Oh excuse me With that if there's another discussion Pat call the roll please Graf Manning Monta Mayor Moody Perez Vanderwill Warner Wenninger Baumann Berg Bonnet Doyle 2135 we'll lie over 2136 to be referred 2033 2037 is the city planning commission recommending amending the zoning of property located at 709, 715, 723, 25 733 Georgia Avenue in 1405 and 1407 Alderman Warner Thank you your honor on 2033 that one I would move to accept and file Okay They go together And on the on that I would move make a motion to accept and file the report of officer and let the general ordinance be put upon its passage Okay we have a motion before us accept and file 2033 and on 2037 accept and file the RO and the general ordinance be put upon its passage under discussion Under discussion your honor in 2033 Ms. Godsocker did get to address the planning commission at our January 13th meeting We heard her concerns She is on vacation at this time I believe in Florida for a couple months so she wanted to make sure she could come to the commission and discuss her concerns with the neighborhood there for the other item your honor the RO under discussion the properties that are being rezoned are owned by Sheboygan paper box and they're on the same block as a plant so they don't leave the block that is on the the company owns those homes and they are planning on expanding their operation and they will use those property the properties there for that purpose Sheboygan paper box will have to come back before the commission and the architectural review board prior to any building on the site to get their plans verified and the architectural review the rezoning is recommended by the planning commission thank you your honor answer my question after the northern discussion would you call the roll please Manny Moody Perez Stefan Vanderweel Weninger Baumann Boone Doyle Graf motion carried thank you for coming in gentlemen 2035 RO by city plan commission recommending the sale of a city lot at 3,606 Mill Road to Ralph and Connie 501 so on 2035 we would make a motion to accept and file the report of officer do it all together in one motion and on the resolution I would move the resolution to be put upon its passage moving to the second arrow be accepted and filed and the resolution be put upon this passage under discussion under discussion your honor the arrow just will ensure that the proper documents are drawn up to sell the property to Ralph and Connie and on the resolution your honor this is a sale of city owned property parcel number 629395 to Ralph and Connie that property is the property that's just off the 21st street by the new bridge that goes over Pigeon River it would actually be to the west of there this sale is a result of a long-term effort by the city on the direction of the mayor to return unused and unneeded city owned property to the tax rolls thus easing the cost to the taxpayers for maintenance and expanding our tax base for approval thank you there's another discussion excuse me go ahead thank you just a comment for the council there have been a couple of these that passed in 2003 and so the council is aware when we do the title check we find that there's a reason why some of these properties and I'm not saying anything about this property when you check these out these little remnants and things there are reasons why they're remnants and they've been hanging out for 30 and 40 and 50 years so there's often times a lot of thorny sort of title issues where there were railroad tracks running through the city at one time or something like that and the railroad tracks were removed and these had been made dead ends and there are a couple that the council authorized sales of that we did the title checks and there was it's unclear as to whether we even have valid title that we can transfer so that's why there's reference in here to including the title report search we're doing those before we transfer title if there are issues we raise them with the prospective purchaser and get some resolution as to whether they still want to proceed but this one I know is a separate situation over by Sadov and Rudoy there may be fine but just to let the council know that this doesn't necessarily mean that these all these transactions are going real smooth because as I say that's why a lot of them have been hanging around on the city rolls for quite some time gives us the opportunity to address them though to 300 parcels that were out there so it's a good thing it was just felt it's not worth doing title checks on all these parcels up front if nobody's even interested in them anyway we do the title checks if somebody comes forward and says they'd like to buy it and then we investigate and see if there are issues all in one order one other point that I did feel to mention I know we do the people when they buy these pay for the property but they also are responsible for all closing costs and they pay for the title search so it's not the taxpayers are paying for the title search on the property it's one of the costs that the prospective buyer takes care of what's that what do you call the roll please Montenegro Moody Perez Stefan Vanderwill Doyle Groth Mani Motion carried 2036 RO 4660304 by industrial development commission regarding the repurchase of lot 8F in Sheboygan business park from Pilar Tooling and the next document she said okay and also 2052 resolution by Alderman Vanderwillie Mani Stefan and Boney authorizing the repurchase of lot 8F in the Sheboygan business center Alderman Vanderwill Thank you owner do we want to accept and adopt this accept and file RO on 2036 and pass the resolution on 2052 I'll make a motion to accept and file the RO and pass the resolution 2052 moved in second that we accept and file the RO on 2036 and pass the resolution on 2052 is there any discussion hearing none would you call the roll please Moody Perez Stefan Vanderwill Boney Doyle Groth Mani Motion carried 2055 resolution by Alderman Groth, Warner, Stefan Vanderwill and Boney transform appropriations in a 2004 budget Alderman Groth That resolution which is for establishing estimated revenue appropriations for the Office of Justice grant and 2056 which is a resolution to authorize the transfer of appropriations in the 2004 budget which increases appropriations in the amount of $121,147 for police over time and 2057 which is a resolution authorizing the transfer of funds to provide monies for the establishment of the appropriation and the general fund for professional services for boiler replacement study at the municipal service building and 2058 which is a resolution to authorize the transfer of funds to provide monies to establish estimated revenue and appropriations for donations received for the canine expenses and 2059 which is a resolution to authorize the transfer of funds to provide monies to establish appropriations for the city clerk municipal code supplements. I would move that all resolutions be put upon their passage. Move to a second at all the resolutions be put upon their passage. Is there any discussion out of any? Alderman Fallin Thank you and I would like to call for separate vote on 2059. I'll offer discussion at that time. Is there any other one? Not let's take everything but 2059. Pat, would you call her all? Perez Stefan Vanderwill Warner Bowman Bourne Doyle Manny Moody 2059. Alderman Bowman. Thank you Your Honor. Could I address the city clerk please? Pat Concerning the municipal code supplements the $3,000 expenditure several weeks ago we did receive a notice that stated that we will no longer be offered these whatsoever and we should go online more or less to access the municipal code. So where are these codes that you are receiving going? Are you receiving any codes? This is the cost that will let me back up. The hard copy we paid for plus we paid $300 a year to go on the website, the internet. When we decide not to go with the hard copies anymore it doesn't mean we can go with $300 for the website. It means our per page cost goes down $2.25. We still have $15 a page for our supplements on the website. No hard copies. We do not have to pay of course for comparable pages index pages. We save about 20 some pages per supplement at $21 a piece. But we do have to pay extra money because they still do the work. We found that out after this act. I thought it would cost us $300. It still will cost us $33, $35 a year rather than the $5,000 I usually ask for. Thank you very much. Perez, Stefan, Vanderwil, Warner, Weninger, Baumann, Berg, Bonet, Doyle, Graf, Manny, Moody, 13 ayes. Motion carried. $21.38, we'll go to finance. $21.39, we'll go to redevelopment authority. Steve, other matters? Oh, excuse me. Go ahead. I thought I was told finance on $39. I have redevelopment authority. Okay. Very good. $21.40 is communication from engineers considering cutting the hours and buses and use the money for the library. Oh, finance, excuse me, yes. Okay. $21.41 is summons complaint in the matter of Gary Van S and Linda Van S versus BR associates at all for alleged injuries received by Gary Van S when he slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk. Special Committee address management. $21.42 is a claim from to the back window of this truck when it was broken by a firefighter to gain access to the vehicle when the occupant was unresponsive. Special Committee address management. $21.43 is communication received by the mayor from Tom Sather, director of development from the Great Lakes companies requesting to have their condominium construction loan limit increased to $16 million and to have the development agreement amended to accommodate this accelerated build out. Finance. $21.44 is a resolution of the city's right to certain license bond proceeds that will go to finance. Alderman Graf. You and I would move to convene in closed session under the provisions of section 1985, 1A of the Wisconsin Statutes for the purpose of conferring with legal counsel for the city who is rendering oral advice concerning strategy to be adopted with respect to the English manner at all versus city of Sheboygan at all lawsuit. Move the second to go into closed session. Any objection? I'm going to discuss it. None. Would you call the roll, please? Stefan. Van Der Wiel. Warner. Weniger. Bowman. Berg. Boney. Doyle. Graf. Manny. Montemire. Moody. Perez. Thirteen Eyes. Motion carried. Take a five minute break I ask for suspension and suspension is granted. Correct. Therefore I would request that the resolution 2137 which is authorizing the city attorney to consult with Quarles and Brady LLP relative to defense of claims related to the development agreement with Great Lakes that that resolution be put upon its passage. Move the second to resolution be put upon its passage under discussion. All in favor? Your Honor. It was an interesting discussion that we had a closed session. I'd just like to say that I am going to vote against this resolution simply because I feel uncomfortable in dealing with Quarles and Brady at this point. We spent quite a bit of money with this firm. In no way do I want to cripple Steve's attorney McLean's ability to defend the city and in no way do I not want the city to be defended. I have a problem with the amount it is an amount that I don't agree with for additional consulting because I believe that we have already paid a substantial amount to this law firm for part of that consulting and as I've noted in the summary of the attorney Billings from Quarles and Brady under dollars was already paid for that specific consultation dealing with the room tax issues so I'm uncomfortable in supporting the resolution like this so I will respectfully vote against it. All in favor? Thank you, Your Honor. Steve, would I be in violation of the closed session law if I ask you that question about the $9,000 again? I'm sure the citizens are wondering what is being done to make sure we don't exceed $9,000. Would you be able to answer that for me again please? I would counsel were to pass this document I would call and I would write also Quarles and indicate that the counsel has authorized me to talk to them, consult with them not asking them to do drafting of documents or anything like that or acting to act in a legal capacity in the lawsuit but to consult with them and that the limit on that authority is $9,000 that they're not to exceed that and that the counsel won't pay for any more than that. Thank you. Do you have another discussion? Would you call the roll please? Winninger? Bowman? Boonee? Doyle? Mannie? Monde-Mair? Moody? Perez? Stefan? Vanderweal? Warner? 11 ayes, 1 no. Question carried. Under discussion hearing none all in favor?