 All the special meeting of the Common Council of Order. Please call the roll. Boran. Boke. Excuse. Decker. Unexcused. Gisha. Hannah. Heidemann. Kittleson. Clayunas. Meyer. Montemayor. Rinflaich. Ryan. Excuse. Suric. Vanderweal. Verhassel. And Wongamon. 13 ayes. Quorum is present. At this time, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Madam Sue Richards will lead us. 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 very much. Matters laid over, President Hanna. Matters laid over 1555 through 1650. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I make a motion to accept and file the ROs 15-55, 16-26, and 16-27, and accept and adopt the RCs from 1432 through 1650. Second. Motion and second. Under discussion. All in rehearsal. Thank you, Your Honor. I just had a few questions regarding document 1541. OK. Again, just to clarify, I tried to take an opportunity right before the meeting to talk to you. 1521. 1541. Oh, 1641, I'm sorry. 1541. 15. It's on page two. OK, 1541, OK. And I think I've got my answer, but I just wanted to clarify here, though, on page, this would be the very first page of the spreadsheet. Looking at some of the larger increases here, we've got police and fire. Seeing nearly a 6% and over a 7% increase. Just to clarify again, is that purely salary? Are there any other figures involved with that? Or is it purely a manpower number? Yes, the majority of it is salary and benefits. And then another large piece of it is the unfunded pension liability that was added in 2009 to help fund that unfunded pension liability that was mandated by the state to cover. OK. And then also, it would be the second page of the spreadsheet. We talked just a little bit there. The ambulance fund, you clarified exactly what it is. And it's essentially a departmental figure of operating using just marginal cost, which I follow. But could you explain the increase? Year over year, 22%? Part of the increases in the second year is the largest one, I believe, is the fuel charges. They, as everybody has experienced in 2008, the fuel charges increased significantly from what they planned. And then so they appropriately planned for that. And the other increases were just for additional medical supplies that they needed. They are seeing a higher level of runs. So there are additional costs that were not budgeted last year based on the lower number of runs that they were experiencing. So it's part due to activity and part due to inflationary costs. OK. So you'd say the medical supplies that are going to correlate with the increased call numbers? Yes, that and then also the fuel costs in addition to the increasing energy costs, which are decreasing now. But the fuel costs will also increase as you see more runs. Right. So we're budgeting. I don't know what the breakdown is between the medical supplies and the fuel. But we've obviously budgeted for a pretty huge fuel increase in 2009. We budgeted for a large fuel increase. And then there's also salary and benefits that were due to the contractual obligations of the city that also play a factor in that as well. So it's a little bit of everything adds up to be a larger amount. But our base lag, I guess, would just still add all down into one fact is the cost of running the ambulance services up just about 22%? Yes, it's up. And then also the projected revenues are also up. I don't know the percentage off hand, but the revenues are also increased. Are they anywhere near that figure, Dina? I believe the budgeted amount they anticipate contributing about an additional 100,000 than what they projected this year for next year. Percentage dies. What does that break into? 10% or something? 100,000? You have 50% revenue increase. 50% revenue increases plan to 0.9? Net income increase. OK, from 0.8 to 0.9. OK, thanks. Brandon Hennepfer, thank you. I just want to don't mean to beat this thing to death, but I just wanted to make sure I understand. So our projected net this year is roughly 200,000 on that ambulance fund. And you're saying net even after these increases next year could be close to 300,000? Yes, the amount that we anticipated for a fund equity increase this year, which was 180,000, next year what we anticipate is contributing to the general fund from the ambulance fund is 341,000. So it's actually $160,000 higher than what we anticipated even with these additional costs. That is correct. Thank you. Mr. President Vaughn. Thank you, Your Honor. But then, Terry, getting back to the ambulance, then some of that $300,000 in the general fund will be carryover receivables from 2008? I'm not trying to split hairs, but some of it, I mean, we're going to be collecting money from 2008 well into 2009, but I know we're going to track that to see how it actually turns out. But that'll be part of the $300,000 that will be going to the general fund. Part of it will be 2008 revenues, yeah. That is correct. OK, thank you. OK, motion before we call the roll. Warren. Aye. Gisha. Hannah. Heidemann. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Clioness. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Montemay-Ore. Aye. Rindfleisch. Aye. Zurich. Aye. Vanderweal. Aye. Verhasselt. Aye. And Wangeman. Aye. I'm sorry. Did I not call you? Hannah. Aye. Thank you. 13 ayes. Motion carries. 1653 RC number 344809 by finance to whom was referred resolution number 1470809 by Alderman Gisha, Clioness, Warren, Bauch, and Montemay-Ore. Ordering the 2009 budget appropriations for the city of Sheboygan funds recommends that the attached substitute resolution be passed. Alderman Gisha. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted and the resolution be put upon its passage. Thank you. Substitute resolution. Pardon me. The substitute resolution. Thank you. And there was a second. And no discussion. There is none. Please call roll. Decker. I'm sorry. Boy, this is not a good night. Gisha. Aye. Hannah. Aye. Heiderman. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Clioness. Aye. Meyer. Aye. Montemay-Ore. Aye. Excuse me. Rindfleisch. Aye. Zurich. Aye. Vanderweal. Aye. Verhasselt. Aye. Wangeman. Aye. And Board. Aye. Thirteen ayes. Motion carries. 1654 RC number 34050809 by finance to whom was referred. Resolution number 14080809 by all persons. Gisha, Clioness, Borne, Bauch, and Montemay-Ore. Ordering the 2009 budget appropriations and the 2009 tax levy for use during the calendar year 2009. Recommends that the attached substitute resolution be passed. All in Gisha. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted and the substitute resolution put upon its passage. Second. Second. Motion in second. Under discussion. Your Honor, if I may continue, I'd like to make an amendment. OK. Please do. Thank you. This is a transfer, an internal transfer, out of cost center 105100. Title of that cost center code description is real estate taxes. I move that, and I believe Madam City Clerk is a copy of this, so I'll try to be, there's a lot of numbers. I move that the, that amount of real estate taxes be reduced by an even amount of $128,000. And that the expenditures parallel that be reduced in account number 199900. This is the general government expense and benefit account. And reduced, do I have to go through every one of these, Sue? Thank you. Account number 510152, titled vacation, reduced $13,147. Account number, these are all subs of 199900. Account number 510301, so security reduced by $11,687. Account number 510302, titled Wisconsin Retirement Fund, reduced $7,304. Account number 510303, titled health insurance, reduced by $19,900. Account number 510401, titled vacation, reduced $24,834. And finally, account number 510402, titled sick leave, reduced $51,128. Those reductions, total $128,000. And if I might go on to explain, as best I can. If you'd like. Before I have Terry Hanson do it, if you wish, this is to comply with the council's resolution of the 5-cent drop in the levy. So, pardon me, the tax rate. So what we're doing is we're reducing the revenue in that first account, and then we're reducing expenses. And the second account, this came from Terry, to comply with the council resolution. And if the fund needs to be discussed, I think Terry's better to discuss that than I. The council did pass a resolution dropping the tax rate 5-cents as the numbers came in. The final numbers, as you know, I keep calling this document, a fluid document, but as the numbers came in and we recalculated it, there was an adjustment needed to be made to make sure that we honor the resolution that dropped the tax rate by 5-cents. So that money is being transferred from one account to the next, pretty much it. President Anna. Mr. Mayor, do we need a separate vote on that amendment? Yes, we're going to get a, there's been a motion in a second. Who seconded it? Second. Yeah, I'll make that you in a second. So the motion is on there, is there no discussion on the amendment only? Is there any further discussion on the amendment? All in favor? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I would like Mr. Hansen to express, explain exactly what the consequences of that is. I mean, I understand that myself, people at home may not have fully appreciation that are we just magically working numbers and moving numbers around to get to what we promised or is there an impact with these reductions? Some more. The impact, the account that we're reducing, expenditures that we're reducing are expenditures that are set aside for when employees retire. Over the last three years, we've seen minimal usage of that account. There's a fair amount that is set aside in that cost center and what we're going to do is we're going to reduce it and if we do need that money when people do retire, you do see a natural savings when people retire because there's usually a lower salary that's coming on board and then also they're not eligible for health insurance right away. So we would see some natural savings and we could use those savings to replenish this account if that account needs those funds for that, for that retirement, payout, vacation and sick leave that's due based on contractual obligations. Thank you, I'm sorry, just so everybody knows the account has $475,411 and has been basically inactive for the last three years and this would be for 09 retirements and doesn't have any to do with our early retirements this year and frankly, what we're reducing it at is the same amount we would have funded it at and if we would have funded it, it wouldn't have been used again for four years. So thank you. Okay, only amendment, please call the roll. Hannah. Hi. Heidemann. Hi. Kittleson. Meyer. Hi. Montemayor. Hi. Rinflesch. Hi. Suric. Hi. Vanderweel. Hi. For Hasselt. Hi. Wongamon. Hi. Boran. Hi. And Gisha. Hi. 13 ayes. The amendment carries. President Hanna. Well thank you. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to amend the proposed budget by reducing the general fund police facility professional services by 129.922 to accommodate the allocation of two full-time janitors for cleaning and maintenance of the police facility instead of contracting the same service. Do you want me to run down the details before there's a second? Just just the amounts and the category of professional services. Professional services. That would be negative 129.922. Regular salaries, 80,000. So security, 6,120. WRF, 8,320. Health insurance, 32,954. Life, 72. Dental, 2264. Workers comp, 192. Is there a second? Second. Under discussion. There is. Oh, thank you. Oh, thank you, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. Just so the public understands and maybe those who have been following this closely, the finance committee recommended and passed moving that same dollar amount from salaries to professional services. The purpose of the discussion in finance was that we have not gone through an RFP process to see if we could have a service perform it less than the 129.992. Personal feeling. Other committee members can express. I feel that from a finance committee standpoint, that's our obligation is to make sure we're spending the money correctly. So there was an RFP that's been sitting around for a while. I believe for whatever reason it wasn't moving through. And that's what the finance committee recommended, not to reduce anybody's budget, but to set the money aside into professional services so that we can go through an RFP process first. If it doesn't turn out to be more cost effective to go to a contract service, then by all means, hire or retain employees. But I believe what this does is, and please somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, is moves to employees from DPW who has experienced a significant budget trap this year to the police department to become janitors. And I don't have any problem with that as long as we've gone through the normal, necessary steps of seeing if it's the best thing to do for the taxpayers. And the only way you can do that is to do an RFP, and that's what the finance committee recommended was to do an RFP to see if it's cost effective to do this. What's better when you put them side by side? What's better for the taxpayers and for our budget and for those who are trying to make ends meet these days? So that was the recommendation of the finance committee. I'll be voting against this amendment because I still think it's prudent to go through the RFP process. All in the cleaners. Thank you, Your Honor. I was going to ask for the clarification which I received. I voted the opposite of Alderman Giesha. I can't remember how the motion was on the floor. I mean, or at the table on finance. I believe that it's in the best interest of the police department to have city employees doing the security cleaning in secure areas. I think at this point we are doing the police department a better service by having city employees working there and being under the watchful eye of the city government rather than contracting out for those areas. So I will be voting yes for this. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm not going to support the amendment and I'm not basically for the same reasons that Alderman Giesha mentioned, but if the numbers come out that it's a cost advantage to have a private janitorial service do the janitorial work over at the police department, then I would support it. And if it isn't, then our fine workers from Public Works can do it. But we do have the obligation of the taxpayers to take a look at it. I personally do not have any problem with the private cleaning service going into the police department. Most major corporations, government offices including the Pentagon, which is probably the most highly secure government agency in the United States has a private cleaning service. So if the numbers say stay with Public Works, I'm all in favor of it, but I do want to take a look and make sure to see what the RFP says before I make a final decision. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ware. As a matter of belief, I would think that the private entities can come through the lower budget, an RFP to do the cleaning. However, so normally I would support that in general. This time around I'm not going to support it, I'm going to support the amendment only because today we woke up and then we had several just snow on the ground that way. And if we have another winter, if we do need to go back and find new people to the higher public and public works department, we have two people that have had the experience, have already been trained. Yes, they'll be the police department cleaning and then doing janitorial work, but that's someone that we can utilize then as a city down the road if we have another winter like we did instead of having to go out and hire new people. So I do see the cost savings that you would have by having a private entity clean the police station. It will be erased if we have another snowfall like we did last year. I drove around this morning with 6630 and there's somebody moving snow outside right now. It doesn't take a whole lot of snow for those expenses to go. So I'd be supportive of keeping at least the city payroll workers on this time around and probably only this time around for that simple fact that at least we have some fully trained staff that we can rely on down the road for help. And if we ever go to rehire, we have somebody that's already done the work that we don't have to train again if we do expand public works department down the road. So I will be supporting this, thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. I just would have to agree with Alderman Rinefleisch and Alderman Clayunas. We need to keep our city workers here and I would agree yes with the amendment that we go along with keeping those to retain them at the police department. Thank you. Thank you. Final comment. Thank you, Your Honor. There are other options. You could move the cleaning people or city employees from city hall and make them cleaners at the police station. Excuse me for if you're concerned about security issues. Second, this is $130,000. That means we're paying for basic janitorial work on a brand new building. Do the math. Divide by $130 divided by 2. It's been a long day. $65,000. $65,000. Is that can you tell me if you're going to hire a janitor for $65,000 for any business in this town and or any corporation in this town you name it and you're going to succeed? Of course you're not. You would never do that. So why are we doing it here? You would never do it if it was your house. You'd never do it if it was your business. You couldn't. You would fail. And that's why our budget will fail in the future. And that's why the state budget is failing now. It's you just can't do that and survive. It's what the market bears. And if it bears out on the RFP then fine but I can't imagine. And I know these are hardworking good people who have families and have issues just like all the rest of us and I'm not immune to any of those issues and won't be and but $65,000 to sweep the new police station times two I'm sorry I just you wouldn't do it in your own household but doing it with the tax payer's money is somehow different. I'm sorry I can't support that. Thank you. Only amendment. Please call it. Heidemann. Kittleson. I'm sorry. Cleunas. I'm sorry. Meyer. I'm sorry. Montemayor. I'm sorry. Rinflesch. I'm sorry. Zurich. I'm sorry. Vanderweel. I'm sorry. Verhassell. I'm sorry. Wongerman. I'm sorry. Boran. No. Gisha. No. Hanna. I'm sorry. Ten eyes, three nose. Motion carries. Okay. I make a motion to amend the proposed budget by reducing professional services in HR and increasing professional services in the police and fire commission by $18,500 to accommodate the anticipated costs of recruiting and hiring the chief of police and appropriate police department person offered $20,09. Switching from one to another, no increase in budget. Second. Discussion. I'll get you. Thank you. The finance committee voted unanimously to make this change. They didn't vote to remove $18,500 in the budget. They voted to remove it from the police and fire commission and put it into the HR which has always paid these bills. The purpose of the 18-5 would be to for the purpose of hiring, obviously there's going to be a lot of hiring going on with the police department. The finance committee did not have any costs of vetting them and running background searches and stuff, that's expensive stuff. The finance committee certainly didn't have any problem with the expenditure. I don't believe there's ever been an expenditure for them before besides their normal salaries and I believe they get a financial stipend annually for being on that commission. What we proposed was not giving an unelected commission and I don't care if it's this one or anyone in the world, their own checkbook. We have a system here. If they want to go out and do their statutory work, that's great. We have to support that. But in the past, it's my understanding, it's always been moved out of the finance, the expense has always been moved out of the finance, I mean part of the HR budget and not given a blank check to people who weren't elected. So we have no check and balance if we do this. We have no way of approving these expenditures. We have no way of doing anything which is our job, I thought. And I think that's one of the differences the police and fire commission was the recommendation of the finance committee for that reason. We'll clarify though that it's not a blank check. Nothing is a blank check to anybody when we do city business. The police and fire commission, there is a cost center for that cost category that's been there for many, many years, long before we've been here and probably longer after we're gone. In the past, they were appropriated but the costs were made, that funding sort of went away so basically the need but now the need is there and that cost category is still in the budget and as Alderman Montemayor said it was already put in that cost center finance took it off put it on HR all that the motion is asking is to put it back where the original budget had it pretty much. Thank you, Your Honor. From a standpoint of cutting red tape you know if we run it through HR as it was requested we're looking at anywhere from two to four weeks minimum to get information processed or request processed. I think we should give the PFC a little bit of slack here to do something that's very important to hiring our new police chief. From a standpoint of checks and balances I'm comfortable between Terry Hanson, our finance director and yourself that we've got enough checks and balances in place that we're not giving anybody I think it does an excellent job cutting red tape. Alderman Montemayor in question next. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess for clarification purposes the cost center of the PFC any expenditures that went out would not come across finance desks or our desks, is that correct? Like we do see the finance committee recommending from one cost center to the other or we'll still come across and we'll still see what the expenditures are for. You'll still see expenditures from the finance department. Thank you. Alderman... Hanna. Thank you. Yeah, that really was... a field of motion. Yeah, my real question will Terry be monitoring the expenditures? Absolutely. Just like we do every one of them. Just like we do every one of them. Correct? That is correct. I jumped in. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Just clarify this one more time for me. I need to understand. We're moving... My original budget had $18,500 in the police and fire commission cost center, cost category. For what purpose? For the hiring of the new police chief and I believe there's maybe some money for training or something, but primarily for the new changes that are being made. Quite frankly, I don't think it's going to be enough for the finance committee shifted it to human resources department. Under their cost category. Okay. All the motions asking to put it back where it was originally in the budget so that the police and fire commission can proceed without the delays that Alderman Rahassel is saying it. As far as the check and balances, the council always oversees the expenditures and so do I and so does the finance department. All right. Thank you. Okay. On the amendment. Please call the roll. Motion carries. Okay. I need a motion to approve the final budget as amended. Alderman Giesha. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion that the RC be accepted and adopted and the resolution the amended resolution be put upon its passage. Passage of the budget. Yes. Thank you. And second? Thank you. Mr. President Boren. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm going to support the entire budget even though the last two amendments I didn't agree with, but there was so much heavy lifting in this budget and I think it's an outstanding budget. First of all, I want to thank you, Mayor, for your efforts. I want to thank Terry Hansen. I want to thank in particular the department head, Bill Bittner who I think of public works who probably had the heaviest lifting of any department head to make the cuts that were necessary to balance this budget. We started out earlier this year with a $1.7 million structural deficit. And yet we were able to balance this budget and also cut the rate by a nickel. So I think and I also want to thank my fellow members of the finance committee and the rest of the council. I think it's really a job well done and just thank you to all who had a part of it and I'm going to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess to echo Alderman Boren's or Vice President Boren's comments the list is long and the distinguished of who needs to be thanked for working on the budget. I really can't add to that. However, I remember before I ran the first time six years ago as an Alderman watching the committee meetings especially the budget one at home and wondering what are they doing? They have these huge amounts of dollar amounts and they're all voting aye. And I agree there's a lot of things in the budget that I don't necessarily support but the work done on the budget is done every year. And we'll be starting next year's one right away as we look at whatever state aides we may or may not get from the state. So I don't want people at home to understand that it has been something that we've all been working very diligently on very hard for a long period of time and it's not that we take our job very seriously to do it all. Look at all the ayes and tees and make sure they're dotted and crossed and thank everybody here that's done their work to make sure that we have been able to balance and make sure that we have done our job that the mayor can be proud of and that the older person present here today can be proud of. Thank you. And one more. Thank you Your Honor. A third person to say thank you so much and I think accolades especially to Terry Hanson and Mayor Perez they've been able Mayor Perez has been able to do it three years in a row we didn't think it could be done it was done. Thank you council for agreeing and I'm done. Thank you. I echo the sentiments of Alderperson Montemayor and everyone else it was pretty difficult I know Mayor you went through a lot of trials and tribulations. I too didn't support the changes in the last two amendments but they were small in comparison to the large extent of which I do agree with and I think you've said it a few times yourself and other aldermen as well it's not going to get any easier unfortunately and the public should be aware of that this budget takes a pretty good chunk of money out of Department of Public Works it's I think there's a substantial reduction there and I don't know if that could be increased in the future or other departments down in the future but costs are going up and you've said it a million times Mayor Perez our income is not it's going to get more challenging for this council and future councils and for you moving forward it's a difficult time and it's going to get worse and I just want the public to be forewarned that this type of work I think was remarkable what happened with the budget with the deficit or whatever you want to call it we argue about the term deficit and how it's better now and everybody worked real hard on it but each year a lot tighter in the public should I guess we asked them to bear with us because there may needs necessarily be some changes in the future that we'll ask for their support on thank you the final note I'd just like to make some points I think it's important for the people to hear very clearly what Alderman Gischia has said what Alderman Wrenschweiser said what the other Alderman have said Alderman Montemayor you're absolutely correct it's not going to get any easier what we've done is what I jokingly say is a lot of magic we put together a lot of magic for these last four budgets 2006 to 2009 we've been able to get to a balanced budget Alderman Wrenschweiser correct a lot of people may not understand it's six months worth of work the final product is now it's hard to appreciate all the blood and sweat and tears that went into it but it's finally here we've got a lot of support again it hasn't been all agreeable that's okay we've got a balanced budget we can move forward on now I would like to just point out though that the work that we did is commendable because we did that as a team if you think back historically in 2006 the request that came in far exceeded the amount of revenue that we're going to have and we were able to sort of chip off almost two million dollars in 2006 when I say two million dollars that's two million dollars that are in effect a cost saving to the taxpayer that they did not have to bear our levy then was 20 million about 20 and a half million dollars then in 2007 the request again came in more than the revenue that we would receive and again the difference was about two million dollars so we were able to chisel two million dollars in 2007 so that we could provide a cost savings to the public the levy then was 20 million 639 which is again identical from 2006 meaning we didn't increase the levy which again is a savings to the taxpayer in 2008 again the request were 37 and a half million the final numbers were 34 and a half million so we chisel off a little over three million dollars in 2008 that's huge it's an amount that we saved to the taxpayer again in 2009 again the request were 36 million and the amount the final one is about 1.3 million dollars that we were able to chisel off of there so if you look at the total from 2006 789 the amount that we were able to chisel off the normal increases that the department had had was about eight and a half million dollars that's very very commendable it's taken a lot of hard work not one person by themselves can do it it takes all of us to do it but the good point I want to make though is if you look at the levy 2006 was 20 million and a half 2007 20 million and a half 2008 almost 20 million and a half 2009 a little over 20 million and a half our levy has remained fairly consistent now what does that mean that means that people are saving tax dollars and that is very impressive the other thing I wanted to point out is that our levy limit by statute is 22 million 212 dollars we came in this year at 20 million 958 so it's a considerable amount of money that we could by statute have imposed on the taxpayer which you chose not to do and you've maintained that responsiveness to the taxpayer that they have so pleaded hard for couple of final notes our general operating budget for 2008 was 34 million and a half for 2009 our budget is 36 million 223,590 that's our general operating budget and that includes general fund library debt service transit those are the things that it includes our total budget is 61,228,019 that includes general fund capital project debt service special revenue and transit levy our general operating budget is 36 million our total budget is about 61 million that's what we have to deal with it's a big job it's not nickels and dimes it's a huge job and a huge responsibility and I believe and I can say this truthfully we have been and will continue to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars council thank you very much I was just going to mention your honor the thing that's remarkable about this over the years is that we due to the hard work that city employees working harder and smarter we haven't had to cut any core services in the city so we were able to make almost eight and a half million dollars in cuts without any core services being cut and I think that's outstanding and that's again taking our hats off to our city employees for working harder and smarter thank you on the budget as a man knit please call roll Mayor Sir Vanderweel Wangeman Boren Gisha Heidemann 13 ayes vote is unanimous Mr. Mayor motion to adjourn second all in favor say aye stand adjourned