 20th meeting of the 2013 Common Council meeting Monday, January 21st. Call the rolls, click. Bellinger. Here. Warren. Here. Carlson. Here. Decker. Here. Johnny Hugh. Here. Hammond. Here. Heidemann. Here. Coth. Here. Lassard. Here. Lewandowski. Here. Madicek. Present. Reisler. Here. Van Akron. Here. Excused. 15 present. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. Approval of the minutes. Hold them in Hammond. Thank you. I move that we approve the minutes of the previous council meeting. Second. I approve and seconded that we approve the minutes of the previous council meeting. Is there any changes or additions? Bring non-clerk all the roll. Warren. Here. Carlson. Here. Decker. Here. Johnny Hugh. Here. Hammond. Here. Heidemann. Here. Lassard. Here. Lewandowski. Here. Madicek. Here. Reisler. Here. Van Akron. Ballinger. Hi. 15. Motion carries. The public forum tonight. It will be Joel Wood. Is Joel Wood here this evening? Your address please, Joel. 2914 South 15th Street. Thank you. You'll have five minutes. Okay. I'd just like to start with what I think is the main reason for this sewage backup and there was construction being done about three weeks to a month prior to this, not 10 feet away from where this occurred. And my insurance company denied my claim because it was sewage from the city sewer line that they said I needed to file a claim at the city. Also on my neighbors, if you look at your line, these are my neighbors, they, all of their insurance companies told them the same thing. I've got over $4,000 worth of lost property and basically I had a finished basement and now I don't. I missed almost a full day of work with the cleanup plus all the supplies. That's all. That's pretty much it. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Joel. Is there any other? And I'd like to proceed with a proclamation for National Wear Red Day. If Irene Dreska joins me, the proclamation reads as follows. Whereas Go Red for Women celebrates the extraordinary progress in women's heart health and recognizes the more need to be done in Sheboygan to safeguard women's health for generations to come. And whereas heart disease is the number one killer of women and whereas most women do not know heart disease is a woman's problem that they do not take seriously. And whereas the Heart Truth Campaign and the red dress symbol of building awareness for women's heart disease and risking empowering them to reduce the risk of heart disease. Now therefore, Sheboygan women need to take action to make heart health a priority for themselves and for their families and to become aware of heart disease risks and take action to control their risks. Or I, Teri Vanakeren, as Mayor of Sheboygan, do hereby proclaim Friday, February 1, 2013 as National Wear Red Day and encourage all citizens to work together to promote the health of all women and increase awareness of understanding of women and heart disease. Hi, everybody. The reason that we got Teri involved is because heart disease in women is the number one killer of women and a lot of people are unaware of that. One of the things that we really, really, really try to do is to better educate women need to be diagnosed accurately and we need to ensure that there's proper treatment given for people. I'd like to thank you for having me. I think this is, what an honor this is and you'll be seeing some things go up through the course of the next week or so. Up on 8th Street, we're going to try to get the businesses to get a little bit more involved. It's the number one killer of women and I thank you so much for having me and thank you. Thanks, Teri. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor's announcements, a couple things tonight. Excuse me. The ice skating rink sponsored by Blue Harbor is open for skating. Located just west of the triple play building. Rental skates are available at Blue Harbor rink. The rink has been flooded by off-duty firefighters, including our chief. So we want to thank them for that and it's open to the public. So thank you very much. Also today is Martin Luther King Day. I was at a program at the Armory. It's an honor to represent the city at programs in which Martin Luther King talked about community and being involved in community. I'm proud of this community and how many things that we have people volunteer and take care of each other and that's what it was all about. So glad that our community can celebrate and think about Martin Luther King and the things that he did. Tonight we also are going to be talking about the combined dispatch. There's a lot of people who think and I'll do that now. This is something that's been going on for 30 years. You all can look back in your career someday and say, you know, you were sitting here when this really did happen. I want to thank, this has been going on for 30 years, but the discussion was just about dead. Alderman Hammond. I want to thank you for your persistence and leadership. You sat down and got the ball rolling again and something that I think we all thought was not going to happen. It looks like it's going to come to happen and you need to be recognized for your leadership and taking the part on that. You and I and Chief Damongowski, Chief Herman and Jim Memorial sat in through many sometimes interesting discussions with the community, I mean with the county over the last few months and it looks like we're finally coming to closure on a good end. So thank you for your leadership. Chiefs and Jim Memorial, thank you for your involvement too. This was a long, hard discussion that we had and thank you guys for being involved in this. Thank you for the county. The sheriff, Todd Paribi, the county board chairman, Adam Payne, the county board administrator. Again, all of us working together finally did get something that after 30 years, I think we're going to have a good result that's good for both the city and county. So thank you all for your hard work and for your leadership. Consent agenda. Alderman Hammond. Thank you. I move to accept and file all ROs, accept and adopt all RCs and pass all resolutions. Second. It's been moved and seconded to accept all ROs, accept and adopt all RCs, accept and pass all resolutions and general ordinances. 2-1 through 2-22, but I know somebody wants to pull some of those. So Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to pull 2-5, 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8 and you can put them all together for a separate vote. Second. We're going to pull in 2-5, 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8 and we'll vote on those separately. And the motion then on those will still be to accept and file. Is there any discussion on those four items? Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I didn't support him at finance and I obviously don't want to support him on the floor. The real short and just of it is what actually Mr. Wood talked about in the public forum. The water main had broken and eroded the soil between the water main and the sewer main and fell into that and broke it, thus causing the sewer to back up. Kind of an unusual sewer back up and as Mr. Wood said, the insurance companies didn't cover anything and I guess it's just my opinion that there might be a little bit more liability than what we thought. So I'm going to not support filing it and vote no. Any other discussion? Any other discussion on 2-5 through 2-8? Alderman Bourne. Thank you, Mayor. I wasn't at that finance committee meeting so I'm just wondering what the rationale was for the notice of disallowance. Is this past practice that we've done this? And it seems like what Alderman Raceler described is kind of an unusual circumstance where we may have some exposure. So if Attorney McLean or somebody from the finance committee would like to explain that please. Steve. I can say that the claims were turned over to the water utility initially and they had their insurance company look at them. They recommended denying the claims on the basis that there was no negligence on the water utility's part or the city's part. The city staff looked at it, made the same recommendation to the finance committee. The finance committee reported out with that same recommendation to deny on the basis that the city was not negligent. Alderman Bourne. Well, when would the city be negligent under a situation like this? Is it even a gray area or is it just cut and dried that we're not negligent? Water mains break now and then. If the city's, the law is not that any time a water main breaks and somebody receives damage as a result that the city is liable for that. Those things happen and we typically don't approve those claims on the basis that the city is not legally liable. Legally liable for those damages. I guess the rationale, partially there is statutes and the legislature are protective of governmental bodies from paying out a lot of claims. And they're trying to protect the purse of the taxpayers. And sometimes innocent parties barely brunt. That's no doubt about that, but that's the recommendation. Alderman Donahue. Thank you, Mayor. These are really cruel cases as we talked about in finance because absent a showing of negligence as attorney McLean said on the part of the city, there is no recovery. If you want to sue someone for having damaged you, you need to show that that person was somehow negligent unless there's some sort of strict liability that applies. And there really is not strict liability here. It is a cruel result. And if you don't have a sewage backup endorsement on your homeowner's policy, you're out of luck there. But it's just one of those, not every wrong has a legal remedy. That's why the finance committee voted to deny these claims, not because of anything the homeowners did or not at fault at all. But also the city was not at fault. These are, as we understand it, these are just things that happen. And it's nothing that the city did wrong. And so that was the basis for denying the claim. Attorney McLean also indicated, which I think is really important for us to consider as we think about voting on this issue, that if we approve these claims now, anything that goes wrong at any time in the city with a water main or a sewage line will be the city's responsibility, even if the city was not negligent, even if there is no blame to be placed. And so from the perspective of just protecting the taxpayer dollars, I think it's really important that we do deny these claims, even though it is cruel and it is, in some respects, unjust. It is the law, and I think that we really need to stay with it because what we do now sets a precedent. And if that, if it's a bad precedent, then we have to live with that for quite a long period of time. Thank you. Holloman Lussard. Thank you, Mayor. I think I just need more specificity on what happened. The water main broke, but did I hear you say a pipe fell and broke the sewer line? And the sewer was the backup and not the water line? Did a pipe fall and break? And how did that pipe fall and break? So I need someone to give me clarity on the incident itself. Part of the issue was that with the water main break, there was a lot of water that collected along the pipes there and washed out the support for the pipe. And my understanding is it sank down and somehow, I don't know if it broke the sewer main or affected the rings near the manhole for the sewer, but all this volume of water from the water main that had washed out a lot of sand and everything, ended up going down the manhole in the sewer, and that was too much water in the sewer and caused the backups. And most of the backups were a couple inches of water in the basements in about five houses, all in the vicinity of the intersection near Mr. Wood's place there. There was a lot of sand that was found in the basements that had washed out, and it was a matter of that nobody knows for sure, but that water main had probably been broken for several days to a week, so there was big volume of water that was washing out the subsurface underneath the street there and it ended up causing kind of a domino effect. I can't really explain exactly how the water ended up in the basements, but that's what the reports are, is that the water main broke, ended up the fire hydrant that was there collapsed, and I don't know if the fire hydrant had an impact on the sewer, but in some way there the sewer started collecting a great volume of water and couldn't handle it all. Thank you. Alderman Bellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I feel some empathy for Mr. Woods as well. A number of years ago the pump station on North and 3rd Avenue got struck by lightning, the battery backup failed, I experienced the same exact thing. I got no recourse from the city at all and it affected probably a dozen other of my neighbors. However, you think that you maintain your house in good order and that the city has its infrastructure in good order and you're doing everything you can as a citizen and through no fault of your own you're experiencing this mess that happens. I'm just wondering the question for Attorney McClain. Seeing as how we find the city has no neglect or fault in this instance, is there a recourse from these homeowners now that we demonstrated there is no fault from the city that they can go back to their insurance companies and say, you know, can you relook at this again because there is no fault from the city? I'm just wondering why is this different than a tornado or straight line winds or anything else that would normally be, you know, if there was no fault, they could go back and have that looked at again. Attorney McClain. Yeah, I can't address whether the property owners or Mr. Woods case, he was just a tenant that didn't own the property but I couldn't tell you whether they have any recourse against their insurance carriers. Mr. Woods says the insurance carriers are saying that they're denying coverage to dispute that. The recourse from here is the city denies the claim, sends them notice they've got six months in which to sue. They can still sue the city and if it goes to court, most of these would be small claims, jurisdiction, they're under $5,000. If a court were to find that the city was legally responsible, court would enter judgment accordingly. But I guess it's our position that the city is not at fault and the court would not find the city negligent. And as Alderman Donahue said, this isn't a strict liability situation. Cities, counties, governmental bodies are not held to a standard of strict liability in cases like this. We've got to show that there was some action or inaction or a mission on the city's part for which the city would be liable. So the city went out and had just repaired it and was negligent in its repair. It would be a different story. There's another claim on tonight that dealt with a manhole cover. Individual city employee working in that manhole that day. And the recommendation of the finance committee is different on that claim. So the staff looks at these. The committee looks at them on an individual case-by-case basis and makes the determination as to whether or not the city is legally liable. Now, there's nothing to prevent the council from saying they're going to pay these claims, but as Alderman Donahue also said, you're kind of opening the floodgates there for other potential claims. If you pay one where water main breaks through no fault of the city's, where is the stopping point? At what point do you say, well, we'll pay this claim but not that claim where there's a water main break, where something happens to a sewer? There's perhaps no end to those sorts of things. Streets, we get a million pothole cases where cars hit potholes because the street isn't... Christine does not mean that the city is negligent. We've got a standard of reasonable maintenance to maintain the infrastructure of the city and that's all the courts and the legislature feel that is appropriate to hold a municipality to as a standard of reasonable maintenance, reasonable care and not as a guarantor of, you know, that there's not ever going to be any damage Is your question on the bill? Yes, thank you. Any other discussion? Any other discussion? We'll call the roll on 25 through 28 on disallowance of the claims. We'll call the roll. Point of order, Mayor. I'm sorry. Could you frame the motion? I'm not sure which vote will. Is this a vote to support Alderman Risler? No. To support the finance committees report and disallow the claims. So now I vote... Carlson? Aye. Decker? No. Donahue? Aye. Hammond? Abstain. Heidemann? No. Koth? Aye. Lissard? Aye. Lewandowski? Aye. Manicheck? Aye. Reisler? No. Medakren? No. Vanderweal? Aye. Versey? Abstain. Bellinger? Aye. Boren? No. Eight ayes, five noes, two abstain. Motion carries. Now we'll vote on 22.1 through 24. Plus two eight or two nine through 222. Any discussion? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll. Decker? Aye. Donahue? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Heidemann? Aye. Keth? Aye. Lissard? Aye. Lewandowski? Aye. Manicheck? Aye. Versey? Aye. Bellinger? Aye. Boren? Aye. Carlson? Aye. 15 ayes. Motion carries. 3-1 through 3-8 will be referred. For one resolution from Alderman Hammond, Reisler, Heineman, and Van Ackeren, approving 2013 one-year annual action plan for community development grants. Alderman Hammond. Thank you. First off, I would make a motion to suspend the rules. Second. It's been moved and seconded to suspend the rules. Any discussion on suspension only? All those in favor of suspension signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to put the resolution upon its passage. Second. It's been moved and seconded to put the resolution upon its passage. Any discussion under the resolution? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll. Donahue? Aye. Hammond? Aye. Heitemann? Aye. Taff? Aye. Lissard? Aye. Lewandowski? Aye. Manichek? Aye. Reisler? Aye. Van Ackeren? Aye. Vanderwiel? Aye. Versey? Aye. Bellinger? Aye. Boran? Aye. Carlson? Aye. Decker? Aye. The report of committee from salary and grievance recommending filing resolution to extend staffing levels of limitations now in place for firefighters. Alderman Boran. Thank you, Mayor. I would request that this be sent back to salary and grievances. I was unable to appear at that meeting last week because of a family situation that came up suddenly. I did contact the chairman of the committee and he talked to the committee about holding the document for a future meeting and they saw fit not to. I think it's kind of been the practice since I've been on the council that when an Alderman has a document going into a committee and they're not able to be there, that it's been a courtesy in the past that that document be held if the Alderman requests it. One that comes to mind very recently when Alderman Lewandowski was out for his health reasons, he had a document at the public works committee and Alderman Heidemann I believe held that document for three consecutive meetings and the committee agreed to it to hold that until Alderman Lewandowski could appear. I mean we ended up filing the document but at least we extended the courtesy for Alderman Lewandowski to be there and talk about his document. So I was somewhat disappointed. I not only contacted chairman Racler but I also contacted the manager of human resources and let her know that I was not going to be able to be there. So I would just request the courtesy that this go back to the salary and grievance committee and be put on the agenda for their February 11th meeting when I could attend. Thank you. Is that a motion? That's a motion. Second. It's been moved and seconded to re-refer to salary and grievance. Seconded then, please. First. Alderman Versey. Is there any discussion on the motion? Clerk will call a roll on the motion. Hammond. Aye. Heidemann. Aye. Kath. Aye. Lussard. Aye. Lewandowski. Aye. Maddachuk. Aye. Racler. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Versey. Aye. Bellinger. Aye. Donahue. Aye. 15 ayes to re-refer. Motion carries. 5-2 from an RC from strategic planning, fiscal planning, recommending filing resolutions directing chief administrative officer and human resources manager and fire chief to develop a plan for unpaid fire fighters. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to accept and adopt. Second. It's been moved and seconded to accept and adopt the committee report. Under discussion. Alderman Hammond. Thank you again, Mayor Van Akron. The reason I came forward with this resolution in the first place was I thought we were going at the strategic fiscal planning meetings because of the budgetary difficulties that we're going to be having in 14 and 15 that the chairman and the committee members were looking for possible suggestions for various departments where possibly we could come up with some recommendations. And I came up with this resolution after talking to Chief Herman. I called him up a week or two before I put this resolution in. And I mentioned to him that the budgetary problems that we may be having in 14 and 15. And I asked what he was considering doing because of the budgetary constraints in 14 and 15. And he said, well, we may have to close a fire station or fire stations. And from previous discussions last year, if we were going to close a couple of fire stations, that would mean building a fire station centrally located and the cost estimates on that initially were around $4 million. In the past, this council and some other councils the last three or four years have been unwilling to close a fire station. And what happens when you close a fire station and you lay off the people, those are always the people that were the last people hired by the fire department which happens to be our paramedics and that puts the good service that we get from people who have enough paramedics. So in lieu of that, of possibly closing a fire station, I came up with this resolution that asks that when some of the fire fighters retire, and again I'm saying the firefighters, the gentlemen that have been with the fire department for many years when they retire, possibly looking into a hybrid type of fire department which would be partly paid full-time and then a part-time on-call firefighting personnel. And I asked very specifically in what I was looking for, for the chief administrative officer, the manager of human resources and the fire chief to look into some very specific things. And I wasn't prejudging this by any means but the strategic fiscal planning committee was looking for suggestions from Alderman for things to do about our budget crunch in 14 and 15. And I was kind of disappointed that I was kind of summarily dismissed that they wanted to file this without even looking into this. And again, I'm not prejudging it and I don't think the council should prejudge it. The only thing that this is going to cost to do this study is some staff time and after the research is done by those individuals that I mentioned, it's going to go back to the Public Protection and Safety Committee. That report would go back to them for vetting. And then it would also go to the committee of the whole for the entire council to consider. So if we're really looking for suggestions from the Alderman as to what we can possibly do to ease this budget crisis in 14 and 15, this is a suggestion that at least I think we should research and again it's going to be staff time. It's not going to be dollars. And what I'm asking for is very specific and it may be somewhat time consuming but I don't know what we're going to do with the fire department and even other departments, the library and the police department for 14 and 15, this is just a possible alternative to having to close fire stations and lay off people. And that's why I would like it researched. I also a couple of days ago got an unsolicited call from an Alderman over in Manitowoc and apparently he got my resolution off of the web and indicated that he and a couple of other Alderman in Manitowoc are thinking very seriously of at least having the research done over there because they've got the same problems, budget problems. In fact Manitowoc budgetarily I believe for the upcoming years is in worse shape than we are. And there was an article in the Manitowoc paper recently where the fire chief over in Manitowoc for 2013 was asking an additional $309,000 for his budget. And he mentioned to the common council and the mayor over there that if he didn't get the $309,000 for 2013 he was going to have to close fire stations and lay people off. Well as it turned out the common council and the mayor over there said chief I guess you're going to have to do what you're going to have to do but in the 11th hour this article was dated November 21st from the Herald Times in Manitowoc between November 21st and December 1st apparently the chief found $309,000 in his budget so that he didn't have to lay off firefighters over there or close a fire station. And I guess he did that by delaying hiring and shifting some dollars around. So I don't want to be in the usual predicament when we get into situations with the fire department that the chief recommends clothing stations and laying people off. I don't think it's going to work. I don't think the community is going to accept it. This is an alternative and I think you know I would appreciate it if the council tonight would at least vote to go through with the study bring it back to public protection and safety in March and then to the committee of the whole and we can take a look at the numbers. I know I gave this resolution to Alderman Hammond before I submitted it to the council and Alderman Hammond at the time was very interested in number C on the document where it says a detailed cost benefit analysis detailing the possible costs and cost savings of a partially paid on staff for the Sheboygan fire department. So I would ask my former council members tonight to vote not to file this and at least have the chief administrative officer our HR director and our fire chief spend some time and come back with a report that we can digest and make an intelligent decision. Thank you. Alderman Hammond. Thank you Mr. Mayor. The reason I didn't support this was the same reasons I have indicated is in my mind this wasn't a request for a feasibility study. Yes I would love to see what the cost benefit of doing something like this would be but it very clearly states that this would happen starting January 14 with the first fire fires to be hired mid April of 14. I don't know if that's the right timeline why are we as a council again dictating personnel to our department heads. We haven't given the chief any idea of what we would expect for response times. I don't know if this is feasible or not but I'm happy to take a look at the cost benefit but this thing goes a lot further than just cost benefit. It takes it to a point where when you look at the resolves if you will where we're hiring these folks on April of 2014 and we haven't even gotten through the point where we're looking at the cost benefit. So if we're just going to focus on that let's have that conversation and have the chief put it together but if we're going to mandate to put it together. Thank you. Thanks for your comments Alderman Hammond the reason I put a timeline on it that is part of what I want the chief and the chief administrative officer and HR manager of human resources to come back with that would be part of the feasibility study is when as the A through F down there cover the timeline is just a suggestion and as I said I'm not prejudging this after we do a cost benefit analysis it may not be feasible all I'm looking for is an alternative to we're going to close fire stations lay off people jeopardize the staffing for the ambulance service and I just think we need an alternative to the same scenario all the time of closed stations lay off people and this is at least an alternative. After the report is done then we're in a much better position to judge whether this is going to fly or not I made it specific on purpose and if we make a decision on this I want it to be well thought out both cost wise and public safety wise thank you. I have several difficulties with this particular resolution I start with number one it is true that the city is going to has continued to face and will continue to face very serious budgetary constraints budgetary questions and uncertainty about actions in Madison and uncertainty about all sorts of issues that require this council along with department heads and with the mayor to think strategically about how we use our limited resources. A plan like this is not a part of that strategic thinking because it's too narrow because it focuses in number one just on one department number two on one possible scenario to solve a problem in one particular department. We can't really intelligently evaluate that particular solution unless we're looking at the city as a whole. Without a vision the people perish. We've heard that over and over again the vision is for the whole city is not just for three retiring firefighters. So that is my concern number one. Concern number two is what do we mean by paid on call firefighters? Now Alderman Bourne has said it's just staff time that we're going to be using here it's not money well staff time is money and it is the fire chief and it is HR and it is the chief administrative officer and it is the city attorney because this resolution requires a thorough and comprehensive plan that goes way beyond anything that resembles a feasibility study as to what is paid on call. Are we going to have somebody sitting at home paying that person 10 or 11 dollars an hour because he or she is not going to be working that person is going to be on call or is it going to be as we do with our wonderful volunteer firefighters throughout the county and these folks are terrific. I have spoken at every single volunteer fire department in this county and those are wonderful people who do an incredible job but is that what we're looking at and I think that if I mean the feasibility study if we were to do anything would be just to make those definitions number one, number two figure out how much that would cost number three figure out if you can hire those people and then number four did you read the chief's October through December report? On October first my birthday no relation here there were 18 separate fire calls now I know that was an unusual day and if you read through the whole report clearly it was an unusual day but firefighting is all about unusual circumstances and for that reason just even this tiny piece of a quote feasibility study is really not that so we really and I appreciate the thought and the time and the effort that Alderman Bourne put into this resolution because it's pretty detailed we're going to get a detailed outline we're going to have a listing and detailed explanation of all changes to ordinances, resolutions, agreements, policies and procedures in order to implement such a transition we're going to have a detailed cost benefit analysis recommendations on optimum ratio of full time to part time proposed job descriptions and any other information so clearly Alderman Bourne and the other older persons who sponsored this resolution did put a lot of time and effort into it and I appreciate that frankly all of us are going to have to put that kind of time and effort maybe not to this detailed level but we're going to have to do that if we're going to address our budget problems as they come up in 2014 so this is piecemeal it does require a lot of time time is money and for those reasons I think that this is a distraction with all due respect to Alderman Bourne and the other older persons this is a distraction we need to focus on the real target we can't take our eyes off of the prize which is how do we make the city run financially what do citizens want from us how are we going to do it all and I think we're going to have a lot of discussions that we need to be having in the next year or so thank you Alderman Donahue Alderman Billinger thank you mayor I share the same concerns as Alderman Bourne does about 2014 and 2015 there is things that need to be done and things that need to be addressed but for this body I just wanted to let people know that I did receive the former RFP from Bernie for the fire department I'm looking at bringing that back as a resolution in amending it I will certainly pass it along to you for you to look at before I do so I think rather than doing an approach like this taking one area or one narrow thing with the fire department I would like to have a third party again look at the entire operation take the politics the emotions and the biases out of it and come back and look and see if there is some opportunity for savings or efficiencies and as a body if we've got the courage to pass that then I think we should have the courage to adopt whatever comes back in a timely and responsible manner too whether that's hiring more closing the station consolidating paid on call not whatever that is that's why I'm not going to support this because I think there is a better way to look at the the whole department and see if there might be something better for us thank you any other discussion any other discussion see none all clerk will call the roll hi Edamon hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi Edamon thank you I'll go ahead motion carries motion carries yes it does I have three reported committee from law and licensing recommending denying beverage license 6744 Alderman Panda William I'd like to actually refer this back to law and licensing move and second to refer this document back to law and licensing all those in favor signify by saying aye aye motion carries 5-4 committee of the whole recommending authorizing and appropriating city officials to execute combined dispatch intergovernmental cooperative agreement with pleasure Alderman Hammond actually Mr. Mayor I was just going to ask if we can take 5-4 and 5-5 together they're both basically the same document finance came with no recommendation we had four people two had to abstain so that's why there's no recommendation but I leave to Alderman born for the committee of the whole Alderman born thank you I move that the resolution be put upon its passage second it's been moving segregated that the resolution be put upon its passage any discussion and 5-5 and 5-5 will be committee to be accepted in Alderman Bellinger thank you Mayor I would like to thank Don Hammond for the going above and beyond and getting this back on track and coming to a complete resolution even though it may have taken a few years of his life away from him but thank you for doing that I've got a different take on this whole thing I found this whole exercise rather frustrating and extremely disappointing I thought this was going to be a shining example of intergovernmental cooperation instead what I saw was intergovernmental extortion first the county came to us with a 5.7 million dollar offer that we should borrow that much money and I don't know what that was for maybe it was for in addition to the ivory tower I don't know what that was for but then it went down to 4 million then it went down to 3 million and now we're at 2.5 million and I called my county supervisor when it was still at 5.7 million and said where do you stand on this and he told me I support it it's a good deal for the city I'm sure you will warm up to it I didn't you know have very warm feelings for that comment to me and I still am now warm to that whole thing and what really bothers me is that we've got a option where we could do it for $400,000 basically at the new facility that the police just built three years ago so I take a strong view on tax dollars city tax dollars and for the county supervisors that represent the city the city individuals they pay county taxes as well so it just really bothers me that that was not even an option we had a joint meeting in September down at Blue Harbor and I thought that the council and the county board supervisors would sit at the table and we would vet each different option idea let the public in on it and that was nothing but being lectured to and having directives from the county I asked why can't we look at the city option because it's certainly much cheaper and they said that's not even a starting point we will not even discuss it won't put it on the table at all and have anything to do with it so it was just completely shut down the intergovernmental cooperation certainly that spirit wasn't there at that meeting I think the only thing that that was for that meeting was so that they could pose for holy pictures so after being lectured and dictated to you know we're down to where we're at right now and we've got just a cavalier disregard for the taxpayer dollars we're ignoring common sense basic math simple economics and logic so we're going to take 12 to 13 years for the city pack taxpayers to realize the full potential of combined dispatch at an inflated cost of approximately 2.6 million dollars we could have achieved the exact same thing in one to two years at a cost of approximately 4400 thousand at the police facility and the last issue that was brought up was we can't have it at a police facility because it's not a hardened facility well I went and did some research and I've got this document here a staff brief on 911 communications and when a call is placed to 911 it is routed to a public safety answering point or a PSAP I asked the question how many PSAPs are there in the state of Wisconsin there's over 150 of them you can imagine there's at least 72 with each county having its own and then there's the university system there's a federal one at Fort McCoy but it adds up to there's over 150 I asked three different respected individuals who are experts in this field how many of those facilities are hardened and nobody could give me an answer other than to say it was very rare due to the extreme cost of having a hardened facility so I don't have an exact number they didn't have one but they said it was extremely rare so to use the excuse that we have to go to the county because it's a hardened facility I think it's just a facade as well so for an additional $2.6 million over 12 or 13 years I think it is ridiculous and I'm just extremely disappointed in this whole process that we're going down I will however be voting in favor of this because for the greater good the county residents, the city residents deserve combined dispatch it's gone on way too long 40, 50 years however in seeing this process how it works I'm surprised it's not still going on and that we're at a resolution today because thank you Alderman Hammond I got to follow that I'm going to take a little bit of a different twist it was quite a process I will certainly give you that but with any of these types of things when it's been this in grain for 40 some years there's going to be some give and take that goes along with it is it a perfect nope does it get us to our end goal some of these things are obviously a lot more important than just dollars and cents dollars and cents of course are important but I think both chiefs and the sheriff would talk about the public safety aspect of this too and how important that is to the end so again as I mentioned on Thursday night I just want to thank everybody that was involved with this there was a lot of people, a lot of meetings a lot of back and forth a lot of times where quite frankly we walked away going I think this is going to happen but it did so again I appreciate everybody's support on this document and look forward to this getting carried through by the end of 2015 thank you thank you very much this actually could have been done about three years ago for about $2 million but the hang up on that was the question of supervision the number of supervisors they wanted to hire I see the document now we've got it down to four I forgot what it was back then it was about eight or nine but we could have actually done it for about $200,000 now it's $200,000 $2.5 million and I have to agree with Alderman Bellinger that we could have done this and I've got the list right in front of me here it's actually $361,855 if we could have had it over at the police department and I believe the vote back in April by the county board the president of the county board at that time took that vote on the basis I believe in April that it was going to go at the police it was going to be at the police department and then all of a sudden he and a number of other county supervisors said nope we can't do it over at the police department it's not a hardened facility it's not convenient if we want to have meetings and so we got to build it over at the courthouse and it's going to cost as Alderman Bellinger started out many many more millions of dollars and now we're down to $2.5 million and you know we're doing all this bonding it's going to be probably $2.5 million for to build this on to the county courthouse and then as I was talking about earlier apparently if we're going to close fire stations it's going to be 4 million bucks or at least 4 million bucks for a new centrally located fire station when does it end the city's debt end I too am going to vote for this tonight it's one of these where I'm definitely going to hold my nose combined dispatch was on my bucket list when I when I got on the council seeing that this come to fruition and even before Alderman Hammond was on board there were several of Alderman myself Alderman Gisha, Alderman Hammond and Alderman Verhassel who used to be the district that kept this thing on I hate to use the word life support but that's what it was we got at least the votes back then I think it was in 2008 to keep the discussions going when they looked like they were going to be dead so I'm going to reluctantly vote for this tonight because eventually I think we're going to see some benefit but we certainly could have done this for $361,000 and had a wonderful dispatch center but for the convenience of the county we have to spend $2.5 million, thank you Alderman Lassard Thank you Mayor I want to thank Alderman Hammond for all the work he did on this particular topic and I'm quite proud to be one of the people that's going to be voting to finally get combined dispatch to me public safety and protection is of the utmost importance in this city taking care of our citizens and it seems that the majority of the time this council is either attacking our fire department or police department or our ambulance service so I have great pride I don't like the deal the whole deal is the way it went down but I'm quite proud of the fact that after 40 some years we're actually going to be having combined dispatch cutting down the problems when there are calls to be made and perhaps saving a number of lives and making our city a lot safer for our staff payers and our constituents are asking for our times are tough right now I'm sure everyone's read the paper this weekend and things are not getting better, they're getting worse so we need to address that and it's refreshing to be in support of our public safety and departments in our city Thank you Any other discussion? So none clerk will call the roll Lassard You want to check? Aye Racler? Abstain Van Akron? Abstain Vanderweel? Aye Percy? Aye Bellinger? Aye Moran? Aye Carlson? Aye Decker? Aye Donahue? Abstain Hammond? Aye Heidemann? Aye Peth? Aye Board Committee from Sowering Grievance who met and discussed amended 2012 benefit proposal Alderman Racler Thank you Mr. Mayor I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted Second I move that the committee report be accepted and adopted Any discussion? Alderman Bourne Thank you Mayor Van Akron Chairman Racler I read the document but I'm just wondering if you could explain it to the rest of the council while we're going down to a $600 payback for the part timers what was behind that Sure This is a bio program for not going on our health insurance and before the part timers were actually eligible for a full $1200 and it was the community's recommendation that they had the option of actually now purchasing the insurance 50% of what the premium was before it was all paid and it was the committee's recommendation that they would then receive 50% of the buyout instead of the full $1200 so it's kind of a making it even I could just follow up about how many people does this affect I think it was 5 to 8 or someone sing 4 so I would 4 people will affect Thank you Any other discussion The none of the clerk will call the roll Liwadoski Maticek Racelor Ben Akron Vanderweel Bursi Bellinger Boran Carlson Dekker Donahue Hammond Hammon Carlsson Petty cash Alderman Hammond Thank you I would ask for a motion a motion to suspend the rules Second Any discussion on suspension only All those in favor of suspending signify by saying aye Opposed Motion carries Thank you Second Any discussion The none of the clerk will call the roll Maticek Racelor Ben Akron Vanderweel Bursi Bellinger Boran Carlson Dekker Hammond Bursi Bursi Bursi Berlowski All right Motion carries Six to ordinance by Alderman Hammond will be referred Matters laid over Resolution Number 120 1213 by Alderman Packman Authorizing executing a one-year lease agricultural property in the Town of Wilson Alderman Hydeman Put the resolution upon its passage. Is there any discussion? We're in none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye opposed Motion carried other matters city attorney The next matter is Then move the second to do adjourn all those in favor signify by saying aye Motion carried. We're adjourned