 I'd like to call our meeting to order If you'll stand and well, let's do the roll call first if you would He's excused Thank you, and will you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? We have minutes to approve from the August 23rd 2013 and June 25th 2014 committee of the whole Meetings, and if I could have a motion to that effect Is there any discussion? Hearing none all in favor state aye. Aye. Any opposed chair votes aye. Very good Do we have a public forum speaker or speakers? No, all right We're going to move right into item 2.1, which is a discussion of our 2015 Budget appropriations and tax levy. Here's how we're going to do it Alderman Amodio, I mean Hammond and mr. Amodio What a tremendous Upgrading Somebody's nightmare, but I'm not going to say who's All right Alderman Hammond and James Amodio are going to do a short presentation Regarding our budget Which I think will be a good source a good way for us to focus our discussion After they finish there'll be time for questions and then after true questions We will move into discussion Unlike common council meetings where all their people are asked to speak only twice on a particular issue We are in the mode of unlimited discussion May I remind you though of that old saying that brevity is the soul of wit and So let that guide our discussion. So with that Thank You Can I ask a dancing? Jim to join us The budget sometimes gets wrangled in many many iterations and many many So what I want to do is review where we kind of started Talk about kind of where we're at. I Want to keep us a little bit focused on the bigger picture Meaning looking ahead Thank you Meaning I don't do as well standing still so meaning taking a look at what some of the future challenges we have are and also some of the You know future considerations future opportunities that that might come along. So just in a form of review As you know, we put together a budget. We asked department heads To what we called zero increase, but as you know, we did increase salaries and fringe by about 2% Since the garbage fee at this point is set to sunset December 31st of 2014 The guidance that we provided was there was no garbage fee at that point in the in the in the budget process department had submitted their budgets to Jim Amorio Jim and Nancy along with the department heads vetted those budgets And went back and forth with reiterations and ultimately the budget that was submitted to council Had a million 88 deficit. So that's kind of where we started The budget was then submitted to each of the re-standing committees and that with that review happened in August The full budget was referred to council and the deficit after committee's review was 1 million 47 The only change that was made to the budget Was from ppns and that was to add a couple extra employees all the other committees came back approving their budgets as as is Goes to finance comes back the finance to finance committee Did three things to balance the budget first extended the garbage fee for through 2018? for a total of 869 Reduction by adopting the changes that the salaries and grievances committee made to our Primarily health insurance plan another 206,000 and adding a part-time clerical person in building inspection Which added 15,000 that brings us to the 10 our million 47 So again, I just wanted to give a little bit of history of how we got to where we're at now next slide So this is the budget revenue by General category so you see taxes 15 proposed 14 our 14 budget and what the variance is between the two And again, we'll email this all of it if anybody wants it. I think Mary we can get this out to the Thank you So you can see taxes Intergovernmental revenue our payments that received from the state whether it's shared revenue DOT Am I missing anything Nancy? expenditure restraints We'll talk about that in a minute. Would you say Jim? Charges for services are things that we charge for things like permits and Various fees or fee for services that the city charges finds that for for sure is our self-explanatory Interest on our investment portfolio Keep in mind we're constrained by our investment policy statement to pretty much being in anything that's governmently insured Which the interest rates on those right now are pretty atrocious Miscellaneous and then other financing those are transfers in for things like the ambulance And municipal court Appropriations Again, we did it by general categories general government Public protection public works health and human services is essentially the cemetery Culture and recreation is our parks development Chad and or Chad's office Bad debt expense And then interfund transfers which is you know my new piece of the budget So you can see again how they compare year over year in our 2015 proposed budget any comments on that from either of you. No, okay So here's why I want to spend I want that really quickly because that should all be a review for everybody I want to talk a little bit about some future challenges that we have because again We pass budgets in one-year cycles, but I'm hoping that we can look forward a couple years So that we can start planning out a little bit of a strategy As we budget going forward. So first is the motor vehicle fund and these are in no order Other than it's how I thought of them. So the motor vehicle fund There's about two to three years of balance remaining in the motor vehicle fund Once that's the motor vehicle fund is exhausted But that will be about a two hundred and twenty five thousand dollar hit to the general fund Which means again? We have to come up with about two hundred and twenty five thousand additional dollars plus probably about a million dollars extra capital When we bond for capital each year to pay for equipment That we need to be that either needs to be replaced or repaired Jim any comment on that? Okay? Special assessments fund This is the fund that we use to supplement debt payments We have a debt we receive funds for a debt levy from from taxes and that's not enough so the shortfall comes from the special assessments fund and That fund will be about four to five years remaining in that particular As I mentioned it's used to cover shortfall from the tax levy for debt Fiscal year 14 our debt right now is about 30 million now. Keep in mind where we start in 2010 when you and I came on board We're about 64 we're down to about 30 to be optimal in other words for our levy that we take in To be equal to our payments. We need to be at about 24 million By 2018 we got a little ways to go to reduce that debt levy down to where it should be Otherwise we have to raise taxes to make up the rest of that debt levy which again if it was 2015 Would be about four hundred and forty six thousand So to 25 from motor vehicle 446 from special assessments Do you want to get to a microphone Jim We probably have seven hundred thousand dollars worth of exposure in 17 primarily and 18 with those two Going away the motor vehicle fund and special assessments Can you explain the specialist that we're still doing specials it's a special assessment for like the Eisner Avenue project, correct? That's what it is. Well, not just eyes, right, but that's We're continuing to special assess for projects. Yeah, it's going away That's because what we're because we've got 10 to 15 It's like 10 years to pay for people if they want to extend that payment And I mean so that would be coming in and I'm assuming we have other special assessments that are on a similar time frame that we would Still be getting revenue coming in we have roughly excuse me a million and a half dollars in that fund today And what's outstanding for all of the assessments we issued that would be paid over time time excuse me Is about 500,000 so if we don't do any more special assessments today We got roughly two million dollars in the fund and we're burning off about 450 thousand dollars a year to make up the difference and to the debt levy to pay for that Now if we go forward and do more special assessments, we still have to borrow the money So you can see that you know our debt levy will support roughly 24 million dollars We're currently Running about 30 million dollars just on go debt not including Tid cuz hopefully the tid pace for itself Through the tax base. So that's the challenge Once that runs out and we still have over 24 million dollars in debt It says that we have to go out and look at alternative ways to raise revenue or increase taxes to pay for that debt service And if I could just insert We're not being We're not live on TV, but the meeting is being recorded. So if you would put use microphones, that would be great And in today's dollars just for an example three million dollars $80,000 a year Thank you You mentioned looking forward What happened in 12 13 and 14 that we're in this predicament? We are right now that we can't get rid of the garbage. You supposedly we can't get rid of the garbage fee You know, we if we would have had a little pain in 12 13 and 14 maybe to the tune of about $290,000 We wouldn't be faced with this question of whether we're gonna continue it or not and Alderman born I think it's excellent discussion point, but right now. We're just focusing on the slideshow and any questions that Informational type questions. So why don't you hold that for discussion because that's a good place to start Two years the county's not quite sure where they're at whether it be 16 or 17, but depending on whichever one of those years it is There may not be dollars available for capital improvements at least from bonding. We'd have to find another resource for that Violation of expenditure restraints we have to keep in mind I always like to keep this front center with everybody because the thought of just kind of willy-nilly raising taxes is not possible We have this concept called expenditure restraints if we raise our expenditure or spending To a level higher than we're allowed to you we could lose $720,000 of revenue by doing that and what's the percentage this year roughly? Yeah, 1.9 percent for 2014 It's not only situations we can just say we're gonna solve all of this by raising taxes City Hall renovations, of course I Start to come to front of mine There are some issues with this building As you know, we've moved people around we've done some remodeling It's fairly inefficient from a workforce standpoint down to editorial but yet of course, maybe not staffed but mine And there's some structural issues now starting to creep up With the building. So I think the last Estimate we had was somewhere on the four to five million dollar range to bring this building up Would need to be so I think we need to look at you know, what are some of the alternatives that could be For this building and for city hall in general, of course, you all know that we're right in the middle of contract negotiations with our friends from the police unions and next year we go into contract negotiations with our friends from the fire unions and Again, until that carries itself out. I'm not sure where we're gonna be with that Questions on any of those You know don't want to paint the doom and gloom, but I want to paint the picture that We have some issues. So we want to think carefully when we're making a bunch of decisions this year because more future challenges escalation 2016 we estimate about five hundred and thirty six thousand that's salary benefits and a presidential election Which usually costs us about a buck fifty And 2017 again, we just used about a two percent a wage and fringe escalation that's about one hundred thirty thousand So you can see kind of the numbers start to add up pretty close pretty quickly As I mentioned just a second ago one of the limitations we have is with act 10 which did not exist when we did the garbage Act 10 it came in afterwards, of course and what act 10 says it if you had a fee in place it's currently grandpa If you get rid of a fee and want to bring it back other than a wheel tax Then you have to reduce your level levy by the equivalent amount and again It doesn't do us any good We can raise taxes by net new construction or CPI and I think would we get 1.4 so in that one and a half Yes, I did What does what does this have to do with act 10 that was bargaining issues that didn't have anything to do with the budget Yeah, I think the current fee grandfathered Is that was a budget decision that wasn't an act 10 decision. It was a separate decision Act 10 was strictly Bargaining rights. That's all I had to do with It might have been in act 32 but act 32 corrected some of the act 10 things to plug some holes in the budgets where Municipalities were starting to put in fees to raise revenue because they couldn't raise their expenses So they put a limitation in 13 that says whatever fees are in place stay if you put new fees in place Dollar for dollar would come off your levy. I understand that but I didn't think it had anything to do with act 10 That was a whole different issue No, it did so some future considerations because it's not all Oh Let me get to the right side here. There we go future considerations. Obviously can't drive down South Taylor Drive without seeing two massive trains down there So at some point those buildings will come on the tax rolls Along with some other things that are coming. However, we're not sure when and where those are going to come into place So we're gonna have some you know increase in tax revenue due to some new construction. We estimate that'll probably be here in 2017 As a side note because of expenditure restraints that may be a good opportunity to roll the motor vehicle fund into the general fund So that we don't violate the expenditure restraints since we'll have an increase in revenue So Of course combined dispatch You know in 2012 2013 or 2011 and 2012 2013 we've had some surpluses Twelves were highly due to some of the things we're able to do because of act 10 But again, we may be able to fund all over a portion of that from our reserve balances So we don't have to bond for it And again coincidentally We can use that bonded money for capital cap X One of the things this is a side note to this one of the things we can hope and pray for from a city standpoint At least from our bond portfolios that interest rates would go up a little bit. So that would drive some additional revenue there Of course, that would also create an increase in our bond portfolio that our interest expense that we have to pay as well benefit package You know, I'm gonna throw this out right away. I think one of the things we need to be looking at is high deductible health plan 2016 In order to keep some of our benefit costs down So that should be on the radar screen Increasing co-pays and deductibles again, we've been gradually doing that over the last several years And then retiree benefits many of you are aware that the county Made some modifications to their retiree benefits and again, I'm not saying we should do that But certainly something that needs to be taken a look at As every one of the employees in the back already throw something at me But it should be something that's needs that should be looked at So those are some of the future considerations For you get to keep in mind as we go forward so questions on that Oren Thanks Any chance of doing the HSA for 15? I know we're gonna have a presentation or another week or so And I believe some of the employees when they found out that they're gonna be paying 15% on this health plan that we have now actually asked for an HSA so there's still a possibility for 15 There is I would submit that we probably wouldn't recognize significant savings unless we took the whole city to it So but you're right that will be a conversation in salaries and grievances coming up next week A lot of companies go to a two-tiered system of a traditional and HSA option Depending on how it's set up Many employees may not they'll act like to go with the HSA my opinion is it needs to be the only option for an HSA with an appropriate cost share Other options everybody always says what do you got done though here we go other options if we we right now we've got slated $800,000 for capital expenditures for 2015 budget we could just say Many we're gonna take that 800,000 and put it into The general fund and again make the mistake. I mean take the option of funding operations through debt for instance Reduce personnel It was 10 to 12 people depending on where they come from That would you have to be let go We could look at layoffs furloughs in various departments, especially again looking at Have to prioritize people and determine who may be non-essential personnel and look at laying them off Particularly maybe in the winter months As we go forward increase the tax levy Outsourcing of service whether it's I just used the example of parks, but you know again looking at outsourcing of services And hopefully they're being able to reduce headcount that way Or at least being able to achieve some cost savings and put people other places wheel tax Appleton just did this and put in a $20 wheel tax if many of you recall that have been here a while City of Sheboygan also had that However, it has to be in lieu of a special assessments Fund I believe is what the rules are written as which means again Would be able to help but it wouldn't be the sole solution in Appleton in case you're running put in a $20 wheel tax City Hall consolidation You know by Reconfiguring how we do things whether it's in this building other buildings might be able to save again some headcount By just consolidating how we do things and also so maybe some costs and Then with all the new construction that's going on There will certainly be some increase in permitting fees and inspection fees and those types of things from what's going on with our New construction in the city, but again my thinking might be you want to you may want to consider using that towards capital expenditures Or to help pay for combined dispatch. So again, we don't have to borrow for that in 2016 or 2017 So those are just some other options. I'm sure there's others in people's minds as well but that's what We looked at as as other options That's it again just wanted to give an overview of where we are at with the budget I'll answer the questions as it relates to the structure of it or Where we're at? Hi way at the beginning done you had a slide that showed three areas of Looked like an income line or revenue line, but one of them was a hiring of a part-time employee. I didn't understand that We're losing a one of our people in building inspection our clerks Place they were full-time No, they were part-time So there wouldn't be a Well, they weren't included in the original budget we got The assumption was Other questions for Alderman Hammond, would it be the appropriate time for me to ask my question that I asked before about You know a lot of this a lot of this well first of all Why didn't we do anything in 12 13 and 14? Again, it would have been about two hundred and ninety thousand dollars a year That would have been a lot less painless if we would have done it on a yearly basis And now we're at faced with either continuing the garbage fee at eight hundred and sixty nine thousand dollars or Coming up with one of the things you considered reviewing. So I guess my question is Why didn't we do something in 12 13 and 14 as? The people that voted for the garbage fee in the first place were promised I Remember having a discussion with you back before I voted on the garbage fee in the first place Don't worry about a gym go ahead and vote for the garbage fee And we'll make the spending cuts and will wean us off of the garbage fee So we won't need it when we get to 2015. That's my question. Sure. Well as typical. It's a little bit Loaded, but we'll go with it First off that wasn't the way the conversation went but we'll let you have that one, too That was all pre act 10 You know one of the conversations and again was to try to get the garbage fee To the tax levy so that again, it would be part of people's tax bills and act 10 prevented that from happening So as far as cutting expenses, you know We've done a pretty decent job of keeping expenses low If you look at the tax levy when I came on in 2010 versus where it is now it's lower So I don't know that it's fair to say we should have lowered it by 290,000 and certainly didn't see any Thoughts or suggestions or resolutions coming from that side of the desk, but I had several I had several suggestions I pointed out over a year ago the mess we're in with the employee health insurance and up until the 11th hour a couple of weeks ago We didn't even discuss it in salvo grievance, and I don't blame madam chairman for that I I blame leadership on your part and mr. Amorio. I also recommended excuse me Just as a no note just as a point of order When I chair the meeting it really we we need to keep civil a civil tone, and I know that Emotions can run high on these sorts of things, but this this is a Government body, and we will maintain civility or I will adjourn meeting Well, I don't think I'm being uncivil. I'm making just take a breath alderman-born, and let's not be argumentative We are here to discuss and we're here to ask questions, and we can do that in a civil way We can debate in a civil way, but let's not be accusatory So I have made suggestions over the last year. I also I also Recommended taking a look at the fire department first of all taking a look at the financial viability of the ambulance service and that Just to put it bluntly suggestions have not been welcome in fact I've been vilified over the last year for making suggestions, so don't say there weren't suggestions made you have a question I'm born. Yeah, I just like the question please instead of grandstanding. That's I'm not grandstanding Okay, I'm telling you the way it was. This is like talking to my children. I don't think you've heard me All right, everybody take a deep breath Alderman Hammond, why don't you come back up here because I think the questions I think does anybody else have any questions regarding the presentation? Alderman Carlson, it's more of a statement really well then I'm just looking for questions regarding the facts Regarding the material that was presented alright, so if you want to come join me and You have the floor Alderman Carlson Thank You chair madam chair at this point I would just wanted to say at this point we are where we are right now We just need to look forward at as to what we're going to do. There's no point of talking backwards. So at this point We have all the facts in front of us We have the possible options that Alderman Hammond have put in front of us So at this point we should just be once again talking forward. So that's just my general statement Alderman Lassard, would it be an appropriate time to make a suggestion regarding the budget at this point? Absolutely And make sure you use your microphone And this might be a bit lengthy, but so please bear with me I'm hopeful that you've all had the opportunity to read the material that I provided to you I'm also very pleased that finance committee approved the hiring of a part-time clerk for the building inspection department But I'm compelled after research and listening to our constituents as well as department heads to ask my fellow aldermans for your support I would like to amend the budget to also include a part-time building inspector for the period of two years and Upon review at the end of that period to decide if that position would still be needed The report clearly states the need as does our own observances when driving in our city The problem is funding therefore. I bring to you this body the following information I'm giving you approximate figures and if you would like to speak with Chad or Jim I have asked them if they would speak with you regarding this Last year at this time. We had approximately 1209 inspections This is and this particular department brings about a million dollars to the table of which we put about 457,000 into the general fund Now as I do not believe that this department should be considered a revenue generating source I cannot ignore that this year to date We have done approximately 594 inspections compared to last year's Time frame we are drastically behind our average totals, which would also reflect in our 2015 totals from this department Ironically last year they wrote a hundred and eighty nine citations were written during the time frame and this year We've we've written We've had five hundred ninety four inspections and written two hundred and thirteen citations Clearly the problems are getting worse and bigger the average citation is approximately $691 keeping in mind the litigation discussion may take May make it the bottom line be about two hundred and forty dollars per citation It is my belief that with a part-time inspector We'll have the ability to do building inspections concentrating on code enforcement This will not only pay the part-time salary But work on breaking the broken window effect in the city Which we currently suffer from and the downward spirals that accompany it in my research with the municipal court The majority of these citations have been paid in choosing not to approve this additional part-time worker You will see in 2015 the amount of funds generated from that department will be depleted in regards to code enforcement We have been blessed with new construction Which will in the short term will bring in funds none of which can be designated as they are non-specific in short term This is a position that will generate revenue address the needs of the city as well as pay for a part-time salary As there are no benefits a Grade eight inspector costs about twenty one dollars per hour no benefit So it's approximately twenty two thousand dollars a year when you add FICA to that it'll be approximately $25,000 a year. I think we have to look as a council Maintaining the budget is one thing but we have to maintain our city And I'm not the only one when driving around you can see that we are suffering from some Areas that need addressing So I'm asking all of you to support me in this issue and Hopefully that you could approve that we could have a part-time code enforcement officer to keep up with the problems that are Spiraling because of the broken window effect. Thank you other comments points Thank You madam chair I Like a number of people here was Voted in favor of the fee When it when the garbage he came it obviously it was on the garbage fee was a fix a hole in the budget fee But we shoved it down the throats of the citizens of Sheboygan because we could give it a different name and it sounded better But at that time and I remember discussions with a number of alderman this is going to be going away We're not going to have to continue feeding people because I also supported not having the wheel tax. I also voted to alleviate the stormwater fee Okay, because government likes to take in money but basically Once it gets it it doesn't want to give any of that money back So then in in the years that we saw where we had the additional reserves And we decided well, we're gonna be good with that money because we can only spend it on IT roads or whatever and we again and that was a good decision of those earth But maybe at the time and and I'm included maybe I should have just said hey we should hold that money back and Eliminate the fee so quite honestly, I'm not going to support any budget that has that fee attached to it I think we should have done our like Years ago other communities might have done increased the amount of The cost of the benefits to the employees as opposed to what the citizen, you know So it kind of gave it an equal amount of what the citizens were paying other communities like the one I The the thing that I read about Appleton doing something four years ago with their higher deductibles Why didn't we do that four years ago as opposed to talking about it in 2015? I Have I have no idea Again, I wasn't on that committee I didn't look at some of the benefits that we're giving but 80 over 80 percent of our budget is wages and benefits For for our employees So is this is this additional fee that's going to be good Are we going to be changing the name of this fee? Are we going to keep it at the garbage fee or is it going to again be just I'm going to patch a whole fee But I won't be supporting a budget that has that fee with it Other comments Hold them in cop. I'm sorry. Thank you madam chairman Don as far as the if there was a one and a half percent on the tax levy For that half a million dollars and three hundred thousand would come out of the the capital expenditures How much is left? With three hundred thousand taken out instead of the eight hundred Left for what for cap X or for on the deficit order that fun out of the capital expenditures Five hundred dollars right now. We have about eight you mind. We have about eight hundred thousand dollars of Money that we've got earmarked for capital expenditures that the capital improvements committee right now as we speak is putting together their You know plan to spend well, there's two million total well, and then some of that's already earmarked For state projects that were required to do engineering studies and various other things on it So the what we have is eight hundred thousand So that would reduce that amount if we took raised our levy like we talked in finance If you recall and mentioned we you know raising our levy to the half million and then Either reducing the garbage fee or figuring out a different way to make up the 360 or 370,000 certainly could do it from there or just be lost that we have for capital improvements. Well, I In finance that that I mean it's a good option now. I didn't know that was an option at that time But there's still a half million dollars to play with in the event that we would take 300,000 out of out of that fun Just saying And raise taxes yes one and a half times half a million dollars that way everybody one and a half percent not one and a half times This way everyone is on the same playing field It's just the garbage fee is not towards the two families the four families You know the ones with the water meters. It's geared towards everybody So everyone is is I mean that's the businesses The commercial property It's across the board. It's actually that's money than the garbage fee. I Mean people that are paying the garbage fee So half a million dollars no garbage fee half a million dollars on the tax levy and 300,000 out of the capital improvements Mr. Modio So We're gonna fund a budget deficit of $300,000 for capital expense nobody would buy our debt Because it's not safe. They don't have any assets to take so I would not go out and borrow money and Disclose that we're gonna use it for operational issues I Would seriously think that we wouldn't probably get the back up to buy the debt or to support the debt Through investors, but if they did there'd probably be restrictions and then where would you suggest the 300,000? I mean the question is is we've had opportunities over the last three years to balance the budget and to balance the garbage fee and We have not been able as a group to come up with a majority vote on how to handle it So we all sit here today And say okay, how do we do it now? And there's a lot of things we could have said shoulda coulda woulda in the past, but that's water into the bridge Today's the day we're supposed to talk about. Okay. How do we want to approach this? Do we want to continue a fee? Do we want to continue part of a fee? Do we want to do some of the hard things up there with reducing services? Nobody likes that. It's not popular It doesn't win votes, but those are the decisions that this council has to make I Can't sit here and tell you where to take the money from if I can make the sole decision on policy issues I would do that, but that's the call of 16 older persons You collectively have to come up with the solution other comments. Are you sure? Any other questions ideas Concerns Alderman born. Thanks madam chair There was some recommendations up there that mr. Amodio just talked about reducing services reducing people et cetera et cetera Is there gonna be a time between now and October 20th for maybe strategic fiscal planning to meet and see if that committee Sees on anything of the on that on that list is palatable and then refer back to this body You chair that and you Well, first off we you know these are all things that you have been vetted before I mean, I think as a body We need to look at I don't I mean, I don't have any strategic fiscal planning meeting But I think this is the body that needs to determine You know where the priorities are if we're not going to go with the garbage fee, which again that's fine, you know as Alderman Cotts suggestion, which was mine in finance raising the levy and then supplementing the other 350,000 or so 360,000 But where do we cut it from? What is the priority of services that we have? Because of its people What is the priority of services because 350,000 at roughly 60 70,000 a body is five to seven bodies Now strategic fiscal isn't going to make that decision of what is the priority of the council is going to So I mean we certainly can I don't have a problem with calling a meeting But I think you know thought through those options up on the screen. I'm sure it's not an exhaustive list of options If somebody's got some I'm happy to take a look at them and you'll vet them And we'll put some numbers to them and figure it out that you bring it back to the body But Those are a lot of the decisions we have to make. I mean unfortunately Whether we want to look at the past or not, I mean every year over the last five or six years We've had escalation and benefits And we've held the line when we've had three four hundred thousand dollars of escalation in Costs each year and we've still come in relatively flat whether it's levy or expenses So we have been saving 290 plus thousand in fact it's been closer to three fifty four hundred thousand in some cases even more Because of what the department heads have been able to do With their budgets, so my question to the body is if we're going to eliminate the fee Where where does it come from does it come from capital expenditures? Because that's what happened in 07 08 09 They were taking money from capital improvements to fund operations and our roads went down the tubes And now everybody's talking we need to get our roads fixed our roads fixed our roads fixed And now we want to take the very money that we use to fix those roads and put them into operations I'm not saying I wouldn't support that. I'm just saying that's the reality of it This isn't going to be an easy decision ladies and gentlemen Whether it's staying with the garbage fee or Shifting it somehow Something's gonna have to give You know if we get rid of the ambulance or make adjustments to the fire department that's seven hundred thousand more of revenue We have to come up with if we want to raise help or Take it raise benefit cost to the employees that's somewhere to cover the whole garbage fee or at least to cover that's another Seven to nine percentage points. I think it's what every three percent three hundred thousand or so So another three to you know seven to nine percent that our employees would have to bear on top of that when they're Really haven't gotten much in a form of raises over the last ten years not saying it's good or bad, but that's the reality So, you know, those are some of the suggestions. So yes, I'd be happy to have a strategic fiscal planning meeting But this body has to decide what the priorities are Alderman born The reason why I would like some of those vetted by by your committee Don is because I don't want to Be out here on October 20th and have to decide on October 20th without at least getting some recommendations from somebody For three or four things for us to consider with numbers on them I don't think the appropriate time to do it is on October 20th. I believe that's why we're here. I Mean that's the purpose of tonight's meeting so that we can kick around ideas Regarding Just to get a sense of the body as to where we how we are approaching this whether It's essentially looking at that deficit and figuring out how it gets funded Alderman Heidemann. Thank you chairman And I appreciate the opportunity, but one of the things was furloughs and layoffs I don't I can't calculate in my head what each department would have to do per employee Or per department what they'd have to do to make have that make be an effect I'd like to get that information eighty eight hours eighty hours eighty eight hours For every department every employee every employee well then okay now I have some information and what's the cost what's what's the dollar figure there that would be fairly close to the Garbage fee and if okay Well, then I say well, and we raised taxes so then it would be you cut that to three hundred thousand dollars Then what it would be not I Have to calculate it out. I don't see that's what I mean I can't calculate it up, but I have to calculate it up myself tonight Right, but Joe this body needs to provide some guidance if that's what we want to do then we can go back I mean this I think people want to be like Perkins There's a smorgasbord of options and we just start picking and choosing from them We need to have a clear direction because if we do furloughs, which is not a problem or layoffs however we want to do it Where I know but we've done we've had four years to look at this And and again when we went into the adopting the fee the first I thought that's what was the general impression And I had those were the things that we were going to look at and We were going to look at how we're going to be able to get rid of the garbage fee and not have a fee forever Because that's what we're going to name it If we continue to readop fees because it looks like every cycle so then we're going to adopt fee for four years Why don't we just adopt the fee for one year? Why do we need it? Why do we need to have it for four years? Again, I'm just kind of stop the That mechanism I want to be taxed. That's it. I don't want to be feed so I'm willing to pay my property taxes I'm willing to pay the the additional Tax if it's five hundred some thousand dollars, and then let's let's work on the other 300,000. I Agree with you 100% The idea as you recall and for those that you know as as you recall was the reason the garbage was put in for four years that would give us time to get it on to the tax levy and the fee would go away and Obviously act 10 didn't allow us to do that So by doing that we had a blown through our expenditure restraints and lost 720,000 worth of revenue So I don't have a problem in fact again. We've talked about that in finance is This year going to the levy limit and next year going to the levy limit and now all 860,000 70,000 is on the tax levy That certainly is an option Joe or Alderman Heidman TV TV's on that certainly is an option and it was talked about Alderman Carlson, thank you madam chairman I For one would love to see it go on the tax levy. Sadly. We didn't do that out of finance, but we can do that going forward I Think that would be more it would make sense because it does spread it across more. That's one thing Julian I can agree on absolutely In terms of the $300,000 Actually, let me backtrack for a second We keep talking about what should have happened in the last four years and quite frankly it should just stop there have been ideas proposed yes by Multiple other persons on this body. However, this body did not adopt them The point of this meeting once again is to come up with some different ideas because the past ideas that have been presented Have not been palatable to the 16 member body So obviously those table those ideas are off the table and thus we have a drastic change of the council and that hasn't happened yet So if this body can agree on rolling over the the max that we can under the tax levy So four or five hundred thousand dollars find finding the rest of the money. So three hundred three hundred fifty thousand dollars Personally, I don't think Eliminating positions is a good idea in this city. We are already running at the bare minimum We are struggling or in certain departments such as our roads road construction in terms of bodies and money for Construction materials where we're already struggling. We're running at the bare minimum Personally, I don't think we can cut anything from the police department Our police department has been doing a fantastic job last year. We saw a 13% decrease chief in part one crimes And this is due to the work of our officers on the ground His supervisors are police chief They've been doing great things and I don't think that we can cut anything for from the police department fire department Absolutely, we can get rid of the ambulance service. However, that that does not equate to eliminating positions We are already running at the bare minimum in terms of NFPA standards Which is 22 bodies per shift and between vacation leaves sick all that good stuff We are running at about 15 to 16, right chief And that is the minimum standard that we have we have chosen NFPA as a standard that we want to meet We can change that standard, but however once again We're gonna need nine people on this council to do that and it's not the will of the council So where else are we gonna cut from we've got the library Actually when I first came out of this council, I proposed a hundred thousand dollar cut to the library That was not palatable to this council. That is a sacred cow and unless somebody wants to propose it again We're not gonna go after the library. So where are we gonna find this money? We could go after public works, which we I think we're all gonna agree in this room We cannot cut from public works. They've already I don't even know how many people they've cut in the past ten years Dave Over 30 so I don't think that's gonna be an option So once again all these ideas that have been thrown out the past four years to to get rid of the garbage fee They didn't pass so at this point We don't have many options. We truly don't So I for one I'm gonna support rolling over the max we can out of the tax levy And I think a good idea that we a good idea avenue that we should look at is furloughs It doesn't truly affect An entire department at the same time. It's a good way to spread the pain out and that's what I'm gonna that's what I'm gonna support Alderman Bellinger. Did you have your hand up? Yes? Thank you, madam chairman No one's thrilled with the position that we're in right now and the decisions that we have to make moving forward but We do have this issue with the garbage fee and during the finance committee meeting it was debated at great length and There were other options that were discussed too We looked at early retirements. We looked at privatizing the garbage again We looked at I had a conversation with mr. Modio regarding Funding scedc the tune of a hundred thousand dollars and if we're getting our bang for our buck with with that expenditure And and we've looked at everything and frankly with the ramifications and the limitations that act 10 put upon us Maintaining the garbage fee for a period of time Seem to be the best way to go the constituents of this city realize that the infrastructure is in You know saying it's in poor shape would would probably be generous It needs to be addressed in ignoring it in the future You know, they're not gonna stand for it and the Citizens also are accustomed to a level of service and they want that service maintained So what are we gonna do? We've got this this garbage fee and it was my idea at Was just discussions with mr. Modio at the finance committee to take the garbage fee Extend it for a number of years and Start rolling it over into the tax levy In the reason we went with the reason that I suggested four years was I didn't want to roll it into the tax levy this year or in 2015 because it's gonna be the first year that people are gonna see their new tax bills with just being reassessed I've got constituents that have had their properties Inked their assessment go up well over a hundred thousand dollars and they're not sure what that ramifications It's gonna be on their tax bill if we start, you know rolling over fees right away Into the tax levy, you know, that's gonna be an additional hit for them so it was my suggestion that we extend the garbage fee for a number of years and then in starting in 16 starting to roll that over into the tax levy and Then it would sunset in 18 and it would be in the tax levy And and we would be you know good to go from that point on also at the same time Mr. Hammond mentioned that there's some opportunities for Consolidating This building Reducing some positions and there's some other opportunities out there in the future to that that he did mention But they're all long-term Situations or issues and they can't be addressed, you know immediately in effect the budget for 2015 So the two the four to five hundred thousand dollar escalation that we have coming up every year Needs to be addressed and some of those long-term things can do that And I'm not happy with the four to five hundred thousand dollar escalation It needs to be attacked and addressed and I'm certainly willing to look at that But in the short term with the budget cycle that we're on, you know, I think that's the the best way to approach it Alderman Maddachek With the garbage can we modify it could you use your microphone? could we modify it to a bag feed that I believe that it's to reverse that has the purchase of bags or purchase tickets from DPW To have the garbage collected the recycling collected the free could we modify it to something like that or is it? Responding to that. Yes, I don't believe we can and Differ to Alderman McLean. You got a promotion to Attorney McLean That would be a substantial or material modification of the fee and we wouldn't be able to do it Go ahead. And then the other question is what is the condition of the garbage trucks because less I heard There are new there just got new ones Dave do you want to respond to that the question is Whether we are switching over to a one-person truck anytime soon Unique characteristics that doesn't lend itself to the one-man operation given that we're a very dense community About a two-family four-family. We have a lot of alleys as well When we looked at the whole picture continue with Our collection rate Versus the one man we actually would have had an additional truck five Anything else okay Alderman boran thank you madam chair Alderman Hammond could you go over again? Explain that question that Alderman Heidemann asked about furloughs and what that means and then as a follow-up to that What would be the possibility or would it be the same thing if we just reduce the work week from 40 down to 35 hours? first off with the furloughs or the that was my very rough behind the napkin envelope math based off of Approximate head count to be about 88 hours a year That they would have to be Perloader laid off if you will to cover As far as going from 40 to 35 didn't crunch the numbers on that 45 people I Would be a hundred and sixty six plus hours So it'd be a substantial furlough for I'm sorry just so I understand in other words it would be four months Furlough for each employee for non reps for non reps a month. Okay four weeks I just As far as going from 40 to 35 other in crunch the numbers on it, but it's roughly 25 dollars an hour so it'd be $250 You know a week per employee per non rep employee so 120 or so employees Times 250 dollars a week. I think Jim's got us handy dandy Do you want to say what it would be close to? What's the number Jim? And Just just to put in context a furlough is a Pay cut does it also cut the cost of benefits? It's not it's basically unpaid leave It's basically unpaid leave so the employees wouldn't have any accumulation to WRS during that period of time They wouldn't get paid during that period of time. I mean they'd essentially be taking You know 25 hours a week or five hours a week 20 hours a month less, so they would be taking a pick up Okay, is it the pleasure of this body that those figures be? Calculated in more detail along with what the reduction in services would look like in other words Would we go to garbage collection twice a month? would we Close the library One week every month Because we can talk about furloughs, but of course that is a reduction of services as well as a reduction of costs Is it the pleasure of this body that we ask staff to do that? I have a no I beg all to make up. Thank you, madam chairman. I'm wondering if I could get the breakdown if we would do the one and a half times tax levy for that half a million dollars and if we took the 360,000 as far as furloughs and if I could get a breakdown of the days The specific days are just how many hours set of the hours I mean it's 88 hours for every employee, but not every employee would qualify is that my understanding It's only a hundred three hundred twenty five employees. No, that's how many we have in the general fund And why wouldn't it be the three hundred because they have contracts I Thought you said those are the non reps Okay That's makes more sense. All right, okay. Well instead of taking the entire 860,000 if we took the 360,000 what would that amount be and just remember that this is a as well as a reduction in cost is a reduction in service Just so everyone is is clear on that. It's I'm just looking at it's not magical thinking Thinking on the furlough and have one without the other Alderman born. Thanks. I had a very good conversation The other day with chief Ramos and I understand that he has quite a few people retiring in the next I don't know how many he's got do you have any for sure that you know going out January 1st chief? Yeah, yeah At the end of this year Okay, those those those people that are retiring Incidentally from speaking with chief Ramos are all Firefighters. They are not paramedics. So that does not affect the ambulance service at all But the gentlemen that are retiring All in are probably up around $90,000 and Then the replacements if we replace them with new paramedics, which is fine Those gentlemen are gonna come in all in with a family plan of about 70 to 72 thousand dollars That's a figure that I got from Nancy last year So if if chief has got five going out and we got a $20,000 $20,000 savings per new person That's a hundred thousand dollars right there And if it's less it's 60,000 and that would take care of 60 out of the 360. I guess my question is Was the 2015 fire department budget done on the basis of us having up to five guys Retiring that are making 90 in hiring five that are going to be making 70 or a savings of 20 per 20 per employee Jim why don't you just come up and stay up we can bring a chair We can bring a chair for you're closer to the water fountain. So Get an alderman chair at the time. We did the 2014 budget We knew of potentially four people in the fire department So we took those four names pulled them out of the 15 budget and put new hires in for 2015 So that budget's got four people in it of the five At the time we only knew you've done what alderman-born has suggested more of the five because that's all we knew about And you've reduced the reduced the salaries they reduced the budget then of the fire department by Four times 20 that would be 80,000 Well, I don't know if the numbers were 90,000 with benefits or not But whatever they were with benefits and replacing the new ones was the saving in that fund And if you'd like to see the detail we'd be happy to show you. Yeah, I'd like I'd like to see it I'm glad you did that. Yeah, if that's the case because we we are going to be saving About 20,000 per employee of the new ones and maybe more if they don't have a family plan, correct Well, I think this gives us a flavor Dave were you just exercising your fingers or If you want to speak please come up. I couldn't tell you know, it could be it could be the arthritis, you know I Am sure you're right with the furloughs It is going to be a reduction in service if it comes down to productivity and if we're taking You know roughly 80 employees in the public works department and saying we're going to furlough for For two weeks, you know, they already have vacation. They already have PTO time accumulated So you have to take those figures out as non-productive work days are ready Then you're adding potentially another two to three or four weeks of non-productive time It really affects the ability to get the work done in the community So I just want to caution you in terms of when you're thinking of that It really will affect services and the ability to get work done. That's all I had to say Any questions for Dave hang on any questions for Dave? Alderman Carlson not a question for Dave, but it has to do with anybody wait wait wait anybody No, all right very good Alderman Carlson, thank you, madam chair I Guess I should have clarified it a little bit more I didn't say it was ideal or perfect and I understand that it would be a reduction in services But it's not cutting an entire service on that's what I don't think we should do and Maybe it would force departments to find some more efficiencies and that's just my own opinion The other comment to go off of what Dave said is the other batch of employees in the general fund are in this building So it's going to force us to close windows and cut services in this building from collections that we're already doing because the majority of The employees are either in public works or general administration which are in City Hall So I just want to make that clear as well Alderman Boran. Thank you. I Don't totally agree with that Chad. I think furloughs could be staggered at the at the direction of the Department head so I think windows could still stay open, but they could the The furloughs if that's the way we decided to go can be can be staggered to try to keep as many services going For as many hours as possible, but that would be at the discretion of the department head And just just again to say just Reduction furloughs Equals reduction in services just to keep that in mind Alderman Hammond To answer all the person cuts question again. This is behind the envelope math really quick Based off of some assumption to be about two hours a week to get your 360-ish thousand Calculate that in more and more detail, but roughly about two point two hours a week though There's something to Keep note of yes, Alderman bitters. I'm not sure who this Question would go towards but in terms of furloughs Are there any rules about how you furlough people? Is it one? an entire workday for our you know Hey, you got Friday afternoon unpaid. Are there any Requirements of us There would be the department head's discretion as to when those furloughs would happen Based off of service. I don't know Nance Dave Do we have do we have to pay unemployment on those furlough days? Okay, so So that would be you know some of those unintended consequences there like unemployment competent those types of things, but No, it wouldn't have to be a whole day. That's what you're asking. Yeah, I'm just you know It'd be a lot more disruptive to a lot of these services. Okay We just dumped everybody for an entire day. I get that but you know half a day is worth when be nearly as disruptive I'll just point out that the I Think the library was the only city department That did require because of budget cuts. They furloughed employees in order to keep the library open The decision was made to close so Five or six times a year and the at the library advertised it You know, but the whole library was closed. So they were very happy and the Libraries patrons were very happy when the furlough days stopped because those services are important Other comments questions Alderman Lassard I'm understanding all the issues here, but I'm I'm gonna refer back to the people who call me every day And I talked to in the street. I Don't think any of them. I know for a fact none of them want to have any services cut We didn't do what we were supposed to do prior to This year for the garbage fee, but we have For years ahead of us to correct that We have one of the highest tax rate in the state People who live in Brookfield and Elm Grove's taxes are less than ours the people that I have spoken to are not Having an issue with the garbage fee remaining I am not a proponent to cut services or hours to employees that we've already it seems to me that we're stretching them to the max as it Is Services people pay taxes and our high taxes expect services period We just have to make a decision How we're gonna run the city and I'm not going to compromise the services of the people in my district So I am going I am going to be a proponent of extending the garbage fee And that is our next agenda topic, but Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just like to stress my agreement with Older men was hard. I think the garbage fee is a fee. It's a temporary thing Raising the tax levy is a permanent thing. It doesn't go away If we raise it one ever one half percent this year, it stays on there 20 years from now the garbage fee will go away if we Get our house in order here and I think I'm definitely gonna support the garbage fee Anything else regarding the budget? Alderman born. Thanks. I would tend to support what Alderman Cot is supporting is reluctant reluctant as I am to raise taxes. I Think that may be more palatable from talking to my constituents than continuing the garbage fee And I would also agree with Alderman Carlson. I think of some form of Some form of Possibly reducing the hours to fill up that other $360,000. I don't think it would be a real hardship As I said before I think the department has have the have the Discretion of being able to keep the windows open Cross-training people I I would I would suppose a lot of our employees are cross-trained already But in order to make up their the difference There could be more cross-training so that when one employee is off another one can fill in So that would be the way I would be leaning on this I will not support the garbage fee going forward But as I just said I would support the one and a half increase in the tax levy and coming up with some kind of a solution As Alderman Carlson said, thank you Thank you. I have a hard time with furloughs For a lot of reasons but And I I understand it it solves a hole But it's very difficult to manage people for anybody and I don't know how many people in this room I've ever managed people but I've got 47 employees and if I had to try to work around those schedules and for lowing people I'd rather see us take a a stepped approach if the Alderman Coss solution of Moving the tax levy up the half million five hundred thousand and then reducing the garbage fee until We can reduce or roll that eventually into the levy over the next couple of years That way we don't we don't have to val or deal with any reduction in services reductions in furlough days all or Adding furlough days and any of those types of things and it accomplishes. I think getting where most of our constituents are I haven't really heard anything about the fact that there is a garbage fee It's more of that. They don't want it to be on the water bill And I'm saying they're just not people out there that like the garbage we're not but They'd rather see it on if it's going to be there on the tax levy For those that itemized taxes in their minds, so that would be where I'd be coming from With respect to you know solving this this challenge There's clearly no doubt. We need the revenue Especially again considering we can't raise taxes to a levy to a level high enough to deal with the influence or the escalations that are there somebody made a comment earlier about getting rid of somehow we got to reduce these Year after year escalations and it all comes down to head come its bodies Because it's 85 I think it's almost 90% of our our budget is salaries and benefits so it comes down to people We've done a good job over the last four or five years being able to continue keeping the same services that we have While keeping the levy relatively flat And on an adjusted a bait on an adjusted basis actually reducing Because most of our department heads when we've made these increases or had these increases. They've absorbed them somewhere else in their budgets so really just that this point comes down to bodies and How many go and again that's a decision this body's got to make as to which services Need to go to get rid of those bodies so my thinking again going back full circle would be to look at reducing the garbage fee To the net number after raising the tax levy accordingly so Final comment Jim come on up. I Guess my disappointment is I think we laid out a few things here tonight that say 2017 and 18. We've got another $700,000 problem Because of funds that will dry up In addition to escalation that will happen in those years And what's gonna happen in the next month will be the same thing that happened three years ago We dealt with the problem We got three years to fix it. We'll get there and the problems will be bigger in three years Then they were three years ago Because there's nobody that said here What are we gonna do? For the foreseeable future. I think Don did a good job in laying it out And said we have issues how we're gonna deal with those We're focused on a fee We're probably lucky that we had a fee in before act 32 came in to reduce fees or not allow them We have that to our advantage to use to build up what I would call a rainy day fund To take care of the problems we have two and three years out Which says maybe it's that fee and a combination of raising taxes You have to understand that this body has done a good job to be stewards of tax dollars and not raising them for the last five or six years But under act 10 it's actually hurt this city big time Because we didn't have any levy capacity So now we're suffering because of the levy capacity as well as some other issues That quite frankly other municipalities have to say that we've got some structural issues We have to fix those structural issues were there five years ago They're just coming to an end now to say here's the problem so I I Asked you to look at Not down but up and say what do we do to fix 17 and 18? You saw the slides You know what's coming Let's not make like it's not there Let's put something in place today That helps us three and four years out not just plug the hole All right, see no other discussion let us Alderman Lissard I just have him Outside the box question. I've thought about for a long time How much money would we save if we combine some departments move our? City hall to the library and cut a lot of the library funds Since we're going cutting services. Let's just talk about it all So you're asking what what we would save by sure city hall to the library Let's move our city hall to the library. Where would you like to move the library? We'll share Well, no, but the children's room in the adult room. Where would you something we'd have to work on I think Look at can we team we take and move to the library? the golden place Nobody wants to cut anything with the library ever because there's a parade of children that come in no I'm sorry that the library has taken substantial cuts in the last ten years and so has every other department Unfortunately, that's not the case. Well, I just fired police budgets have have increased so Just just for a factual row it out there since it's on people's mind What would we save I am not a proponent of cutting any more staff when we take this edit at a different level These obviously some decisions are gonna have to be made about this building. Yes, and those conversations are ongoing You know many people make comments about You know why you know having we figured these things out in 30 minutes, you know, it's not a sitcom obviously These conversations are, you know, obviously very complex Mary Lynn just eloquently Demonstrated there's emotions on all those sides With those but if we were to realistically combine or consolidate City Hall, whether it's renting a facility building a facility remodeling this facility, you know realistically you probably could reduce some headcount Primarily with administrative staff To what extent I don't know to three bodies. Hopefully you can do it through retirements versus For two three bodies, maybe four. Hopefully you can do it via retirements versus letting them go You know if we moved out of here and we could sell this building, obviously, there would be some benefits there But again, you gotta find a willing buyer that wants to take on this the price So it's a bigger issue than just saying when we're gonna move out, but the quick answer as far as operationally We might be able four or five three four five bodies Alderman was sorry But that all being said that's something that could be looked into in the next three to four years Well, we're hoping to look into it in the next several months Soon but I and I don't want anyone to get me wrong. I don't want to close the library. It's just that it's always We have cut things so tightly with every Area that I'm not a I'm not a fan of furloughs for people I'm just not So I I would like to see us Well, what are we gonna do in four years to get rid of the garbage fee? Well, those could be some of the things relocating combining departments looking at those things To fix the problem moving forward Alderman Carlson. Thank you madam chair This is a question for Mr. Bebel and Jim Mordio in regards to realistically how long would it take to? Possibly get some bids on outsourcing the the parks. I doubt it would be in time for 2014 However, could we get numbers for 2015 to help some long-range planning? Dave do you have a response or Jim we we we explored that Possibility probably about Five years ago got some cost figures back And quite honestly it wasn't cost-effective we use In the summer months when we have grass growing and it's our peak season We use you know summer seasonal help we'll hire college kids and over a little bit over minimum wage And here you go take care of the cutting the weeding the mulching Garbage collection cleaning bathrooms. So during our peak season we supplement a lot of that work In order to go out, I mean we we looked at the grass cutting. We have the number of acres We could go out for bids, but if I recall I think we only had maybe two bidders that bid on on that proposal and again when it was analysis about five years ago It really wasn't cost-effective, but it doesn't say I mean that it can't be done If I may absolutely How much do you think that would change now? I mean you said it was five years ago I don't think it's going to change very much because The nature of the work in that type of equipment There's not a lot of let's say Landscapers that have the large-scale type of equipment necessary to do large acres of mowing as such as we do and again We are ready our cost-effective in the sense of the summer seasonal If we weren't doing that we you know through the years we Eliminated through attrition a number of full-time staff in the parks So it's at a bare minimum of full-time staff and instead of keeping that full-time staff year round for all the summer maintenance We have this large influx of summer seasonal and now when college starts They're on gone in our full-time staff is is back to where it needs to be Thank you, I don't have a question, but I have a just follow And and I had a feeling that wouldn't that was going to be the answer because we went through the same thing with garbage a couple years ago We we are fairly efficient within DPW that was listed and as an option Sounds like it's really not an option. So really our options are are we gonna take it to I mean So to say take it to the employees in terms of other increasing health insurance Which we have already made so much essence for next year. Are we going to not give them raises? Are we? Gonna furlough them once again decreasing their pay. Are we gonna take it to the citizens the taxpayers those really I mean as I see Are the two options on the forefront? So whether we raise the tax levy Keep the fee in place or we go after the employees. I mean it's it's not gonna satisfy any one person So doing a mixture I think is the best approach I don't know how many more things we can look at the privatized because we keep being told that we're doing it fairly efficiently So what else are we really gonna cut or what what are we gonna privatize? so that that's what we need to look at and I don't disagree with Alderman Hammond raising the Tax levy to the point the max that we can reducing the garbage fee But that still doesn't truly address the issue I know we plan on making some more changes with You mentioned HSA is going forward and that's something we need to continue to look at But I would I personally would like to spread out. I guess the pain between the the citizens and The employees of the city. Thanks Alderman born Thanks, madam chair I'm gonna revive something that came up back in 2008 and I think the only one in this room that was probably on the Consulate at that time was probably Alderman Heidemann. In fact As a way to as a way to cut the budget all mayor Perez Gave a directive to the fire chief at that time chief Listoski about cutting his cutting his budget and One thing that chief Listoski came up with at that time was recommended was closing the downtown fire station and I Think that was one of the reasons of what possibly we went into the ambulance business to bring in some more revenue But I remember Alderman Heidemann and I went up to talk to chief Listoski In fact, he invited all of the alderman up there and I think most of us took advantage of it at the time And he said that at the time he showed us a map of the city and where all the fire stations were located And he said for budget reasons if you want to close a fire station It would make the most sense to close the downtown fire station because it's going to have the least Effect on response times now, you know, I guess that's kind of a Statement that I guess what is what is minimum the minimum effect on response times? but that's what he recommended and I talked I think I talked to mr. Amodio about this a couple of years ago and seeing that we have four or five people in the fire department Retiring at the end of the year that are firefighters not paramedics So it's not going to really directly affect the ability to perform the ambulance service And and let's say it just take four of those At about ninety thousand dollars a year all in if we did not rehire anybody Getting those four people off the books and not rehiring at ninety thousand dollars is three hundred and sixty thousand dollars And I believe mr. Amodio told me a year or two ago that if we'd a moth ball the fire station over here Utilities and all the other stuff that goes with it with it. That's another seventy five thousand dollars So total with those four employees and moth balling this building over here and possibly even selling that building who knows That would give us around four hundred and thirty five thousand dollars So that closes the hole the difference between what allerman kath is saying about raising the levy Filling up that other three hundred and whatever thousand it was So that's you know reviving something from back in 2008 and another thing and I'm not even sure if I'm sure chief Remus is probably aware of this, but there are structural concerns with that building over there where I Don't know if they've had anybody in to look at it to see how much it's going to cost to fix it But it's going to be substantial But I know there was a concern already a year or two ago of that floor falling into the basement over there with the Heavy equipment that's stored in there. So this is another consideration These are people that are leaving the city's employment not replace them Close that fire station Save an additional seventy five thousand by moth balling it and we filled we fill that hole with four hundred and thirty five thousand dollars So just something to throw out there for other things to consider that for the other things we're considering Alderman kath. Thank you madam chairman In the event that we would raise the tax levy to a half a million dollars and spread the pain In reference to Alderman Alderman Carlson and I'm also going to take the Lowering the fee the garbage fee if we were to do that we still have to call it the garbage fee. I'm thinking The garbage fee if we do Oh, where am I coming from here? I I'm trying to Not cut the services, you know And if we would spread the pain and even do a furlough even one point one hour a week is still a hundred eighty thousand dollars and That garbage fee would be lowered, but not I just is there a way that we have to call it a garbage fee I Mean can we call it something else or is that written stone that it's got to be called a garbage fee We just call it what it is First off, I mean if you and again attorney McLean can pipe in here. I mean if you materially change it It it's it violates correct Yeah So for the benefit of those that weren't on the council this time, there's been a lot of Comments going around of how it really wasn't a garbage fee was just a feed a plug a hole Keep in mind for those that were here You know, let's put this back in the context We looked at outsourcing garbage and at that point had gotten a quote from Villea advances both or whatever they are now, but I believe it was $12 and 50 cents And we determined at that time by adding the garbage by having a fee for the collection of garbage Now keep in mind all of our garbage people are inside the general fund So that money comes into the general fund and by charging that additional fee We could still keep garbage in-house and do it more effectively and efficiently than it could have been done in the outside So it wasn't a fee just a plug a hole. There was a you know a method to the madness behind it And that was we could do it more efficient efficiently effectively and cheaper even with that Additional fee then it could if we told the taxpayers It's gonna cost you $12 and 50 cents versus the roughly $10 and a quarter or whatever it was We were charging by adding that fee So I just want to clear that up because you know It's great for a political speech to be able to say it was to plug a hole But it wasn't like it was just pulled out of thin air There was a method to that madness When we when we put it in And again, it was that decision. Do we outsource garbage and Use that levy for something else or do we charge that fee and keep garbage? collection inside the city of Sheboygan So Alderman Ballinger, thank you, madam chairman. I've got a couple things. I'd like Alderman Hammond and Mr. Amodio to voice an opinion on What they think of extending the garbage fee for years and rolling it starting After the first year the subsequent three years rolling it into the tax levy in doing that what their opinion is of that what they like or dislike about that and The the discussion that we're having of increasing the tax levy by the max five hundred thousand dollars It's thrown out does anybody in this room have any idea what the mill rate is going to be So somebody who's assessed value on their house is staying the same What does that mean to that person somebody that's gone up a hundred thousand? What does that mean somebody that saw their property value decreased by thirty thousand? What does that mean? Nobody knows what that number is so to sit here in in you know to talk about Increasing, you know tax without having any idea what the ramifications are, you know, you know, I think is You know short-sighted and Irresponsible, I think we if we were going to do that we would have to know what the exact ramifications are going to be And I think there's just too much uncertainty with the recent reevaluation of the properties that went on this year, so You know for that reason, you know, I'm against that certainly this upcoming year, you know And I guess I'd like to know what your opinions are of You know of doing what I suggested sure Mine and Jim and Nancy they can jump in I don't know what their opinions are but my opinion and it's only because we have capacity Would be if we were going to do it that way to start this year Again purely because we have capacity. We don't know what 2016 is going to look like we have rough projections But we don't know what 2016 is going to look like 2017 is going to look like so if we bake in Every year 300,000 of an automatic increase to a levy What if you know again we now have very little room to do anything else? So let's just assume this half million is the amount we can go every year Who knows it could be more could be less dependent on that new construction at CPI Whatever the case may be if 300,000 of that's gone We're back into a corner at least this year. We know we have a half million dollars that we can work with in order to Chop that off then next year. We could go take care of the rest of it or Incrementally if things happen that we aren't expecting You know go out the next at 100,000 a year for three years or whatever the case may be but here this year We have capacity, but we don't know we don't know what the mill rate is. You're absolutely right Yes, we have no idea what the ramifications can be so the law of unintended consequences is huge with that decision all we know is that Overall the levy Would go up by half million Now what that meant to the individual at this point? We don't have that mill rate unless it came in Recently Nance Alderman born when would we have the mill rate? We're gonna have it by the 20th of October when do we Probably not because we have to get high to manufacturing numbers to Are we a state are we? Well, we're talking about the just the city's mill rate I Don't I mean doesn't matter what the good we can't control at the county LTC and the school district is going to do But the city's mill rate is the one I think you're concerned with right correct Would it be better to wait until the first meeting in November to pass the budget rather than the last one October then so We have that number possibly we have until the end of November. I believe To pass a budget Yeah, except all we're concerned is all we have any control over is the city mill rate Not the county or school district or LTC at this point Let's see how that develops That one. We're a little bit at the mercy of a different power on that one. Well once they have to certify There being no further discussion but Alderman feel I'm usually pretty quiet and stuff, but I've never really been a fan of the garbage feet But I came here with an open mind To see if I could hear different options or viable Options. I'm not in favor of cutting any services. I don't believe in doing that But I don't know if I've really heard a better option to be honest with you without cutting services or furloughs or If it isn't pretty creasing the tax fee we still have More to work with it's just I don't know if I've seen a better option. So that's all I wanted to say Now our next agenda topic is the garbage fee So we chew down it a little bit. I don't want to move on if there's anyone who has a final the last gas okay let's move on to item three for discussion and possible action regarding extension of the special charge for residential garbage and refuse disposal services provided by the city through December 31st 2018 and you have on board docs that Particular resolution And Alderman Hammond Do you want to it is your resolution? Would you like to speak to it first? Sure, I mean it was put in an undermined as finance chair But again the conversation that happened in finance was Looking at the budget with the savings many of the same conversations. We just had with respect to how do we cut the or the revenue on the revenue side, so Yes, it's much of the same what we've just talked about We have covered quite a bit of the territory, but Probably at this point a Motion to approve the resolution for discussion purposes would make sense. Is there such a motion? I don't do approve it. Okay. All right, so we have a motion on the floor And a second Darrell Darrell seconded. Do you have a comment? Okay? This was if you recall in a council meeting, I think Alderman borne asked for a resolution to be put in And so they put it under my name as the finance chair, right as from Alderman borne's Request to put in something to extend the garbage fee Now this does appear to be sort of non-organic as far as the budget process goes to single this out for a specific vote although I do think we obviously because of sunset provisions we need to We need to make an extension or it does die But I think is the discussion that we had regarding the budget It really is part and parcel of the whole budget discussion, but is there are other comments regarding the garbage fee at this point? Please note that this particular Resolution provides for an extension through December 31st 2018 Alderman Carlson I think at this point since the our budget discussion up to this point was for discussion only and we don't we weren't able to make any Recommendations to the council. I think it's pertinent to pass I mean you can do as you will, but I will be voted in favor of this So we have something to work with when this does come to council And with that being said madam chair, I do have to I personally have to excuse myself But I would like to take a vote on this. So Is there other discussion just For again more for the new what this is is what we would be doing is recommending approving it to the council So this isn't necessarily the end of it So I just want to make sure that people are aware that this isn't the final All right, see no other hands we will Proceed to a vote all in favor of the resolution actually we should probably do a roll call on this Hi, hi Hi No Ten eyes four knows the motion passes very good our next Business is to Is a closed session I would ask for Very good And we will do that by voice vote all in favor state I Any opposed share both side? We will take we'll come back at five to eight