 We'll call the fifth regular meeting in the common council order. Pat, would you call the roll, please? Bowman? Here. Berg? Here. Bonet? Here. Doyle? Here. Graf? Here. Manny? Here. Montemayor? Here. Moody? Here. Perez? Here. Rinflige? Here. Stefan? Here. And I move that we dispense with the reading of the minutes of the previous common council and the same stand approved and centered on the record. Moved in second that we approved the minutes of the previous council meeting under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Pledge allegiance. Aldermen Berg, would you lead us please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Had the pleasure of being out at Acutee today. I don't know how many of you made it out there, but for the flag raising, Maryland made it. That was awesome. I've got to thank Acutee, the largest flag in the state and the tallest flagpole, I believe it is. So it is very nice to see what a great company would have in this city. Okay, we have several hearings before us this evening. I will go through each one and then if you're wishing to be heard, please step up to the microphone, address what hearing you want to speak on, give us your name and address. First one is established to use district classification of annex property located north of Weeding Creek Road, east of Prairie View Road. Second, proposed assessments for water lateral replacements in south 16th Street from south business drive to 180 feet south. Third, proposed assessments for water lateral replacements in south 15th Street from Broadway Avenue to 300 feet south. Fourth, proposed assessments for water lateral replacements in south business drive from Colorado Court to Union Avenue. Fifth, proposed assessments for water lateral replacements in south Colorado Court from south business drive to 100 feet east. Six, proposed assessments for water lateral replacements in Broadway from south 14th Street to south 19th Street. Number seven is proposed assessments for water main extensions in Broadway from south business drive to 450 feet west of south business drive. Any interested persons wishing to be heard on any of the seven hearings. Any interest of parties wishing to be heard on any of the seven hearings. Alderman Groth. You're now moved that the hearings be closed. Moved in second at hearings be closed under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Public forum, Pat? No. Confirmation. Oh, I'm sorry. Confirmation, Steve? Now, this was brought in at the last council meeting here by submit the following appointment for your consideration, Marie Ellis to be reappointed as city assessor termed to expire June 15, 2008 signed by the mayor. That can be confirmed, Alderman Groth. You're now moved that the appointment be confirmed. Moved in second at appointment be confirmed under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay. Now, public forum. Okay. Trisha Pugo? Excuse me, just a moment. Excuse me, ma'am, just a moment. Alderman Blongerman, you had your light blinking on. Thank you, Your Honor. Sharon Winkle, the director of our library has some comments she'd like to make on the document that she submitted to us. I guess it's a reference. I don't have to attend to hear. But it's, yeah, here it is, document 560, 466, so I believe she's here tonight, so she has some comments. 564. 564. Correct. 564. I appreciate being recognized, so it's early in the agenda, ask for this opportunity to speak because in your agendas you would have received the annual report from the public library for 2002 along with the summary report that is distributed to members of the public. But I realized when I was working on this report as I refer to the situation in the introduction to the report that the library has reached a bit of a milestone in terms of a long-term program or project that the library board and the library staff have been pursuing. And that is to address concerns about the staffing size and per capita support for Mead Public Library. And some of you may not even be familiar with these because they arose just prior to my appointment as a library director and so it would have been in the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, just after I was appointed library director in 1991, two reports were issued that had been commissioned at the request of the city by the library board at the request of the common counsel and the mayor that talked about the resources available to Mead Public Library and the services that resulted for the citizenry. And both of those reports concluded that the services available were in keeping with the resources that the common counsel was investing in its library. But there still was a feeling that perhaps that level of support was too high. It wasn't warranted in the community. And so the library board and the library staff embarked on a long-term program of reducing the staff size while continuing to provide the level of services to the community that one would expect to receive in a community of this size. And the board and staff did that through attrition. I'm sorry. But everybody here can hear me, right? Okay. All right. I hope the people watching elsewhere can too now. So the library board embarked on a program of reducing the staff size, which as you know for a service agency is really the highest percentage of the cost, through attrition. In other words, looking at natural turnover in staff through retirement, through people resigning to take positions elsewhere, carefully examining each and every one of those opportunities and in many cases eliminating those positions. You might say, well, so what, you know, everybody does that now. But 10 years ago, it was not quite as usual for that to happen. So the opportunity that came up is my realizing that we've got 10 years of data for you. And so we're reporting on the results after 10 years of that program. Because the 2001 data is the most current data that's been certified, if you will, by the State, Wisconsin State Department that's responsible for this. I won't take a lot of your time. You have this in front of you. But just briefly, the top group of information relates to libraries that are considered to be comparable to Mead Public Library in Shimbuwegan. These were libraries that were included in the two studies that I mentioned to you that were completed in late 80s, early 1990s. And you can see that the leftmost column gives 2001 staff size in full-time equivalents. And then the next column shows the percentage of that to the Shimbuwegan staff size for each of the communities. And then we show the 1991 data. And when you look at the bolded information for Shimbuwegan, you can see that it really did have a relatively large staff compared to the other libraries. And so you can see why some attention might have been given to that. And again, we have percentage figures. And then the rightmost column shows the change internal to each municipality in terms of changes in staff size. And you can see that as of 2001, Shimbuwegan's Mead Public Library reduced its staff by over 20%. And when you look at the figure that's current for 2002, which is given in a note at the bottom of the page, that FTE full-time equivalent staffing represents a 25% reduction in staff, including 30% in management staff over that 10-year period. Again all through attrition. And again, I think while maintaining a high level of service to the citizenry and implementing advanced state-of-the-art methods of delivering that service. And then, of course, municipal support per capita. What we're doing here is comparing that with other Shimbuwegan County libraries because one of the things that was said about Mead Public Library in the period of about 10 years ago was that it was the highest-funded library in the state of Wisconsin. And at one time it was. You can see that it's not the highest-funded library in Shimbuwegan County now, let alone the state of Wisconsin. So again, I think we have achieved what the Common Council has been looking for through very careful use of resources while continuing to provide a high level of service. And I understand if there are any questions about this that they could be discussed at the Finance Committee meeting because this document's being referred to the Finance Committee. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Now, public forum. Okay. Trisha Pugel. You'll have five minutes. Trisha. Mayor Schramm, Council members, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is Trisha Pugel. I'm the President and CEO of the Wisconsin Innkeepers Association. The Wisconsin Innkeepers Association represents over 1,150 hotels, motels, resorts, inns, and bed and breakfast throughout the state of Wisconsin. And we also are based in over 300 cities, villages, and towns throughout the state. So we have a number of perspectives on the local level as well as the state level. First of all, we'd like to commend this Council for proposing and objectively, emphasis on objectively, considering a common sense solution to a problem that is challenged and perhaps divided your community as it has for many others around the state. I've added to you a written outline of some of the comments I wish to share with you, and I'd like to elaborate on a few of them. First one is the value of tourism to a community. As you can imagine, tourists, when they come to an area, they spend money on gas. They go to attractions in the area. They spend a lot of money on shopping. Actually, 30% of the revenue that comes into tourism is from shopping. Whether it's restaurant, whether it's at a grocery store, and then of course lodging. Lodging represents only 13% of the total pie of tourism, which a lot of people are not aware of. I did look it up in Sheboygan County in 2002, generated $267 million from tourism expenditures in your county. That is the ninth largest in the state. So tourism is big in your area, and it has been documented by the State Department of Tourism through an independent study. As far as the history of room tax, many people do question why room tax is put on lodging, just one part of the pie. Again, as I said, only 13% of the overall tourism revenue. Many people describe lodging as the pure part of tourism, that it is because people that stay overnight are 100% tourists, whereas if you were to involve restaurants, they have a lot of local residents that are also enjoying restaurants and food, and same with the other parts of the overall tourism pie. Lodging is many times considered the barometer of tourism promotional success, and that's why it's measured, the occupancy, and other components of it. I'd also like to give you an idea of what the intent of room tax was when it was first created. It was first created as a way for tourists to help fund direct services that only they receive from a community so that the community did not have to bear the costs by themselves. So that was the goal of it. As far as the services that were provided to a community purely for the community, they were to be funded by the local community itself. One of the other things that is not real clear is that room tax is not a tax on the community's residents. It is on the out of town guests at a lodging facility, non-residents, and it's collected by the property. Where property tax is paid by residents and spent by their elected officials, room tax is paid by non-residents and would best be spent by a group that can market to them, provide information to them that does this as part of their career. As far as some of the challenges that we're seeing around the state for room tax, the first is the misunderstanding of what tourism promotion and development is by those who are not directly working in the tourism industry. Basically, it is intended to focus on marketing and special projects that attract travelers for overnight stays, which in turn generates the most revenue into the community. Focuses on overnight stays again because those people tend to purchase more locally and food and beverage and everything else that's involved in it. The second challenge is confusion over room tax, revenue being utilized to fund projects and events that benefit residents versus those that attract tourists, overnight guests again who pay room tax. Some of the problems that we're seeing around the state have to do with again the benefiting the residents who are taxed separately, such things as fireworks, local parades, police protection for resident events, etc. Those are all some of the confusion that people are having and approving different expenditures from room tax revenue that is supposed to go to tourism promotion and development. In general, room tax expenditures are supposed to be goal-driven with the goal being to generate tourism and high expenses in their community. How can you resolve this, basically what is being proposed to you this evening from my understanding and that would be to create a room tax commission comprised primarily of those who collect the revenue from their customers. That would be the lodging properties of those who understand tourism marketing and how it benefits the local economy, plus an individual from the Common Council and another individual of the mayor's choice. Should there be a timing issue with this ordinance that you may? Thank you. Dennis Ladwig? Good evening, Mayor, Council members, city staff and interested citizens. My name is Dennis Ladwig. I'm the 2003 president of the Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce. We all want Sheboygan to grow, develop and stay competitive and continue to be a great place to live, work, and play, and I might add go to school. Sometimes we allow certain issues to get in the way of our continuous efforts to grow, develop, and stay competitive as a community, issues like creating a tourism commission to oversee room tax revenue. Speaking on behalf of the Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce, we believe that the current arrangement and partnership with the city of Sheboygan and the chambers and visitors Bureau advisory board should continue without adding a separate tourism commission. Now the benefits of the current city partnership with the chamber are it has been successful. Promotion has led to more tourism, increased website hits, legally more room tax revenue. Citizens as well as chamber members can serve on the Convention and Visitors Bureau advisory board to plan, develop, gather input on advertising and promotional events as well as to measure and provide accountability. Hotel, motel owners and representatives do serve on the Convention and Visitors Bureau advisory board so it functions like a commission. The Convention and Visitors Bureau also consists of individuals who are experts in advertising promotion and accountability. Here's some data. Tourism has grown 100% in the last five years in Sheboygan. Inquiries per year amount to 19,600. Website hits have increased 20% over last year and 12% alone between January and April of 2003. There is ongoing city Sheboygan and chamber communication and accountability in the present arrangement. So in conclusion, Sheboygan is a great place to live, work and play and go to school. An existing partnership already exists between the chamber to provide and the city to provide advertising promotion accountability. Hotel and motel owners have that opportunity to serve on the advisory board and do. So we recommend that you continue to support the existing city Sheboygan contract with the chamber in providing accountability of room tax revenues. Thank you very much. D. Olson. Hi. I'm D. Olson, the executive director for the Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce and the Convention Visitors Bureau. Good evening, Mayor Shram and members of the council. First let me extend an invitation for you to attend the Sheboygan brought day in Madison on June 18th. My Cots or Mary Rager have the details on this event coming up and they could provide you with a flyer if they have not already done so. It's a great opportunity for us to interact with our legislators in Madison and strengthen the posture of Sheboygan in that arena. Tonight, however, I'm here because I came to our attention that a resolution was being brought forward to establish a tourism commission. The Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce entered into a good faith legal room tax contract with the city of Sheboygan March 2003. The chamber believes that contract through 2005 is withstanding and that the formation of a tourism commission could be in violation of that contract as the tourism commission would be at liberty to oversee room tax collections, contracts, expenditures, and they will contract with one entity. That contract would no longer therefore be between the chamber CVB and the city of Sheboygan. The contract that already exists with the city of Sheboygan was executed through this common council. The chamber has been told that we are doing a great job and our tourism marketing efforts are effective by many, including the hotel years, the local bed and breakfast, and the city. In fact, we have continued to grow tourism and doubled our tourism expenditures in five years. We have grown tourism under the new agreement and will continue to have a tremendous positive impact on the tourism economy here in Sheboygan. It is our understanding that a commission as set forth by state statutes is an autonomous group from the city council. It is the chamber's understanding that a tourism commission usurps the authority of the city council, an elected body already responsible for overseeing taxation under state law. We believe the creation of a tourism commission provides a new mechanism for controlling room tax collection and spending. According to the Wisconsin Association of CVBs, only two cities in the entire state of Wisconsin have a tourism commission. If this is the best means of tourism promotion, then we might have expected that there would be more commissions. Rather than having elected officials carry on responsibility, it is elected for, it would be turning over that authority to the tourism commission losing all oversight. This could only be influenced then through the mayoral appointment process. There is representation here from the Friends, the Sheboygan Development Corporation, to talk about the impact this change will have for the Blue Harbor Resort and Convention Center. In Saturday, Sheboygan Press, the article said the notice of claim could jeopardize the Blue Harbor. But so may a tourism commission. The Chamber and its Convention Visitors Bureau are here to ensure that tourism promotion works for our community. We continue to believe that maintaining the room tax agreement with the city of Sheboygan is an effective means of reaching the common end. At the time the current contract was under discussion, a tourism commission was talked about then and dismissed at that time. The city instead chose to engage another contract with the Chamber revised. It would only be at the will of this council that our existing contract could be breached. The Sheboygan Chamber of Commerce and the CVB want to go about the serious business of tourism promotion without having to confront ongoing diversions from our work. To conclude, the Chamber would encourage caution by the common council at this critical juncture. After all, we are, you are the elected officials that hold the ability and the authority to represent the intentions of the room tax dollars authorized by Wisconsin Statute as a tax immunicipality. Thank you. Mike, move. Is there any chance that I could offer a comment after a letter that the mayor had received? And I think we've had these important for everybody to understand. Can I reserve my statement to the lack of the community raised by that letter? I see. The hearing will be closed. The hearings will be closed. No, the public forum. Yeah, the public forum is closed. When the last person speaks, the public forum is closed and then you cannot speak after that? No. If you want to be the last speaker, I can let you do that. If you want to speak, Mike, we need you at the microphone. I think you can hear me. Not the TV audience. I'm sorry. I don't understand this. This is probably the most important thing that's happened in this community in 100 years. And we can screw it up. We can create commissions. We can create whatever we need to screw it up. Please don't do this. It's two and a half years into making. Just people behind the scenes who've tried as hard as they can possibly can and invested money to do this. If we want to find a way to screw it up, we can do it. I promise you we can do it. I'm 60 years old, okay? And I've been doing, just living in Shepparton County and love every minute of it. We have a chance to do something special here now and we can screw it up. Give a commission. Give three people who want to do it a new commission. They'll get it. That's fine. We can slow it down. If you want to, if we want to, create a block for the people who are willing to invest great, you know the numbers of money in this community, we can thwart that. We can make it not happen. I have a speech that I was gonna say. And I'm gonna say it now because I wanted to, I wanted to have the letter read that the mayor received today and it was, it was a statement by Great Lakes that if you create this commission, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. It may be the right thing to do. It'll kill a deal. It'll kill a deal. Now we can either find a way to get a ton or find a way not to get a ton. Gary Maples. Mr. Mayor, honorable council members, my name is Gary Maples. I'm, professionally, I'm the president of the MNI Bank in Sheboygan and on a community endeavor last year I was the president of the Chamber of Commerce. I was president of the chamber at the time the present room tax contract was negotiated between the city and the chamber. And I can assure you as that part of that process, the chamber executive board and the visitors and convention bureau took a very close and solid look at how is the city spending room tax money. And it was also our very solid determination that the city expenditures were fair, appropriate, and did in fact promote tourism. Tourism commissions in part were designed for large metro areas where there were many municipalities and rather than having five or six metro municipalities all doing a tourism effort, the idea of a tourism commission was to be a broad body to work together. That situation doesn't exist here. And consequently, I see no crying need to establish a tourism commission. Thank you very much. It's closed. Okay. That's it. Thank you. I did receive a letter today. First of all, just a reminder, I know the press quoted me and I was on the radio that I was the only one that opposed this commission. Well, when I read this letter, you'll find out one of the reasons. Couple of reasons, not saying opposed, couple of reasons that I feel that we have a good working relationship with the Chamber of Commerce is we just voted for that new contract with Chamber of Commerce and it meets all the legal requirements by state and the Chamber does do a fine job for us. And if you remember April 14th, we just voted on a new agreement with Blue Harbor Resort. So with that, I was asked to read this letter and Steve, if you'd pass them out, I made copies for all the council people. Tom say there is here from Great Lakes. We may need, I didn't make enough copies for everyone. So if someone wants extra copies, we can make them later. The media should have a copy, I believe. No, make sure to all of them and get them first and then news media. Otherwise Mike can make a few more. The letter states, dear Mr. Mayor, it has come to our attention that there will be discussion tonight at the council, city council regarding the possible establishment of a commission that would take away the control from the city regarding the use of occupancy taxes. Please understand that this establishment of such a commission would terminate the Blue Harbor Resort project. Even if it were the intention of such a commission to honor the current development agreement with the city, the timing of Blue Harbor project is such that there is no way that all the required legal work associated with such a dynamic change in policy could be accomplished in time to accommodate the financing of this project. We believe that Blue Harbor Resort project is very positive for the city. And based on the support that this council has given Blue Harbor, thus far it is clear that this council agrees. Once again, please understand that the establishment of such a commission would terminate the Blue Harbor Resort project. As you know, we're a poise to start construction very soon. We hope that you will have the opportunity to do so. Sincerely, Great Lakes Company. You all have a copy of that. Alderman Graf, excuse me. Alderman Graf. Thank you, Your Honor. Based on the hearings or the form that was held and the information just presented to us, I'm very concerned about this project and I wanna see it done. According to the article in the press, the people that brought in this resolution or general ordinance, excuse me, also said they didn't wanna stop this project. Well, based on this letter, that's what we're going to be there for at this time, I would move that documents 543 through 547, which are various letters from various establishments that were supposed to be referred to finance regarding this room tax and document 576, all be filed. It's been moved in second under discussion. Alderman Montemayor. Under discussion. Oh, excuse me, go ahead. I just wanna, I'm doing this for several reasons, including the fact that I said I wanna see the project succeed and work. And I believe that this is a long time to be bringing this back in. We do have this contract with the chamber. I wasn't on this council when it was approved, but I believe two years from now or three years whenever this contract is over, maybe that's the time we should look at a commission, but right now there are too many things tied to the room tax that are needed for room harbor. Also, like I said before, the people bringing in the document mentioned that they didn't wanna stop this project. Well, like I said, based on this letter, it looks like they are. And then also, if they so choose right now to withdraw this document, I would let that happen, grab them, have my motion to file B, accept it. Thank you, Alderman Montemayor. Thank you, Mayor, for recognizing me. Is Michael Cohen-Hagan here this evening? Because I simply, is it, what would stop us? What would cause it to stop? What don't I understand? Good question. Tom Sather is here and he can explain that. He's from Great Lakes. Would you like that? Oh, yes, please. I would like to know why this would stop. Could we open up the floor? Open up the floor for discussion. All in favor? Aye. Oles, motion carried. Thank you. Tom, stay through the Great Lakes companies. I'll answer your question as best I can. My understanding in talking with Mike Connie and our finance director and Michael Schroeder, our house council, is that the master document that we've all been working on for so many months now, the developer agreement, authorizes the city to use occupancy taxes to fund the development of the city convention center, among other things. And that the belief is that the establishment of this commission, because it would give them the power to direct the use of bed taxes, either would or could render the development agreement void. And even if the intention of all parties was to honor this development agreement, that there would be sufficient amount of legal documentation that it would take a pretty long time to get figured out. And as everyone in this room knows, I believe, we are very, very close to starting the center, ready to start. And as a resort, we have to be open for next summer. We have to be open for the PGA. If we're still standing here, weeks from now, this project won't happen. That's probably the best explanation I can give you, unless you have more specific questions. Go ahead Alderman. The possibility that the commission would have the power to usurp the council's power is what you're afraid of. I believe that's the case. Now, have you checked that that actually possibly could happen? All I can tell you is I was advised that that was a very, very problematic issue by our finance director and by our in-house legal counsel. Because of course, the purpose of having the commission, our purpose was to make it smoother for Blue Harbor. So there wouldn't be any little cricks and cringles coming up to stop us. And what I believe is that the biggest issue is one of time. I don't know that the issue itself is a big deal either way. I mean, if things can be sorted out, perhaps a commission can work out just fine. I don't know. The problem is that we're scheduled to start now. And this will surely throw additional delays into the project. How about the little screwdriver in the motor of the little lawsuit? That's what we're trying to avoid. Yeah, all I can tell you is who I did already tonight as far as that. That's the depth of knowledge I have in this issue. Thank you. Thank you so much. Alderman Prez. Thank you, honor. If you would please, I have a question for you. I guess there are some very heavy, heavy assumptions being made here. One of them is the sponsors of this legislation here or anti South Pier. It's getting to be an old story. It's getting to- Would you address the front, please? Pardon me? Would you address the front, please, when you speak? Then we can hear. Address the front. I will. I address everybody that's listening. No, sir, Alderman Prez. I'm sorry. Please address the front. Yes, sir. Thank you, your Honor. Two and a half months ago, you were asked if I- Alderman Prez, please address the chair when you speak. I'm sorry, sir. I didn't understand you. I thought you said to address the front. No, address the chair when you speak. I'm sorry. Okay. I was going to address Mr. Sather, though. We've done that before. Will we speak to him? Is that okay? Sir, but go ahead. Thank you, your Honor. Okay. Thank you. Two and a half months ago, I believe you were asked if financing was ready and you said if we don't do it, if the council doesn't approve this project, it'll die and we'll be going back and forth. I, for one, don't want this project to die, okay? I believe in it, although some people question the fact that I do, but I really do. I guess I'm a little concerned here, and thank you, that's it. But I guess I'm a little concerned, your Honor, that we are moving, again, pretty fast, killing, filing an ordinance that's being proposed and certainly in the process again. We're doing it in the floor of the council meeting here without having it referred to finance. I don't know that it's gonna be approved. I don't know that it isn't. At least we should let it go through the process. I know that last week, the Great Lakes Company was held back again because they didn't have colored prints. So that's a delay too. I mean, we've got delays going on all the time. This is not intended to be a delay. This is not intended to be a delay. This is intended to do other things. I was gonna say my comments for the finance committee. And I will. And I hope that it is referred to the finance committee as all other documents are. Thank you. And again, my apologies for not understanding what you said. Okay. Alderman. Stefan. Thank you, your Honor. As I serve on finance, I had a few questions that I guess I want to ask them and I don't know if I'm good or not on Thursday. I guess, and I don't, for me personally, I don't think anybody who brought this in necessarily was against the South Pier. My questions on the commission that kind of puzzled me were, let's just say we formed the commission tonight next week. Whenever we formed the commission, we put the people on. Nobody says that we're gonna agree. Anybody's gonna agree with their interpretation of what's tourism and what isn't. You know what I mean? That's the real, I mean, we've been here for three years now, I think. And the real interpretation is, you know, what is tourism? What promotes tourism? If you're not staying overnight, is that tourism? Is it police protection on the 4th of July? Is that tourism promotion? That's the question here. We're not talking about, I mean, with all due respect, it's an issue of the South Pier issue, but that's what the commission, you know, we've been back and forth. The council's been comfortable. Three or four votes we've had. We had a commission, or not a commission, an advisory council with the people. We had, you know, the approval with the chamber. It's come up a few times, so I don't have a problem discussing it tonight and getting rid of it, it's not an issue in my book and I haven't been here that long. But I don't see any, any, and maybe the proponents of this or the lawyer could tell me, we could very conceivably form this commission. And two years from now, somebody could be standing up here saying, I don't like the way the commission defines tourism promotion. Just like they're saying, you don't like the way we do it. There's nothing that says, just because you form a commission, you're gonna agree with those three people just because they're tour, you know, somebody, the caller company might come here and say, well, we don't think everybody's gotta be staying in a bed overnight to be tourism and we're promoting our golf course for day trips to Chicago and whatever. Isn't that tourism promotion? And they might say, no, if your head's not in a bed at night, it's not tourism promotion. There's no guarantee that just because you form this commission, I don't think we're any further ahead in our interpretation of what is tourism promotion and what isn't. And I guess that's one question I have. And the other one is, you know, everybody's afraid of this big lawsuit, but what's the downside? We lose the lawsuit. We're not giving up a million dollars to anybody. I didn't see anything in here. They're gonna tell us, hey, you're using the room tax commission wrong. We feel you should use it this way. Okay, point proven, the judge says we'll use it that way. Can't use it any more the way we're using it. There's no, you know, there's no penalties that I saw. You know, maybe back, you know, we might have to, some of the uses they didn't like, we might have to, you know, a minimal amount of money readjusted or whatever, but it's not a penalty thing. It's if a judge decides, you know, they quoted Steve McLean as saying, well, you know, maybe this one instance, some judge could say that's not tourism promotion. Some judge can say anything. You know what I mean? I don't see a downside for us to let it go because, you know, somebody else can decide what it is. Fine, we'll live by it. If they say it's okay, we'll continue to do it. Like we think we're right. The majority of the council has thought we're right the last few years. If the judge says you can't use it that way, we'll change it, adjust and do what's legal. Now on the other side, you know, like I said, I just don't think for me commission, we're not guaranteed that it's gonna be any different. You know, the same people could be standing here at the same time telling us, hey, you know what? The commission doesn't have the right interpretation of what tourism promotion is. So that's the one reason that I don't get to explain the commission is because I don't think it gets us any further down the road. Thank you. Alderman Rainfush. Thank you, Your Honor. I was working on a speech that I was going to give to the finance committee, but I think with the issue at hand, we'll go with that today and I'll speak directly to Tom in a moment too, if that's okay. The reason for establishing this commission we find are really threefold. First, we are seeking to make the decision-making processes regarding the collection and expenditure of the room taxes more efficient and streamlined. It has been said recently that negotiations of large importance and magnitude are best made by a handful of experts. We agree with that. This is why committees, advisory boards, and commissions are established within the framework of city government. For example, the duties of the city planning commission could theoretically be done by the mayor and the council. However, it is obviously a better use of our resources to allow our experts to act within the commission. While some may see this as adding a new level of bureaucracy, we see it as making government more efficient by allowing the mayor and the council to focus on other matters, if you will. Second, we have been collecting room taxes for some time now and soon with the addition of the Blue Harbor Resort, the amount of taxes received will be even greater. However, the lodging industry, which is most affected by the room taxes, does not have a direct say in how these funds are spent. Think about this for a moment. The city puts local businesses and an 8% competitive disadvantages with hotels and inns that are located in the county, the townships, and other municipalities in the area. It does not wish to have their input. As business owners and managers, they have invested their money, they've invested their time, they've invested their energy into helping our local economy. I think creating commission for their input is the fair and the right thing to do. If not, we are sending a clear message to new lodging businesses thinking of locating here that it may be better to locate outside our city limits. Third, and finally, what we're talking about here with the Room Tax Commission is we feel we're actually ensuring our investment in the Blue Harbor project. We have gone on record of voting for the most recent version of the agreement on May 14th. We're proud of Sheboygan and the proposed project I want to see it go through. We know that we must invest now for the future health of our local economy, but the dark shadows of this notice of climate and perhaps others in the future hang over our latest agreement. We've already made some changes, specifically moving the promenade to the TIF district, but I think the most contentious issue that we're facing has been ignored that of the Room Tax Commission. It is not a tourism commission. We don't seek to establish a new tourism marketing entity. We simply seek to establish the Room Tax Commission as per state code so that we can contract with tourism entities like the Chamber of Commerce and continue doing business as we have been doing in the past. At a time of budget issues, we also feel that an unpaid commission will cost the taxpayers far less than the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars it will take to defend the city and the project in a lawsuit, win or lose. I urge the council to examine closely the document. I would urge it to go to finance committee for discussion, for public forum. If it doesn't make it out of finance committee, we've made our decision. That's why we have committee structured this way. But I would hate to jump the gun and kill it before we have the process in place that the committee makes recommendation back to the council on this and with public input as well. I hope that we will all see that we can have the Room Tax Commission and the Blue Harbor Resort and Conference Center too. In fact, I think we may need the commission just to keep our project protected for many future lawsuits. Thank you. Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you, Ron. My first question will be for the city attorney. If this commission would be created, would the council have the final say on any decision that they would make? No. No, they would not? No, the commission would. Okay, thank you. And also for time, if this would go to committee, would that delay, delay Blue Harbor at all if it would go to committee? Or to depend on what committee would say? When would it go to committee? Wednesday? I can't tell you for sure. I know that right now, our legal counselor, our investment advisors are putting the finishing touches on the documentation that's needed to go out and raise the money on the equity side to the project. And they wanted to have that wrapped up on Thursday. So it sounds to me like it would, but I can't tell you for sure. Probably be scheduled, or the first time it could be scheduled is the 23rd of June. It would definitely affect the project severely. Thank you, Your Honor. While understanding the intent of the resolution, and appreciating that desire for input from the whole public and all those involved, I think the timing issue with a contract currently in place is the priority issue to be concerned with, and therefore I oppose the presentation as before us. All in favor, thank you, Your Honor. We are under contract, we're in contract with the chamber, correct? To a 2005? Then why don't we honor that contract that we have with the chamber? Quit all the hassles and arguing. Get the project done once and for all. And in 205, let them come back. If they want to form a commission, let's do it. Not like Mr. Moot said, one little thing is going to screw up this whole project. Thank you, all in order. Well, thank you, Your Honor. Tom, you may sit down. I'm sorry, Tom. Oh, thank you very much. Thank you, Your Honor. I actually have a question for the city attorney. I guess, Steve, I would like to know, in your opinion, is the process that we are currently using legal and is the process we anticipate using with the South Pier project legal? Just yes or no? Yes, on both of those. That's what I thought. I guess, when I read this document Saturday morning, I became a bit concerned. The first question I had is, why would somebody want to kill this project? And I know that Mr. Ryan Flesch and Ms. Montemay all agree that this project should go forward. But when I read this, that's not what I saw happening. If on one hand you say you support it and then the other your actions say differently, what gives? Somewhere along the line, I'd like to know. Well, we have heard tonight that this will kill the project. Think about financing with something like this hanging over a cloud when you're looking at 28 million for one phase and another 10 for another or more. We the common council were elected by the residents of the city of Shibuya to represent their best interests. One of the responsibilities we have is collection and distribution of local tax dollars. Why? Because we are the persons that remain by virtue of our position, accountable to the electors and the voters of our city. This is part of our jobs, folks, plain and simple. And our responsibility extends beyond just property taxes. It extends even to room tax dollars, which like it or not, belong to the people. Without the city, there would be no room tax money, period. And that's pretty clear, even in estate statutes. We the common council are the link between the people and their government and we should not take lightly any attempt to usurp the taxpayer's right to be represented in a fair and equitable manner. And if we give away our responsibility in this instance, I believe we will be doing just that. We have a contract with the convention and visitors bureau to advertise and promote our fine city. And I think it has been very effective in doing its job promoting the entire city of Shibuya, not just one small part. The city through this common council is also effectively protecting the rights of the people to representative government in the most basic of all of its functions taxes. I think we need to cut the chaff and cut it now. It is perfectly clear that this is about nothing but money. Who controls it, how it is used for the special interest of a few or for the entire city of Shibuya and all of its businesses and local interests. The elected legal council of the city of Shibuya, city attorney Steve McLean has made it clear. We are operating legally. We have a contract with the tried and true convention and visitors bureau. Imagine that convention and visitors. Two words that spell the key to the success of the Blue Harbor project. My fellow council members, it is our responsibility and our obligation to maintain the connection between government, taxes and the people. I for one do not support taking away the right of our citizens to such a basic American principle as representative government. And I believe this document will do just that. I will support filing and I urge you all to do so. Thank you. Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you, your honor. Um, I just wanted to say that I don't think it was anybody's intention to screw up this project. And I believe I agree with Alderman Berg that we should look at this in 2005 when the chamber's contract is up. Thank you. Okay, if there's another discussion, you call her roll. Oh, sorry, Alderman, brain flash. I have a question for Steve as well. Worst case scenario, if the lawsuit does proceed after the no-suclaim determination that time frame is up, can the project be stopped down the road or are we liable for reimbursing the misuse of room taxes if another court decides that's the case? Sorry, Alderman, brain flash. I didn't hear your full question. Basically, what is our liability if they proceed with the lawsuit and they hire a court for this? The claimants on the claim? Or other ones down the road that may arise if can they stop the project in construction phase? Would the city be responsible if a court finds us our misuse of funds down the road? Are we responsible for paying that back? What's our liability? Well, that's kind of an open-ended question. As far as stopping the development of the hotel project, I don't see how that development of the project impacts the city's expenditure of room tax dollars. The issue would be is once, and it wouldn't be part of the lawsuit, it would be how once you start collecting room tax from that project, what's the appropriate way to use those funds? You use them for the convention center to pay off the debt. That would be an issue if you have a commission as to whether or not the commission wants to use those room tax dollars to pay off the city's debt obligation for the convention center. That would be out of your control. That would be in the commission's control if you created a commission. As far as any past dollars expended, if a judge were to say that those expenditures were inappropriate, I don't know what a judge would say about refunding those dollars. I don't know who you would refund them to, to be honest. I think any judicial decision to saying that you're not using the room tax dollars correctly would probably be a prospective sort of thing, saying don't spend them like that, spend them like this in the future. Again, as far as who you would pay those dollars back to, they're from transients who come use, stay at hotels and motels in the city, and they're long gone as far as getting their money back. So I think any decision on the use of the dollars would be a prospective sort of thing, and it wouldn't be paying dollars back. Does that answer your question? Alderman Perez. Thank you, your honor. I believe the floor is still open for the public to speak. Yes. No, it is not. No, we had that one question open. It was only open to Tom Sather. Open, it was open to Tom Sather. It was not open to the public. I believe there's other people that want to say something. This is one of the reasons that I feel that the process should not be followed so that people have an opportunity to speak. I mean, this is obviously an emotional issue, an issue that creates a lot of intense discussion and subtle. If the floor has been closed, I'd ask, will the floor be open for another speaker? Alderman Groth. Your honor, in point of order, we're supposed to be discussing the motion. The motion before us is to file. Correct. If the discussion from the floor is regarding the motion to file, I would think it would be acceptable. If not, it shouldn't be allowed. Is it to file? It's what you're talking about. Alderman? Do we get a second? No. Well, you did get a second. Let me second. Who was it? Marilyn. Okay, let's find out. Who called? Told me. Open the floor. Two. To more people. Not anyone specific or just one person? Anybody in particular, Alderman? Chris? Your honor. Yes. I guess what I'm saying is if there's other people, I also understand that there was about three more people that wanted to speak. We had a, we have actually a quite short agenda tonight, but we had seven hearings. If we would have had just two people on each one, we would have been here quite a bit. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it. If people want to speak, I'm going to sit here until 12 o'clock at night and listen to provide input. So my motion would be to open up the floor for additional people to comment. This is obviously an issue that needs discussion. Okay, so an aye vote would be to open the floor to anyone who wants to speak. Bonet? No. Doyle? No. Graf? No. Manny? Yes. Montemayor? Yes. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rindfleisch? Aye. Stefan? Aye. Ben Akron? No. Vanderweal? Aye. Rangemann? Aye. Warner? No. Weninger? No. Bauman? Aye. Berg? No. Nine ayes, seven noes. Okay. Proceed. Thank you. Is it? It should be on. Is it on? Okay. I just wanted to throw out a couple of facts and make a couple of suggestions in regards to whether or not to file. It sounds like Great Lakes is concerned whether the room tax commission would allow the convention center to be developed and paid for with room tax. And if it's possible, I would suggest that you alter the current document to reflect that. That yes, the room tax money will pay for the development of a convention center just as it states in the current contract. We don't have a problem with that at all. One of my, the biggest question that seems to be overlooked, and I'm not even sure if the Chamber of Commerce is aware of this. When you looked at the payback for the convention center that was handed out at a May meeting from Rich Gephardt, you find that, for example, the amount of guaranteed room tax by Great Lakes in 2005 is just over 700,000. And when you subtract off the 150,000 for the debt service, that leaves $550,000 of room tax hanging out there. And when the question was asked at that meeting, where's that money going? The response was the city will keep that $550,000. And that's where we feel that the Chamber isn't even aware that this money is out there and that the CVB is the proper avenue to utilize the money to promote the city. And all of you, I'm sure, don't wanna start attending tourism conferences to become tourism experts. The CVB is doing an outstanding job. And that is part of the reason we wanna form the Room Tax Commission. As you know, 80% of the money is supposed to be spent on the promotion and development of tourism. 20% can be withheld from the city. Now, once Great Lakes is up and running, what that means is the city would have access to $220,000 to use for whatever you want. And the remaining money would go to the CVB and the Chamber. Right now, you're currently only getting $150,000. So I'm not sure why you're trying to prevent yourself from getting more money. And I'm not sure why the Chamber of Commerce is trying to turn away this extra $500,000 for the promotion. I just think that everybody could work together to change this document slightly. Great Lakes should be happy. If anything, the fourth point in the lawsuit, if any of you still have that, it clearly states that Great Lakes should not be the one running the convention center. If the lawsuit moves forward, it says that the city or the CVB must run the conference center. I think that would affect their bottom line much more than a room tax commission ever would. So please take that into consideration. A room tax commission formation tonight or the next time you vote on it would cause an end to the lawsuit. We will drop it. All we are asking for right now is the development of this room tax commission. Thank you. Floor's open. Okay. Yes, Mr. Moeth. Microphone. We about done? Yes. No, just take it. We're in the same spot we were before. If you want to screw around, we can screw this up. You want a commission, it'll screw it up. Please don't do this. Do you understand what I'm saying? They have financiers that have to make this project go. You want to put something in there, gears will make it work, not work. Hello, please understand what you're dealing with here. We're out of time. Okay, Pat, would you call the roll? And I would be the file. I would be the file. I'm sorry? Not necessarily. It's a decision of what you did. Just the I is the file. Berg? Aye. Bonet? Doyle? Aye. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? No. Moody? Aye. Perez? No. Rinflige? No. Stefan? Aye. Vanakren? Aye. Vanderweel? Aye. Wongerman? Aye. Warner? Aye. Weniger? Aye. Bowman? Aye. Thirteen Ayes? Three Nos. Motion carried to file. Take a break. Can we take a five minute break, please? Pat, what do you call the roll? Doyle? Aye. Oh, here. Graf? Here. Manny? Here. Montemayor? Here. Moody? Here. Welcome to the club. Perez? Here. Rinflige? Here. Stefan? Here. Put me in the room now. I won't even go there. I won't even go there. Yeah. Here. Vanderweel? Here. Wongerman? Here. Warner? Here. Weniger? Here. Here. 16 present. Quarms present. Five-thirty-seven? No. Five-thirty-six? Five-seventy-five. Five-seventy-five, who wants to pull it ahead? Alderman Doyle. Excuse me. Thank you, Your Honor. As Alderman Graf said, we'd like to pull five-seventy-five forward because the folks involved in that particular RCR here in attendance. So I would like to move that we accept and adopt the report of committee. We'll just second to accept and adopt the report of committee under discussion. Alderman? Yes, Your Honor. We would like to amend that because the average license, first number 1642 in that amendment, you are not able to contact the person. So we'd like to remove that. OK, does the motion be for us as an amendment? All in favor of the amendment? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to give a little background to the council. Excuse me, Jerry. Make a motion to accept it as amended. I forgot to tell you that. I'd like to move that we accept and adopt as amended. Move it in seconded to accept and adopt as amended. Under discussion. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. Seven months ago, the Common Council passed a resolution that any Class A liquor license that was inactive for six months will be called before the Public Protection and Safety Committee to explain their situation. The reason for this is as follows. Sheboygan has 110 Class A liquor licenses. Class B. Pardon? Class B. Class B? Yeah. And they're all in use. They've all been taken. Any additional license would cost $10,000. At the last time that I checked with the city clerk's office, we had five applicants for this available license. And this has been sort of a longstanding situation now that we have a number of people that want to take out a license, but there's none available. Well, the thing that the council has to balance against that, of course, is that when a person who has this license retires or goes out of business, we need to give them a certain amount of time to sell the property because usually the property and the license ideally goes together. Because if they lose the license, then they can't, they may not be able to sell the property. So the council set it at six, I'm sorry, the council set it at six months so that they would have time to sell it. In the case of the people that are here tonight, they've been closed now for two years. And the Public Protection and Safety Committee felt that was too long and that we should deny their license application and give another business a chance to use that license. So at this time, I'd like to make a motion that we open the floor so that these people from Dragonwick could speak on their behalf. It's not a motion, it's just letting them speak. All in favor? You don't need a vote. No motion, no vote. They can just vote. I want one. Please, you want one. Please, step up to make a phone. I need to know his name. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for this time. For Ms. Lown, she is the owner, she is the owner and the licensee of care of the Dragonwick. The restaurant has been closed for a year and a half because they want to have real chef from China to offer the community of Sheboygan to have the real Chinese food right here. So they have this license, they have the immigration procedure as pending. So it takes quite a long time to materialize. So right now it's still waiting for the grant of the visa from the INS. Okay, right now we would like to, Ms. Lown would like to have this revocation and removed for a while until she's ready to open. She intended to have it open by September 1st. So she is counting all that and already did a lot of preparation work to reopen the restaurant to serve the community of Sheboygan. So say according before she has been compliant to all the regulations and the various, a lot of binding, entrepreneurial for the restaurant operator. So she is asking the council to give her time to try that again, to open up and to maintain her license. Okay, thank you very much. Sir, could you give us your name please? My name is Roy Kwak. I'm from Milwaukee. I'm doing this as a free community service for the Chinese community as a liaison and interpreter. Can you spell your last name please? K-W-O-K. And it was Roy? Roy, yeah. Our way. Our way, yes. Thank you. Okay, Alderman Gough. May I ask a question? Yes, please. You said September 1st should be ready to open. Yes. Is that when you anticipate the, Yeah, I'm just granting the, That's right. The visa or whatever it may be. What happens if it doesn't? Then would you need another extension or something? No, there's no extension because we already have everything lined up because the landlord is Mr. Wong. He has a business in Milwaukee. He can swing two more chefs over here to open up by September 1st in case the immigration deal had fall apart. So that's why she is asking for this extension for three months. Alderman Warner. Oh, thank you, Your Honor. God. The reason that ordinance was passed is because several times in the past during licensing functions we would have one license available. And you may all remember the last one was about a year ago when we had five different businesses coming for the one available license. And the feeling and committee was is that they had two years to open and they hadn't done this at all. I guess it is up to this council if you want to give them an extension and that is built into the ordinance to allow an extension for business that let's say they have a fire it takes seven months to rebuild or something else happens with the license. You can give extensions. The idea is to get commerce moving in the city and get these licenses used by people who really want to be in business. So I guess I would leave it up to the council. They feel like granting an extension to September 1st. That was a consideration the committee did discuss. We did vote unanimously to deny but I think that after hearing them speak there may be some different feelings. So if anyone has any opinion on that we'd be glad to hear it right now. Sir. I'm the interpreter of Mr. Wong and my first name is X-I-A-N-G Xiang and last name C-H-E-N. This gentleman is called Padlong Wong and he's the property owner of the restaurant. I heard that on the day of the birthday he cancelled my leave. So my time is short so you can cancel it for now and wait for me to write my reason. After hearing from you I'll cancel it. Okay. I was just informed by the government and the restaurant owner that our liquor license has been revoked. And in such a short notice, we are not prepared very well. So we would like to extend the revocation time date to let us to have enough time to have the lawyer to prepare everything. If our liquor license were revoked and there are two very bad impact to our restaurant and the property, the location of the restaurant is not so good, and the value of the property would be reduced significantly, like 50% to 70% because of the license has been revoked. And the second is the restaurant will be no longer competitive because there are already many Chinese restaurants in the city. If necessary, we will try our best to do everything to retain our liquor license. Could you spell Mr. Wong's first name, please? Mr. Wong's first name, P-U-C-K. P-U-C-K. P-U-C-K. Thank you. P-U-C-K. Thank you. And middle name L-O-N-G. Thank you. Alderman Stephan, do you have a question? I guess my question was just to the committee, was there any way that they verified this, to check, you know, they said that money into remodeling and stuff. Has anybody been there to verify that? Have we had that ability, I guess? Alderman Doyle. No, that kind of information is difficult to obtain. It's our belief as a committee that it's unlikely that they'll be able to open September 1st. I wish that we could bring in the five families that can't open because none of them can get a liquor license because this one is unavailable and so on. There's a Hispanic place that can't serve Margaritas, for example, because they can't get a liquor license and so on. And their plans are pretty vague, you know, depending on the INS and so on to grant visas and that kind of stuff. I think that it would be better to let one of these five businesses that are ready to use it right now have it and then let them get in line for when they do get their thing organized. Alderman Vanderweil. Thank you, Your Honor. I just wanted to say that there are businesses open right now in town that only can serve wine and beer because they can't get their liquor license and they're up and running right now. And then there's other businesses that spent $110,000 to fix up the business and we gave them the extension and let them keep the liquor license. So we took everything in consideration and I'm going to stick with the decision that the committee made. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. One thing the council should be aware of is that they could technically open up for one day and then have six more months. And one day before the six months, open up again and keep going on and on like that forever. And I think they've been given ample opportunity and the committee has looked at this in the past and been concerned that it wasn't getting used. And I would just ask that you support the licensing function of public protection safety, which works very hard to make sure that licenses are given all fairly and that things are done properly. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Manny. Thank you, Your Honor. A simple question. I'm wondering why the restaurant's been closed the last year and a half. The restaurant closed because of the manpower because we figure out we don't have, we cannot really hire a real authentic Chinese chef cooking for the Chinese company. That's why we have somebody from China. And it has been in the process for a year and a half, two years. That's why it takes a long time for this procedure to go through for immigration. So right now we do have two of them in line in Milwaukee. So we can have them over here by September 1st. That's why we are asking for three months' time. Alderman Manny. Thank you, Your Honor. I will support the recommendation of the committee, but I'm just wondering if we thought about increasing our number of licenses. We can't. State law. We are mandated to have 110. And that's all. That's it. Yes. I'm sorry, city attorney. The issue is there's a state quota that my understanding is was adopted at the behest of the state tavern league. And the reason is that it makes liquor licenses more valuable because there's only a finite number of them. You can pay $10,000 to get one over the quota, but then you've got to pay the $10,000. What happens is then the argument is that those with licenses currently have a market to sell that license to somebody for less than $10,000. So that was the tavern league's incentive. But we're at the quota and for somebody new to get a license, it would be $10,000. Sure. So if the tavern league who requested this would come back and say, well, we'd like to see at least four more licenses or something like that, could they make it? No, that's tavern league dealt with the legislature, changed the statute three or four years ago, maybe five years ago now, to establish this quota and the $10,000 licenses above the quota. That's state law. State law would have to be changed. Right. State law says what our quota is. It was based on the number of licenses that were available on a certain date. So to have more than that, you've got to pay a license applicant has to pay $10,000. Thank you. Alderman Berg, I know you said you had to leave. No, that's okay. Sure. If Mr. Wong, if he had the two guys ready to come up now, if you don't have your man from China, why didn't you bring them up in the meantime to fill in and keep the place going until you had your man from China? Oh, because one of your work is business to have. Okay. They have two new ones trained up there. I think they're ready to move to. The one of your work is peering a restaurant. It's one of the top 30 that you do your work. It's one of the top 40s. Three and a half stars from Canada's cattle. So it's a very famous restaurant. Yeah, it's a good operator. So you try to introduce your work. You go ahead. Sir. We believe this restaurant is one of the best Chinese restaurant in the city, because the rest of the Chinese restaurant, they only offer buffet, and that's it. If necessary, the property owner said he can open a restaurant anytime. So it's really necessary. All of them are many. Thank you, Your Honor. One quick question for Steve. Is the number of licenses granted based upon population? Now it is. Yeah. For additional licenses that are under the quota, I think every 500 people that are added to the city gives you one more under the quota. Thank you. Thank you. Then a question for Altman Warner to help remind me, and maybe some of us, about the educational process. When licenses are no longer being used, the restaurant's not active. What's the process of informing the owner of the standards and priorities and qualifications that are before them and the threat of losing the license? Letters were sent out to everyone. Explain to them the new ordinance regulations. We sent a copy of the ordinance to all liquor license holders. And we inform them now as the new ones come in. Altman, Stefan. I guess I'm kind of torn here. I can understand that there's licensed applicants waiting. On the other hand, they know when they open their business, they don't have it. These people clearly have it, and there's a value to it. And yet, you know, she mentioned she was remodeling and they're looking for a chef. And it seems to me, do you wait until September? And like you said, you might not open. You might open one day. You might wait. I mean, I'm torn between the two. I guess I would make a motion that we just refer back to the committee and let somebody find out. It should be pretty easy to see if they got an INS application, if they've done remodeling in there. And if they're truthful, then I would support, you know, the committee could maybe change your mind. Maybe they won't. But I guess I'll move just to refer it back to the committee for now, because I'm not going to get in the whole three months yet. Four months, but I'll just support that. We have a motion before us. Under discussion for the motion. Alderman Doherty. Your Honor, we already had that discussion with Dragonwick about what were their plans, and that's been discussed. That's why we're here. They gave their plans. It wasn't acceptable to the committee. The committee has said we should deny. So that discussion has already taken place. If we were to go back to the committee, we would call them in again and have the same discussion again. That would make no sense. I guess my point was saying, do we know, I haven't heard anybody from the council say we know that their statement is true or not. Are they remodeling? Is that part of the problem? Do they have an INS problem? You know, they're guessing, maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know what they're thinking, but I'd like to know that. And it should be pretty easy to verify. You walk into a place, either they've been spending a lot of money remodeling or they're not. You know, I could drive by the Huff problem, and see, yeah, they're spending money remodeling it. I can't see the Dragon Week, but maybe it's inside. I don't know. Alderman Vanderwill. Thank you, Your Honor. I'll just say, I live two blocks away, and I drive by that every day, and I haven't seen trucks or anything. I could be around, like you said, I could be inside, but I drive by at least three times a day. See, I guess that's my only, you know, if it's untrue, then I don't have a problem. We have a motion before us after the other discussion. Alderman Horner. I just want to say, Your Honor, it's been known, generally known, that they haven't been in business for close to two years, and I go to Johnson's Gateway right next door, just about every Saturday morning on the way to my mom's house to pick up a loaf of bread and some donuts, and this is the truth, because I'm more along. Or sit down and tell her a sidewalk. But I never see any activity there, and it's a pretty well-known fact, generally known that there's very little of any activity there. Could they do it? Of course it's possible, but they've had ample time. And when you had, when we had the five individuals, El Camino, the place on 14th Street, the Broom Pub, Byroll, the place over here on the corner, and there was one more. Jerry, I don't remember which one it was offhand, but there were five of them that came in, and they all had wonderful business plans and ideas and things there to present to us that every single one of them was deserving. But unfortunately, we only had one license, and I would guess that there's probably six or eight people out there looking for a license right now that would be glad to have one that's going to get used, and I'm reluctant to go back on the committee decision, and I think we should accept this as unfortunate, but it's just part of the process. Do we have any more questions of? This seems to be based on our politics in there right there. So you have a small business, and of course you might come into it with a big franchise coming in to open up or want to have localizers. Now you jeopardize that small business right now. Okay, because for the Chinese restaurant, the cooking is very unique, and things are so far very personal. And like I've just learned, she has built up the reputation in Milwaukee. She tried to bring it back in Sheboygan. So they all think they are deprived of rights now because they wanted to make a succeed to make a good restaurant. To let everybody enjoy some of the best fine Chinese food instead of most of these ordinary ones in a buffet style. So what they are asking for is for three months holding period, let them have ready to open up. We will vote on it. Is there any other discussion? Sir, did you have something you want to say yet? And then we're going to vote on it, okay? What do you want to say? I want to hear from you. I and her teacher, who is she? I asked her, she said on April 4th, she received a notice saying she didn't want to leave. I didn't know before that. On April 4th, this year, on April 4th, she received a notice saying that she was going to get in touch with the government. What should we do? She was in touch with the government. She was in touch with the government. She was in touch with the government. If you don't allow her to leave, you shouldn't have to pay for her. You're the only one left. Okay. I was just informed by the government on April 4th about this notice. And I talked to Ms. Leung, the owner of the restaurant, and Ms. Leung contacted the government. The government asked her to do something like paying the fee and something like that, and she strictly followed what the government said. If the government said that Ms. Leung cannot do anything, then it's kind of misleading. We asked for the opportunity that the government can give us one more opportunity. If we cannot retain the legal license, the government should not ask us to pay the retaining fee. We were not informed ahead of time. I'd like to explain the fees that she's talking about. This is the third year that they've come in. They pay publication fees. It tides them over until the next license period begins. In order for them to apply for the next year, they've got to pay up all the previous year's fees, the liquor license, the beer license, which is amounts to $7, $800. I don't know what it is. So when they wanted to apply for next year, they had to pay the 2002-2003 license fees, which they had not paid yet. They only paid $49 last June, May or June, to tie them over for this whole year. So now they've paid $49 for the next license period. That's what their application is for. The fees that he's talking about is for this year's license that they've had all year long and not used. So we did not ask for any money ahead of time for next year's license, except for the publication fee and the state records check. $49. Alderman Van Akron. Do we have anybody from Inspection Department that had permits or any work on them? Larry's in back. I'm not sure. Larry Inspection Department. What was the question? Alderman Van Akron. Did we have any permits taken out or any cares that anybody expected over there? Not that I'm aware of. I haven't been there as a plumbing inspector and I'm not aware of any ability to receive them. Alderman Perez. Thank you, Your Honor. By yes, I wanted to explain why Second Alderman Stephens in a motion to refer back to committee. It seems that the ordinance itself allows for an extension and the request for three months is not unreasonable. While it's sensitive to people who are in line, I'm sure that if they had their license and wanted an extension, they'd want it pretty bad too. It's a tough call to make. I suppose I could go either way, but in situations like these, I'd rather go with the people who request them to permit so I would go in favor of referring it back. Alderman Manny. Thank you, Your Honor. For me, grace smiles in the face of judgment, but there's still accountability. And I'm simply sharing my perspective if we do not vote to send this back to committee and if we in fact vote on this this evening, I'm going to vote against the revocation, but on the basis that I'm going to offer another resolution that they be granted an extension until July 15th. They say they can get the restaurant operative right away if they have to. This says get it operative and you've got six weeks and the license is still yours. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Longman. Thank you, Your Honor. I certainly agree with Alderman Doyle. We discussed this at our meeting in great length. We've been presented no new information tonight to consider. So sending it back to the committee, I think would be just plain superfluous. And we based our decision on performance or non-performance, if you will. And we discussed this was not a snap decision. It took quite a while. And I think Alderman Doyle would agree that I haven't heard anything new tonight. That would really change my mind. So sending it back to the committee, I don't know if this would be a waste of time. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion before us. Alderman Warner. A brief, Your Honor. When the committee goes through bartender licenses or bar licenses, we really are twisted pulled and we feel empathy for people and we're sorry for some people and we've had people who couldn't get a license because they had a felony. And there's nothing we can do about that. That felony may have been 20 years ago and he may have done nothing wrong ever since then, but they had it. And the whole purpose of this is to make sure that these things are used in the city and there are people out there using them. I think they've had ample time. The committee did its job and my recommendation would still be to deny. We could do this again. First, we have a motion on the floor for referral. All in favor of referral? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion fails. Now we have the motion on the floor denied. Pat, would you call the roll? Okay. First of all, this license expires, the current license expires June 30th. If they say they can be opened September 1st, it's a two month extension, July and August. That's two months. Pardon? If all a person, Manny, wants to make his motion to be July 15th, that would be a two week extension and this is not a license revocation, it's a license non-renewal. The license that they currently have, we are not revoking, we are just not renewing the next one. So if you vote, see this is a motion to deny. If you want to deny, you vote an aye. If you do not want to deny, you vote an aye. Okay, call the roll please. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Right, Rinfayesh? Aye. Stefan? Aye. Ben Akron? Aye. Vanderweal? Aye. Wongerman? Aye. Warner? Aye. Weninger? Aye. Baumann? Aye. Berg? Aye. Bonnet? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Nine ayes. I can't count. Seven ayes. Seven ayes. Motion passed. Okay. Okay, consent agenda. Aldermen Graf, we have everything from 5-1 through 5-36. Excluding. Okay, go ahead. He wants to say. Excluding, yes. Okay, go ahead. Yes, you are. 18 to 23. The motion hasn't been made yet. You're making that in your motion. Oh, I am. Okay. Then I would move that one from document 5-1 through 5-36. Excluding 5-18 through 5-23. The ROs will be accepted and filed. All RCs will be accepted and adopted. And that will pass the resolutions and the 1-1 ordinance. Moving in second to all ROs will be accepted and filed. All RCs will be accepted and adopted. Resolutions and the ordinance will be put upon their passage. Excluding 5-18 through 5-23. Alderman Longman. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to speak reference 5-18 through 5-23. They're excluded in this motion. Let's speak after a while. Okay, I'll speak after a while. They're not in this motion. Are you telling me to no? Okay. Thank you, Alderman Longman. Okay, Pat, if there's no other discussion, would you call the roll please? Manny. Aye. Montemayor. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Rindfleisch. Aye. Steffen. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Montemay. Aye. Doyle. Aye. Graf. Aye. 16 ayes. Motion carried. Alderman Longman. Thank you, Your Honor. Seeing wouldn't let Alderman Longman, I would like to open discussion in on 5-18 through 5-23, if I could please. Proceed. Would you make a motion on what to do with them first? Yes. I would move that these be referred to the Public Works Committee for the meeting of June 19th. Second. Moved in second to that. These are referred to Public Works for the meeting of June 19th under discussion. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. These are all including the public hearings which we had tonight, which were the proposed assessments for viral lateral replacements on the various streets, which were mentioned much earlier. With us this evening is actually Joe Trublad. He is the person in charge of the water department. And if I could please, I'd like to ask if he could give a little bit of insight on these assessments if I could. The department. Sure. Alderman Longman, did you want to say anything before? If I could please. Sure. Your Honor, before this also, could we just address these four people here because we're still wondering, I believe, what's going on and what happened with the public. They will not get their license. It's been denied. It's been denied. Okay. If they can apply and pay $10,000, they can apply for that type of a license. Well, I suppose they could apply for the license that's now open along with the other six or seven people. Yeah, they could do that. I didn't think of that. Why don't we have them come in tomorrow and explain it to them? Pat. Okay. Okay. Alderman Longman. I'm sorry. Thank you, Your Honor. We have a somewhat unusual situation here in that six documents were generated with my name and Alderman Moody's name on the documents reference these water lateral connections. I started getting phone calls at home because this is part of the reconstruction of a business highway. People were questioning where this came from because this project has been going on for approximately two years. At no time were the people ever informed that there would be any water construction or any laterals that they would have to pay for. A week ago this past Saturday, documents were received by people informing them that this was in fact going to take place. And documents were then generated, which was a total surprise to me because I hadn't heard about it either. I contacted sources at the water department and they said this was the way this project was going to go. And according to city ordinance, the people would have to be assessed these water for these water laterals. However, when I talked to the department of public works, they were unaware that this was going to take place and it seems as though very little information had been exchanged between the two departments, the water department and the department of public works. I spoke to Mr. Tubla this afternoon and he was very gracious and said he would be at the meeting this evening and try and answer some of these questions. It would appear to me as though somewhere along the line somebody dropped the ball on this because, of course, it does make a lot of sense that Wilder Street is open to do water main construction. But this should have been done a long time ago and not at the very last moment and I guess I don't understand why that took place in that fashion. And because of that Alderman Moody and myself refused to sign these documents tonight. Other Alderman Bauman eventually did sign this document to get it into public works so that it could be discussed further there and I'm sure some of these people will want to appear in public works and have their say so on this. None of the people in the neighborhood were ever informed of this and it seems to me that the people of the neighborhood were treated rather badly. I'm sure not by intent because it's my opinion we have one of the finest water departments and our water race in Sheboygan are just about as low as anybody's. So I don't think there's any real culpability here and it's not my intention to point the finger at anybody or say you did this or you didn't do that. I think it's my intention to make sure that in the future that when the public is involved in a project like this that they be adequately contacted and that people contact them. So what I would like to see now coming out of public works is a decision that the water department contact each and every person that's involved in this and make sure they fully understand. And there is some questions about the actual price they have come up with too for the connection of the water lateral which seems kind of high at this point. But I think at this point I'd like to see if Mr. Trueblood can answer some of these questions I may have. Thank you Mayor Schram and council members. By way of responding Alderman Wangemar has raised some good issues. Special assessments are always difficult and the timing is especially difficult on complicated projects and by and large people are often frustrated at getting special assessments but it's a necessary funding tool for critical infrastructure. In responding I would just like to briefly walk council through a chain of events to kind of describe the process. May of 2002 Wadi Tility staff members attended the DOT meeting. The street project is being funded by DOT involving the viaduct reconstruction. At that time we learned it was going to become an at grade project meaning the bridge was coming down and we're now going to have an intersection. That was immediate red flag to us that we needed to consider water infrastructure. Streets being dug up. Immediately we look at what we need to do. At that meeting May of 2000 we raised the issue of water main work and there were attendees of DOT, Earth Tech and the Public Works Department at that meeting. September of 2002 the Board of Water Commissioners approved our 2003 budget including funding for water main work on Broadway Avenue. January 20th, 2003 the Wadi utility submitted a preliminary resolution to council for approval to prepare for the water service assessments on Broadway Avenue and here we're talking about replacing 80 year old lead water laterals that can't be left under a new street for obvious reasons. Council approved R-O-255-02-03 sponsored by Alderman Berg, B-U-R-G. April 21st, 2003 the Board of Water Commissioners approved the water main project for Broadway Avenue. April 24th of 2003 the notice to bidders informing the public potential contractors that we've got a project under bid was run in the Shpoig and Press on April 24th and April 30th. This states the project, the extent, service replacements, water main and the various details that bidders would need to know about. It's also one state mandated tool for informing the public that something's happening. May 8th of 2003 a Wadi utility staff attended the DOT pre-construction meeting for the street portion of Broadway and the viaduct reconstruction. At that meeting the issue of the water work was certainly discussed. The time frame here starts to accelerate now and I'm almost to the end of my sequence. May 15th, 2003 the Wadi utility had received construction bids and opened them and by state law we're required if a decision is made to go ahead with the project to award it to the lowest bidder. The substantial completion date for the project was listed as August 29th. The timing on this construction project is very critical. That bridge has to come down. There's got to be preparation work. We have to get in there and get our stuff out of the way before the DOT people come along and do their project. So we've got a very tight window in which to operate. May 16th, 2003 our staff members were out in the field looking at field markings the DOT had placed as to the extent of the project. We discovered to our surprise that the extent had somewhat increased meaning that what was shown on the design for the end of the street reconstruction had now been enlarged a little bit due to field considerations and some other reasons of matching the old and the new pavement there. That required us to modify our plan that because they had extended that one more water service had to be replaced for Mr. Summersberger. So we discovered that on May 16th, 2003 and that was an address of 1403 Broadway. Now that needed a new water service as well. May 19th, the schedule of assessments was sent to the finance department for preparation. These are all the typical steps that take place and have taken place as long as I've been here in the past when the public works department prepared the water service assessments. May 20th, the Board of Water Commissioners approved awarding the water main construction to the low bidder. May 22nd, notices were mailed out from City Hall informing the public of the assessment and the details of the assessment. And I should say the state administrative code defines the timeframe. Those notice of special assessments are to be sent at least 10 days prior to and not more than 40 days in advance of the hearing date. So we're at the hearing date, June 2nd. The notices were mailed out on May 22nd. So that was 12 days. So we were on the narrow side of that limit but we were within the state administrative code for how that's supposed to be handled. And of course June 2nd today we're here at the hearing. I would say, you know, the issue of informing the public is difficult. We want the public to be aware of what's going on. But it's hard to know, as you can see by the sequence, months in advance that we're going to be able to do certain projects. One idea after I had a discussion with Alderman Wong-Mair was possibly to send out a advanced letter to the public that they may be receiving a special assessment notice in the future that may give a little bit of a heads up. That's a possibility we could look into. You know, there's some details with that that may be problematic too. But just in closing, we certainly appreciate the concerns. You know, it's difficult to get these things, the sequencing all together to get the public informed and also to get the accordance with state and local mandates. Thank you. Alderman Bauman, question. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Joe, I'd like to request your presence at that meeting if you could please also on the 19th of June. Certainly. And secondly, Your Honor, the question also for Joe, if I could. Could the property owners themselves hire a private contractor to do the copper work for them? That has been done on some new subdivision installations in the past where the pavement wasn't put down and the property owners were told they could have a plumber come in and do the work themselves within a given time frame. Now, on the subdivisions, that time frame, to my knowledge, was pretty lengthy. They had a year or so to get in before the subdivision was going to be completed. On a relay job like this, where we're working in an urban setting, we've got the DOT contractor rolling up behind us. The time frame is very limited and although that's a possibility, there are a lot of logistical ramifications that would be very difficult. Okay. Alderman Moody. Thank you, Your Honor. May I address Mr. Trubled. Mr. Trubled, we have another big project coming up in our district to the rebuilding of 17th and Ashland. The storm sewer is in that. Can we assume when the street is dug up there that those people may also have to be paying for laterals? I haven't reviewed that project myself. Alderman Moody, I... Tom's getting up. Maybe he can answer that. Okay, Tom. We're just under preliminary design for that job right now and we don't know what type of pipe we're putting in, how deep and how it's going to affect the laterals at this point yet. As soon as we know could the people be informed so that they have some time to adjust? We'll be having neighborhood meetings like we did with the Second Creek Project and the Bluff Avenue Project in advance of the bidding. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. We have a motion on a floor. Okay, all in favor of the motion? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. 537-49 to be referred. Oh, maybe not. Alderman Ballman. Your Honor, on 538, if I could please, this is a communication from Bob and Joy Winterberg relative of various problems with students at James Madison School. This was to be referred to public protection and safety. I would move at this time to file this communication. Moved in second to file under discussion. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sit down. This is more of a school district matter than it is a public protection and safety matter, so I will just again support the motion. Thank you. If there's no other, excuse me, Alderman Ballman. Just one comment on that. It happens to be in my district and I'm very familiar with this problem and I submit that laws have been violated up there. City ordinance that would easily fall under the jurisdiction of the police department if the principal had taken the steps to do so. He's hesitant on doing that, but we have a dire situation up there that has to be taken care of as soon as possible. The school board is well aware of this situation and so far they've not acted on it and I'm just wondering how long this is going to go on. Alderman Graf on the same. Okay. We have a motion before us. Here, answer your question. I did talk to Joe Sheehan today on that co-superintendant and we'll be discussing that. Motion before us. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Alderman Graf. I just wanted to say 543 through 547 have already been acted on so it might be. Thank you. 550 through 52 will lie over. 553 through 564 to be referred. 565, 66 and 67 will lie over. 568 and 69 to be referred. 570 by Alderman Graf, authorizing, applying for lead-based pain hazardous control grant from HUD. Alderman Graf. Your Honor, I would move that that resolution be put upon his passage. Moved in second to the resolution be put upon his passage. Under discussion. Under discussion. This is a prime example of the county, the city and commissions working together to get something done. This is for applying for a grant, a $3 million grant for the next three years for lead-based pain hazard control. The deadline for this is, I believe, Friday and we're working together with the Nursing Department of the Health and Human Services Department, the City Development and the Housing Authority are all working together to get this grant so this would give them permission to apply for this grant. Thank you. Alderman Monk and Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Graf and then Mayor. I think this is a wonderful thing. We all know the importance when it comes to children and our city, the center part of our city with some of the older homes, I'll bet we'll make good use of that money. Thank you. You're welcome. Motion before us. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. 571 by Alderman Graf, transferring funds for the 2003 sidewalk program. Alderman Graf. I'd ask for suspension. Is there any objections to suspension? Hearing none, proceed. If the Alderman will recall, I believe our last meeting, I would make a motion that the resolution be put upon its passage. Moved in second resolution be put upon its passage. On your discussion. If the Alderman will recall, we transferred, I believe it was $100,000 for the same project. Well, there was a recalculation done and more funds were needed. I guess if anybody has any specific questions, they could ask Tom. But this is for completion of this project for the sidewalk work and it's all within budget. Is that correct? So, therefore, that's all I have to say. Do you have any other discussion? Pat, would you call the roll please? Monta Mayor? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. Rindflash? Aye. Stephan? Aye. Ben Akron? Aye. Vanderweal? Aye. Wongerman? Aye. Warner? Weniger? Aye. Baumann? Aye. Berg? Aye. Buone? 74. Will be referred to public protection and safety. We did 575, 576. Care of that. Matters laid over, 443. RO by City Plan Commission recommending establishing the used district classification of annex land located north of Weeding Creek Road, east of Prairie View Road. Alderman Orner? Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion. We accept and file the report of officer and pass the attached ordinance. Moving to the second, we accept and adopt the committee report and pass the ordinance. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. This is relative to establishing the used district classification on annex property located north of Weeding Creek Road and east of Prairie View Road as class SR3 suburban residential classification. This matter was discussed at the regular meeting of the City Plan Commission and the Commission recommends approval. If there's no other discussion, would you call the roll please? Moody? Aye. Perez? Rinfleisch? Aye. Steffen? Aye. Alderman Graf, Doyle, Boney, transferring appropriations in the 2003 budget. Alderman Graf? Your Honor, I would move that the resolution be put upon its passage. Moving to the second resolution be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Perez? Aye. Rinfleisch? Aye. Steffen? Aye. Ben Akron? Aye. Vanderweil? Aye. Burg? Aye. Boney? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Graf? Aye. Manny? Aye. Montemayor? Aye. Moody? Aye. 16 ayes. Motion carries. 466 R.C. by public protection and safety recommending filing documents submitting communication for Tiano's Mexican restaurant requesting tour parking limits in the 1200 block of North 13th Street and passing the attached ordinance. Public protection, Alderman can accept and adopt the report of committee and pass the attached ordinance. Moving to the second, accept and adopt the committee report and passed ordinance under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, this will limit parking on the street from medium to 4 p.m. On the west side of the street from 13th Street to the alley only applauding Tiano's property, and they've had some serious problems throughout today, so this will help them out. Thank you. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Pat, would you call the roll? Rinfleisch? Aye. Van Akron, Vanderbilt, Langerman, Warner, Winninger, Bowman, Berg, Boone, Doyle, Groff, Manny, Montemayor, Moody, Perez, 16-9. Motion carries. 460 will lie over until 616. 461 will lie over until the 7-7. 473. General Ordinance by Alderman Warner, Doyle, Moody, Langerman, and Vanderbilt, including both sides of the alley between Wisconsin Avenue and New York Avenue, from North 14th Street to a point 150 feet east in the no parking area regulations. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. Make a motion. The general ordinance be put upon its passage. Moved in second. An ordinance be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, there have been ongoing problems in this alley due to vehicles parked in such a way that access to the alley and the adjacent business parking lot has been blocked. This will assure access to the alley for all the residents in the neighborhood and also allow the business to use its entrance and parking lot year-round. Thank you. There's another discussion. Would you call the roll, please? Stephen. All right. Dan Akron. All right. Vanderbilt. All right. Langerman. All right. Warner. All right. Wenninger. All right. Bowman. All right. Berg. All right. Boonee. All right. Doyle. All right. Groff. All right. Manny. All right. Monta Mayor. All right. Moody. Perez. All right. Thank you. That's the plan commission. 580 RO by Schwoig and Transit Commission recommending entering into a contract for transit tire services. Alderman Bowman. Thank you, your honor. I would move then that the report of officer be accepted and filed and we passed an attached resolution. Moving in second. We filed the RO and passed a resolution under discussion. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Van Der Wiel, Wangeman, Warner, Weninger, Fowlman, Berge, Bonnet, Doyle, Graf, Manny, Montemayor, Moody, Perez, Rindfleisch, Steffen, 69. Motion carried, 581, are all by finance director and treasurer submitting information relative to the 2003 debt issue on the. Don't need a motion, just accept the file. Motion file? I would move to accept the file. Is there any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried, all of them along the way. Before Alderman Baldwin punches us out. Oh, hang on, we've got a few more to go yet. We've got a few more to go yet, and I'll get to you, OK? Steve, 582. 582 is a report of officer by finance director and treasurer submitting the Harbor Center Marina Balance sheet from operations dated April, I assume that's April 30th, 2003, is submitted by Skipper Marine. And that'll go to special marina committee? 583 is a resolution to authorize the transfer of appropriations on 2003 budget. That'll lie over? 584 is communication from John Schulke, 1531 or 17th Street, opposing a ban on overnight parking. Public protection and safety. 585 is communication from Eileen Gore, 2017 or 27th place opposing a ban on overnight parking. Public protection and safety. 586 is an ordinance amending section 118-242 of the municipal code relating to no parking areas and exceptions for snow emergencies. Public protection and safety. Alderman, Alderman. Thank you. Again, before Alderman Baldwin punches us out, there's just a comment I'd like to make about an attempt by one of our department heads to save the city some money and namely, I'm talking about Pat Luzi. For every council meeting, we're printed a huge stack of documents and this ends up with a terrific cost of paper for the city of Sheboygan. Pat has given me some figures and last year the city spent $7,240 just for council documents. This averages out to $600 a month. Her suggestion was that they take all these documents, scan them into the computer, put them on the city's website and make them available to the Alderman through their home computers. Of course, this would require the Alderman at some point to have laptops. Now, laptops can be acquired. In fact, if you were to buy new laptops, you could buy a pretty good laptop for about $600. That'll handle text very well, which would mean in approximately 14 months, the city would recoup all the money if they could run 16 laptops here instead of printing out all this paper. 80 or 90% of the documents we get end up in the garbage can to rest you pull out for your committee meetings. So each Alderman, all they would have to do then is print out these documents, the ones that they need. And we realize that this is going to take some time. It's not going to happen tomorrow. But I loaded them onto my laptop, which I brought from home tonight and I've been working with it tonight. They find it a very easy and quick system to operate with. And I think it's something that council should look at very seriously. There's also used laptops available from time to time through the police department that the police use that could also probably be very serviceable because as I said, we need them only for text and you don't really need a real powerful machine to do that. They could also be loaded on CDs, which possibly the city would mail out to people. It would be very inexpensive to mail out a CD. And if you buy them by the hundred you're about 20 cents a piece, which is a heck of a lot cheaper than spending $200 or $300 worth of paper every time we have a council meeting. So I'd like to commend Pat Lose and her crew for coming up with this idea and for working with it. I'm sure it will be developed further as we go along. I think it's something that council should look at very seriously. Now Alderman Bowling. First Alderman Warner. Go ahead Alderman Warner. I think this brings back some memories of a dear friend and former colleague of ours, Alderman Carl Taepel, who had this idea a couple of years ago. And I think probably little mobile computers are a little cheaper now so maybe it's a little more in our budget. Maybe we'll find a way to do it. It's a good idea. Thank you. Move to second adjourn under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor?