 This is the 20th regular meeting of the 2010-2011 Common Council Our city clerk Sue Richards The ability to work together toward a common vision the ability to direct individual accomplishments towards organizational objectives It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results. Thank you, Sue roll call, please Warren here Bauch here Bowers in Decker excused Hammond here Hannah here. I don't know here. Cut here kiddleson here Montemay or here Rinflaish Racelor here Samson here van der Wiel there for versey here and one of them excused 14 present you have a quorum looking for President kiddleson to please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God Indivisible with liberty and justice for all Thank You Jean Looking for approval of the minutes of the former or the prior Common Council meeting president kiddleson Thank You mayor. I move to approve the minutes of the last council meeting second We have a motion in a second under discussion There is no discussion all in favor say aye opposed motion carries Moving all the way down to public forum. Okay this evening. We have one person Tom Jensen, please Good evening Tom. Could you give me your home address? Yes, my address is 1754 Camelot Boulevard. Okay, and you will have five minutes, sir. Thank you Good evening City Council members and Honorable Mayor Ryan My you have my name already. I like to thank you the console for the adjustment on the warranty adjustment He did on South 18th Street. I appreciate that and we all do But there is one thing that a lot of his property owners out there concerned with It's called assessment on corner lots Okay, I I'm retired. So I got the time to do this the investigation through the state and everybody else and you actually per baton copied what the state has in their legal manual everyone familiar with that for that that's for assessments and Believe me, I've had the time to read it five six times and do my highlighting and I do have some comments here on special assessments for Corner lots, okay the linear footage of a frontage assessed for any parcel, okay? That's a frontage assessment now when we talk about frontage. That is what your address is Okay, not your budding, but your frontage your parcel your property according to County is Your address in the front of your lot which faces the main street that your address to you get your taxes sent to you By your main street address not the corner lot of 18th and Camelot, but your address is your frontage of your property I know there's been some arbitration and some questions and different departments within the city itself in regards to assessing abutting properties okay according to state statutes and Other statutes while bring up here But we should be assessed for our frontage would be still be advantage to me because my abutting property is 111 feet the 18th Street my frontage is 81 feet and there's a lot of people that have the same situation there But according to state statutes, we are supposed to go by your frontage Unless you were never assessed on or you have service coming off the abutting property such as gas water sewer But my situation I do not have and I know a lot of the people that don't have that situation There are some other Institutes here not to exceed 120 feet, but we don't have to go into that But provisions by Wisconsin State statutes 66.0703 relating to paving and relations to the paving and resurfacing streets allies and provided so on and so forth against property Benefitted there by according to state statutes assessment is presumed to be based on actual benefits Okay, they plan on narrowing the 18th Street and I like to get into that later on if I got the time if it allows but We have to be Know what the actual benefits are according to state requirements if the Charging only a limited number of properties for any improvement which benefits entire Miss paility constitute taken a private property for public use without the owner's consent this is a violation of state and federal constitutions and State and federal constitution is fifth in a 14th amendment a 14th amendment to the United States Constitution self State Taxing powers now that was utilized for actually emphasizing this reconstruction According to your June was at 14th or 17th of last year. You made the Motion a resolution was submitted to actually take necessary steps for South 18th Street to be reconstructed Under taxing assess our taxing police are policing Taxing assessment. Okay, the benefit. Okay, police and taxi express assessment is taken on the difference between the established selling price of the property between and after installation of the improvement Now after you put in 18th Street a lot of people are out there asking why we can be a reassess for it According to this year. No, you can't because we are not we're already paying for improved roads living on improved roads You can't come back and say oh, we're gonna absorb this through raising taxes the assessment property tax. You can't Not by state law Okay Power and assessment benefit extends. Well, if you have a method must be reasonable not arbitrarily or Burning any group of property owners a mere claim on part of the governmental unit That the property has benefited is insignificant to support a special assessment and that's by state law Okay I myself I'm happy that you dropped the price, but please come and give me the proper assessment, which is my frontage Not my buddy. Would you like the additional please second second? Go ahead. Okay In front footage assessment right all the state manual itself The total front footage of each a budding property times the average project cost per front Could then be used and measured the special benefits conferred on this Pacific parcel This method of majoring benefits is generally Permissible under policing power, but there are some with just having a buddy when your property fronts to road Cornelots are required a special consideration. No myself and number other people are in the same situation and Like I said, there's There's more detail, but my time will probably not allow me to do that. I have other stuff State facilities engineering stuff like that or the street from 48 feet back to back the curbs one the 40 feet front front and we pick it up from my investigation my background. I checked I used to work DOT okay, I was inspector and So I know these requirements that they have but Ah My time's up real quick here, please just The work's gonna be done on highway business Road for a 141 to old 141 was a business route Okay, that route is from what I understand is we done. I know it has been made public yet, but I found out from my Information Okay, where is this traffic going to go to was in a half mile south 18th Street? Which is considered to be a collector road and if you go by state statutes and state design the 40 foot Surface and eight inches will not accommodate that traffic which includes long trucks We don't normally let people go any longer. Okay, but that's it. Thank you Thank you is a property owner that also lives on a corner lot with my my shorter Property being my frontage. We appreciate your input. Okay. Thank you Cory Thank You Tom That's all for public forum. We are looking for Motion on the consent agenda President Kittleson 21 through 2020. Thank you mayor I move that all our C's be accepted and adopted all our O's be accepted and placed on file and all ordinance and Resolutions be passed second. We have a motion and a second Under discussion if there's Alderman Bowers Thank you I just have a couple of questions. This is nothing 20-6 20.8 20-13 20-14 and 20-16 let me take them in the numerical order Be the first ones 20-6 20 point aren't eight Deals with Charter and I just like to bring it to the attention of our citizens that this Charter is an increase One is specifically for sports channels one is quite an increase at least 50% the other ones aren't so big. It's only a dollar a month The other one Has something to do with the state It's going to cost the city Roughly $32,000 a year in loss revenue and this has to do with Charter collection of fees So this is another mandate given to us by the state, which we have no control over It's a minor adjustment, but I just want the citizens to know that this is what we're faced with but with the state mandates Okay, 2013 2014 deals with Alan Alice Street celebration, I'd like to call attention to the certificate of insurance that was submitted to the city. I Just believe it's an error and a new one should be it's the insured says Sullivan Brothers, Inc Post office box 7578 Madison. I don't know what the relationship is between Sullivan Brothers and Alan Alice, but at the bottom is the certificate holder Alan Alice Alan Alice city of wagon should be the certificate holder and Alan Al should be the insured so is there some way we can correct this so that they can get their Permits in order Alderman Bowers if I can say one thing first these are on the consent agenda normally on these discussions They all go to a committee. They're all referred to committees. Okay, I understand You know just so we know protocol normally discussion is done in committee Before it comes back to council that's Alderman are invited to all committees Then what is the purpose of the consent agenda if we can't call? To make did you attend the committee meetings on these did I know it didn't So what are you saying now? You would like to change the certificate of insurance? Well if the city doesn't care I don't care except for you, but I know it would be up to the Common Council, so you're okay calling on Why have a certificate of insurance? If it isn't correct like I said Alderman Bowers, this is normally done at committee level. Yes, it's President Rindflash Thank You, Mr. Mayor If there is an error we can allow our departments to take care of that we can still go ahead and approve the documents and the On a consent agenda and direct the appropriate department to continue doing so we don't need to Micromanage everything, but if it is truly in there, I trust the department will take care of it We will refer that then to a second amount of finance that I'm sure we can take care of it Yeah, the city clerk will take care of that. What else did you want to discuss Alderman Bowers? 2016 I just would like to I Guess Fill me in on fixtures disclaimer if someone could just explain that regarding 905 South 8th Street Chad Pelesheck can explain that this is for the harbor wins property the harbor wins hotel the city redevelopment authority owns the property underneath it and there I believe going through a Refinancing process and they have to we have to sign off on this disclaimer of fixtures as part of that And I think Steve McClain could answer any further questions, but it's related to the property ownership and the refinancing of the harbor wins hotel Fine that answer. Yeah Any other questions? Yeah Now to reply to you or that did I attend meetings? We cannot attend every meeting And if you think that I'm going to attend every meeting the ones I can I will attend But when I'm reading this and it's on a consent agenda, I believe it's Alderman's job to call Correction when a mistake an honest mistake has been made now if you don't agree with that I'm sorry, but I'm going to keep on calling attention is that is fine Alderman Bowers I'm just saying protocol of counsel you can contact the chairman of any committee Yes ahead of the meetings to clarify these issues on the consent agenda Normally by the time it comes to counsel all of these issues have already been discussed They've gone to committee they've been discussed in committee and they're passed by committee before they come back to counsel So in the future I would urge you to please if you have questions regarding any specific document Give the chairman of that committee a call and possibly they can answer those questions before you come to the council meeting We have any further questions on the consent agenda There are none roll call, please Boran I bow bowers. Hi, Hammond. Hi, Hannah. Hi Was that an eye? Heidemann. Hi. Hi, Kittleson. Hi, Montemayor. Hi, Rin Flesch racler. Hi, Samson. Hi, Vander wheel. Hi, and Percy Hi, 14 eyes motion carries communications and petitions 2021 through 2025 to be referred I'm a born Thanks, Mr. Ryan on document number 2022 from communication from Margaret Jagler Is that going to planning and public protection and safety? That is being referred to the plan commission and ppns. Thank you Okay, moving on reports of officers to 2031 we're going to hold for 2050 2026 through 2038 to be referred resolutions introduced 2035 You are you are correct 2035 will be referred to the redevelopment authority. Thank you attorney McLean Resolutions introduced three 2039 we will hold also for 2050 2040 by alderman's alderpersons Hannah Hammond, Lauren Montemayor and Rin Flesch approving the fiscal year 2011 one-year annual action for the community development block grant or CDBG Program submission alderman Hannah Thank You mr. Mayor First I'd like to ask to suspend the rules second We have a motion in a second to suspend the rules any discussion on suspension of the rules Is there anybody opposed to the rules being suspended? The rules are suspended. Thank you Secondly, I would Make a motion that the resolution be put upon its passage second We have a motion in a second to put the resolution upon its passage under discussion I just a comment because earlier some questions were asked about the rationale for the distribution of the funds each year that pool shrinks and the group The consensus was we wanted to focus on given the economic challenges right now We wanted to focus on organizations that were going to have an impact on housing and Really the care and well-being of those that are most challenged by the economy So that's really what drove the decision for the allocation Thank You Alderman Hammond Hannah Is there any further discussion? There is no roll call, please Bowers Hammond Hi Heidemann Hi Kittleson I Montemayor I Rindfleisch I Sampson I Vanderweel I Versi carries 2041 and 2042 lie over 2043 through 2045 to be referred Reports of committee 7 2046 licensing recommending denying beverage operators license number 8908 based upon her failure to include all relevant convictions on her application and her failure to cooperate with the committee Vice president Rindfleisch. Thank you, Your Honor. I move that the Reporter committee be accepted and adopted We have a motion and a second to accept and adopt is Leah Kramer here She's not here your honor. Please continue. Thank you based on the non-cooperation. She did have two Notices to participate should contact us on the first notice and that she would participate in the second one and did not And nor did call so based on the non-cooperation and the disinterest in having a license. We recommend denial Very good. Thank you vice president Rindfleisch. Any further discussion? There is no discussion roll call, please To deny I Hammond I Hanna I Heidemann I Kittleson I Montemayor I Rindfleisch Raceler I Sampson I Vanderweel I Versi I Warren I and folk 14 eyes motion carries 2047 by law and licensing Denying taxicab driver's license number 8924 based upon his failure to include all relevant convictions on his application His record of violations and public safety concerns vice president Rindfleisch. Thank you, mr. Mayor I move that the reporter committee be accepted and adopted We have a motion and a second under discussion is Randall Graham here He's not here your honor, please continue. Thank you based on Hey, mr. Graham did attend and discuss his record with us. However, there were seven Convictions for felonies for burglary and to misdemeanor convictions for burglary dating from 2004 base as such We felt there was not in the public's best interest to grant the taxicab operators license, so we recommend denial Good. Thank you vice president Rindfleisch any further discussion There is no further discussion roll call, please I Hannah Kittleson I Montemay or I Rindfleisch I racelor I Samson I Vanderweel I verse II Warren I bulk and Bowers I 14 eyes motion carries reports of committees 8 2048 by finance recommending authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into a contract for camera Equipment for the municipal courts Hey, it's Alderman Hammond, please. Thank you, mr. Mary Move that the reporter committee be accepted and adopted and the resolution be put upon its passage second We have a motion and a second under discussion Alderman Hannah. Thank you, mr. Mayor This was a real hot topic I got a lot of phone calls In conversations with people That really under these tough budgetary times don't see the reason that we're going to spend 25,000 on a camera The municipal court was here for three years, and I don't think we ever use the cameras where we're here So I'm not going to support it I think there's a better use for $25,000 in today's budget Thank you Alderman Hannah Alderman racelor Thank you, mr. Mayor. I'm wondering if judge tell I'll come up and just kind of explain a little bit as to the needs of the Camera, I think some of them the finance committee when we were there. I think the Facts of everything and that being to broadcast kind of got a little bit clouded with some of the information with the paper And I think that's where some of the phone calls came I think maybe we can ever Need a motion to open the floor for the for the judge Hello, I made the request for the video cameras because Unlike the circuit court where they have court reporters in municipal court We're not a court of record so we do not have the requirement to have a you know an employee there Recording everything that is going on However, the Wisconsin state statutes do require the municipal court to record Any proceeding in which testimony is taken under oath in that section 800 point one three And that recording is by electronic means and it's for the purposes of appeal so Unlike in this again the circuit court where you might have a transcript that will go up on appeal Municipal court is a little different in that The defendant had well either party actually has the right on appeal to have either the record go up So that would be what we currently take and that is a Audio recording or they can have a new trial so Last Guess March when I was at a judicial conference. I was talking with some people and as Alderman Hanna pointed out I you know years ago had decided that we wouldn't use the video cameras here But they were telling me what benefits there were to the video recording Because then when people took their appeal The they tended to then just use the DVD and therefore then instead of having a brand new trial Which tends to be the favored method when you just have an audio recording They would send the DVDs and then you know the witnesses being the citizens or the victims or the Police officers don't need to take off work during the day and go over to the circuit court to have a trial You know a retrial of what they've already gone through Saving time and money for everybody involved and then they also pointed out that the circuit court judges tend to like it because It takes less time for them to quickly go through a DVD. They can fast forward on it and get to the relevant points in reviewing the record so that Kind of had me thinking about it Then this summer when I happened to marry someone At the Shvogna club the woman who was the bride happened to work for Fitchburg and their cable station And she was telling me how great the use of the video is As a TV show and Basically it comes down to the educational value If you you know look at how many police officers and building inspectors the city hires there It's impossible for them to get to every single citizen and Educate them as to what the law is in municipal court again vast majority of people are pro se defendants They might not be familiar with anybody talking to them about what the law is or how it's interpreted and Oftentimes after a trial I'll hear oh You know I'm frustrated that I came because if I would have just known that this was the law I wouldn't have you know pursued it this far and so it's an educational process at trial and The benefit then is for that one person that happens to you know have a citation They're probably six more out in the city that are doing the same thing thinking they're complying with the law They're trying to be good citizens, but unfortunately they don't know you know what the law really is and so that this educational value From the other courts that I then talked to this I talked to the judge from Fitchburg They've been Having the video recordings for the past 19 years Stoughton for 20 years and then I called a more recent court to see what they thought as well and the judge in Beloit, which I think is a community similar to ours You know really sung its praises and said it's great for the community. It really does You know have a civic benefit in making our community a better place to live because now people You know just more but you get to more people to let them know what those laws are and how they're interpreted but So that is why then I decided that this would be a good thing for our community It would help people understand the laws and how to comply And just get the word out to many more people than we can just by having trial by trial these cases are open, you know the Record is kept by the clerk right now in audio record the system that we have Proposed or had Proposed to us Just requires the clerk to do the same thing She's going to record and then download because it is a court record. There's no Slicing, you know, no editing allowed in fact and because it is a court record And so it will go on just as as recorded and Again, we don't necessarily have to you know do the TV and but we Are requesting for the video Recording to get the electronic recording as required into being compliance with this statutory provision And allowing the record to go up on appeal Hopefully saving a lot of time and money for everyone that is involved in those retrials I Don't know if you have any questions. Thank you judge Dela hunt if you can just stay up there for a moment President Kittleson, thank you mayor That's exactly when I was going to ask are we looking at the future the vision is to save time and money You know, I think the the time just that the you know for the city's end I mean, this isn't just the citizens that have to you know when Walmart, you know has a retail theft case or and their employees have to come over and testify or you know The city employees that have to come and testify, you know that the time and money saved I think is Yeah Justifies it. Thank you president Kittleson autumn and Bowers Yes, thank you Yeah, if you had problems within the court itself with the participants Acting up or anything like that. I was only impression. This was part of the Situation no You know, this is you mean for the reason for videoing. Yes. No Reason to video would not be to I mean people are going to behave how they're going to behave. I guess we do have You know an occasional person who outbursts or gets frustrated and then they're just advised to Calm themselves down and then we can continue on with the case But I don't believe when I in talking to the other courts That was not even something that was brought up or addressed and that was not something that I was looking to do For the recording For that I would prefer to have bailiff in the courtroom. That would be the the solution to any outbursts kind of issues But typically in the court, we do have police officers are going to be testifying so that kind of keeps everybody calm and And in order, but yeah, that was not even a that's not a consideration and Okay, so your request was put in after the budget requests were put in so this is sort of afterwards, right? We have The money in the municipal court budget I'm not asking for additional funds. It was in our budget. It's nothing that we're going to take out of the general fund So you're going to just allocate the $25,000 that would have been left there In your in your fund Correct, I guess yeah, okay Thank you Alderman Bowers Alderman Hannah. Yeah, just help me understand so the audio The audio recording doesn't meet the requirements. No the audio does And how does the reason how does the camera save employee time versus the audio? Well again because with an audio recording The purpose of the or the the reason the statute require requires a recording is for Appeals and we have this nuance with municipal court that a person can either Take the record and when the record as we have it now is an audio recording They can take that and give it to the circuit court and the court can listen to the audio Or they can have the case retried. That's kind of a nuance when you appeal from a circuit court case It's on the record. It's a transcript. You don't get to retry your case so What we have found in our court is that no one is using the DVD or I mean the the audio They want the new trial and so You know and that's whatever that's what when I was discussing this with other courts that tends to be the case but when it when a case has been recorded on a DVD People are satisfied with that and are okay with that going up on appeal rather than having to retry the case And that's where you save the time and money because retrying a case You know obviously it's the people again taking off work that police officers that need to go over the city attorney that you know Assistant city attorney that would need to retry the case That employee time The citizen's time Victim again Walmart as the example for retail theft Their loss prevention person doesn't have to come over or the humane society person doesn't have to take off work again Then get over to the circuit court for the same trial. They've already had So It's a make it am I explaining it what it seemed like we We didn't make a good decision moving you from here to there because this had all the equipment here Well, you know if this was such a critical element. I mean you had everything right here I guess you know The there are a lot of things that were installed in the new building and this You know camera equipment Isn't I I guess I don't see I wouldn't have stayed here just for the camera equipment that you know Thank you judge. Thank you Alderman Hanna Alderman racer my questions Just briefly Thank you for your presentation I guess the question that that I had or was answered and I just want to summarize that I think the Phone calls we received or the additional information was because of the way that it was reported that this was going to be specifically for the channel 8 Segment which is really a possibility in the future But for right now, we would like to use this video recording to save the money for the appeals and to provide a Documented copy right. I mean the initial thought for the cameras was we need a video recording for the record for appeal The advantage to channel 8 is so you can see your friends and neighbors Alderman Red Flesh your question was Thank you Alderman racer Alderman bulk. Thank you, mr. Mayor Which I know you understand this judge the twenty five thousand dollars a lot of money right now Yes, it's a it's the benefit package for a full-time equivalent So when people are calling in about that it's because right now Appreciate that yes a couple of questions How often in a given year will a case be appealed in this way where it can end up having to be retry right? And I did ask my clerk that because I get a lot of people who tell me they're going to appeal So I said how many appeals have we had so in the five years that we've been you know almost five years That we've been running. We've had 27 appeals Okay, and it to maybe three people that generally testify it a given I'm just trying to do you know if it's a policemen in a city in another city employee The typical trial will have one or two police officers or one or two building inspectors the defendant and then Possibly as I said if it's a you know like again, I'll go back to the Walmart example or a humane society employee Those employees would come as witnesses as well, and then the defendant may have you know one or two witnesses Okay, so give or take five times a year for three or four people and I'm not saying it's good or bad I'm just trying to talk about what it is So it's five times a year and it's three or four employees that have to redo all this over again Oh, how about minors on film would that prevent you from broadcasting? Eventually on channel eight. I know it wouldn't affect you keeping it for appeal purposes but for broadcasting if there are minors in it does that prevent you the Cases that are open to the public are the cases that would be Going on TV. So all juvenile non-traffic matters are not open to the public and that's you know, the thing here this is not These cases are any the courtrooms wide open and is the public is always invited in to these Proceedings and should be attending the proceedings. It's it's open to the public And so it's just showing what is open to the public now are those child non-traffic cases Are those liable to be appealed are those a high percentage of those appealed because of I actually I don't know How many of those have gone on appeal? I didn't have the clerk break that down. I'm sorry No, it's okay, but when and when they do is it the same rules even though it's a minor Non-traffic does it still if it's an audio they can retry it is it that same sort of deal? Oh, yes Yeah, yes, yeah, they would be able to and the court though obviously can have that record It just would be again when they're playing it wouldn't be open to the public. Okay, and so to my colleagues I don't know what I was in favor of it in the finance committee because I Inappropriately thought it was gonna be money coming out of our TV8 fund that I thought had to be spent on AV stuff Anyway now it's coming out of you know an account that could end up You know we could pay for half or we could pay for the benefits of a full-time equivalent So that's got me kind on the fence. So I am not sure what to do So if more of you want to weigh in I'd appreciate your your thoughts. Thank you, mr. Mayer. Thank you all to my bulk attorney McLean you want to comment? Thank you I just want to make clear that if somebody has the right to appeal with a trial de novo at circuit court whether Whether the recording is on audio or video doesn't make any difference. They still got a right to a new trial If it's on video doesn't mean they don't have a right to a new trial. They would still have that right So whether you've got an audio recording or video recording doesn't make any difference now Maybe maybe I think what the judge is getting at maybe the defendant would decide not to have a new trial since There already is a video recording of it I don't know that's and well, and then I can adjust address that you know Fitchburg and Stoughton both of those communities have been doing it for 19 and 20 years have told me that that's there That is what they have found them that That's what happens. They go with the video recording Not and again, but that is not to say who knows here. I don't know you know People definitely have the right to the retrial Thank you judge. Thank you attorney McLean Alderman Hammond Thank you. I judge Delhunt. How are you? Oh, great I think you might have just answered it, but maybe you can numerically clarify it. What percentage of Stoughton Fitchburg? When somebody does appeal and they have the video what percent of those result in a new trial? What percentage of those they just take the recording and go 100% of their cases go up on video They don't have any retrials Thank You Alderman Hammond and Last but not least Alderman Raceler just for Alderman Bob. He also remember we have the attorneys time. Let's invest in the two Okay, thank you Alderman Raceler. I have no more lights up here If we can go to vote. Thank you judge. You're welcome. Thank you Okay, we'll do a roll call vote and I will be to authorize the purchase Okay, Hannah. No Heidemann. No, hi. I'm sorry. Hi Kittleson aye Montemay or no Rindflash. No Raceler. Hi Samson. No Vanderweel. No Versi. No Boran. No Boke. No Bowers. No And no, no Three eyes 11 nose motion fails moving on 2049 by finance recommending authorizing a transfer of appropriations in the 2010 budget Alderman Hammond. Thank You mr. Mayor. I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted in the resolution Be put upon its passage We have a motion and a second under discussion Alderman Bowers Is this 2042? Oh, we're on 2049 at the moment 2049 I'm sorry. All right. Is there any discussion? You have a motion in a second roll call, please Heidemann. Hi Kittleson. Hi Montemay or I Rindflash. Hi Raceler I'm sorry. Hi. Thank you Samson. Hi Vanderweel. Hi Versi. Hi Boran. Hi Boke. Hi Bowers. Hi Hammond. Hi and Hannah. Hi 14 eyes motion carries Okay, 2050 we are going to take along with that first of all what we passed over 2031 By city planning commission recommending authorizing the sale of city-owned property at 833 Center Avenue. We are going to take 2039 with that By Alderman Haney Hammond authorizing the appropriate city officials to accept an offer to purchase city-owned land at 833 Center Avenue and Finally, we will get to 2050 by finance Recommending authorizing the sale of city-owned property at 833 Center Avenue and passing the resolution as is Alderman Hammond you get two out of three so I guess you can I can do three out of three if you need me to Okay, we need our motions on all of them. We're looking at 2031 a motion to accept and file 2039 a motion to file and 2050 a motion to accept and adopt and pass the resolution Alderman Hammond could we just do the first two and then we'll do absolutely all right on 2031 and 2039 I would make a motion to file second We have a motion in a second on 31 and 39 to accept and file 2031 and file 2039 under discussion If there is no discussion, should we take these separately? Can we take them together? Okay If there is no discussion all in favor say aye opposed Motion carries now we will move on to 2050 Which is by finance author recommending authorizing the sale of city-owned property at 833 Center Avenue and passing the resolution as is This is for those who are not in the know the city engineering building directly across the street from City Hall Alderman Hammond Thank You mr. Mayor I move that the report committee be accepted and adopted and the resolution put upon its passage We have a motion in a second under discussion Alderman Bowers Yes, I See who it was placed on my an hour desk an amendment by Alderman born and this is for In lieu of property taxes that we charge a assessment fee. I guess they call it a pilot Also, I was wondering what the appraisal was on this building because I know when it came up last year We're selling it. I believe for a hundred ninety nine thousand dollars Plus ten parking stalls Plus that's going to an organization that will not be paying any property taxes therefore if I could have the appraisal figure and Also The ten parking stalls was that included in the original offer to purchase or offer for sale It seems like a low price to me and here we're not getting any money in property taxes, so I will like some answers to those questions Thank You Alderman Bowers first of all the latest appraisal came in at a hundred and seventy thousand dollars on the building itself We did include the parking stalls immediately behind the building that they would come with parking It's at a hundred and ninety nine thousand as is is the way this is reading. This is the Final agreement signed by the Knights of Columbus and Negotiated through our Finance director Jim Amodio The hundred and ninety nine thousand is as is at one point There was a question about a crack that had formed in the back wall of the building There was a question about drainage on the roof And some other questions in my opinion The Knights of Columbus always owned a property in the city of Sheboygan. It was up by what is now it's torn down It was bought by St. Nicholas Hospital As far as charging a payment in lieu of taxes to one organization and not others I don't think it is the city's prerogative to pick and choose We have many other organizations, which are benevolent organizations in town boys and girls clubs elks club moose club Bfw's I believe all of the churches in town hospitals That do not pay taxes Just because this is a city-owned building the payment in lieu of taxes Is something different than the sale of the building itself The Knights of Columbus have the right to go out and buy any other building in town And take it off the tax rolls So what we need to look at with this issue. It's two issues. It's one is a hundred and ninety nine thousand dollars Fair for the sale of that building in my opinion. It is That's a building in need of some repair in this real estate market right now Which we how many vacant buildings there are downtown right now If the city does not sell this building we could be looking at holding this property for a long time We could be looking at holding this property for a long time and it will be in need of repair So I think the hundred and ninety nine thousand dollars for this property is fair In spite, you know in the in in light of the real estate market at this point as Far as getting a payment in lieu of taxes would I like to see a payment in lieu of taxes? Yes, I would But I don't think it's the city's prerogative to pick and choose To say this organization is going to pay taxes and this one is not I believe if this council wants to put forth the resolution that says that all non-profits are going to pay a payment in lieu of taxes for public protection and safety And for public works That would be a different issue And that would include all non-profits But I don't think it's the council's prerogative to pick and choose some organizations that will pay a payment in lieu of taxes while others don't that's my opinion Alderman board Thank you, mayor ran I'm going to go ahead and make my motion To send council document number 2050 Of january 17 2011 back to the city attorney and the city finance director to negotiate as a contingency Of the sale of the city owned property at 833 center avenue in the city of shabuigan, wisconsin To the columbus institute An annual payment in lieu of taxes for police protection fire protection and public work services The annual payment in lieu of taxes will be based on the portion of the current year's property tax level Dedicated to providing police protection fire protection and public work services And the current assess value of said property The annual payment in lieu of taxes will be renegotiated on an annual basis prior to december 30 On prior to december 28 for the following year's pilot payment By the city attorney and the city finance director Based on the annual changes in the property tax levy dedicated for providing police protection fire protection and public work services And the assess value of the property for that year the new amount Of the payment in lieu of taxes will be approved by the city finance committee on an annual basis second Thank you. Alderman barn under discussion mayor Before I get into before I get into some of my prepared comments I was a member of the building use committee last year And the building use committee last year First of all We we decided on your advice To hold off selling the building until real estate for commercial property is improving To this point, I don't know if it is improving And the second thing that you told the building use committee is that when this building was sold you wanted it on the property tax rules So I don't know if alderman versi's committee has had any discussions on the sale of this building I think at the very least it could have went back to the building use committee To advise them what the city finance director was negotiating But all of a sudden it shows up at the finance committee and it's all news to us First of all, I want to say that the Knights of columbus is a wonderful organization And they do a lot of good work in in the community But but as a fairness issue For the struggling mon par bar businesses in the city of shaboying and in my district and your districts Uh, I think, uh That having them pay a payment in lieu of property taxes is just a fairness issue We are not asking them to pay anything for the school portion of the levy the county portion of the levy or ltc Just the payment for the services that way they that they will directly benefit from And I asked the council support in sending this back to the city attorney and the city finance director for The further negotiations as a contingency to the sale of the property. Thank you mayor. Thank you all to me born all to person on to mayor Thank you, mr. Mayor when um The Knights of columbus were approaching and talking with the city about this property were they Was the information about payment in lieu of taxes presented to them at all Yes, it was it was discussed on several occasions if I can have director amodio come up Um Jim you are the Kind of the chief haggler in this negotiation yes, uh they had made several offers and In some of the offers they wanted additional things one of the things we said was $1.99 and a payment for a pilot in lieu of taxes And they came back and said no on the pilot because they were a A non-tax paying organization that wouldn't be acceptable to them or their board So we negotiated The last time we negotiated There was a price of $199,000 There was at least a $3,500 escrow could have been more There were additional demands for a strip of land between that and the transit That they wanted Along with an additional parking spot for handicapped It was the finance committee's decision to say Go back make them one more offer $1.99 no strings attached as is where is no strip of land no extra parking That's what I was instructed to do. I did that they accepted the offer and signed it Thank you as much as I would like them to do you know payment in lieu of taxes I remember at the plan commission. We did have a quite of a firm discussion with another tax exempt A couple of years ago and we pretty much insisted on payment in lieu of taxes Well, they just didn't buy our land at that that they did something else I would definitely like them to pay something For the police and the fire and this and the snow removal But I don't want the sale to be contingent on them saying yes I would ask that well evidently did ask them to please do that simply as a as a moral obligation That's all I have to say thanks now on the snow removal of the parking stalls that they would purchase with the building that would be their responsibility So the city would no longer plow that portion of the lot The only reason that I you know number one director Amonio Can you give us some idea on the payment in lieu of taxes? What they would be paying on an annual basis based on this sure when we looked at it We looked at the police fire and public works budget Against the total budget for the city and in public works We took everything except garbage and parks and recs because they'd have to supply Their own garbage pickup and parks and recs wouldn't be affected Once we did that we then backed any revenue off of those three departments that they generate from the city Once we got the net number or the net expense, which would theoretically be the levy value We then looked at revenue And revenue in the city roughly 14 million dollars of the 34 million dollars is levy revenue 16 million dollars is not levy revenue, but it's shared revenue from state So we then took the 16 million dollars and apportioned it to the city budget because that would need to be shared And then came up with a net cost for fire police and public works And applying the Credit Also to the city rate The payment in lieu of taxes would be about 702 dollars a year On 199 thousand dollars of assessed value. So that's the number we're talking about Thank you director Amonio Altamira in flesh Thank you, mr. Mayor As i'm in the the beer business, I Do see those customers that i've been born it was Referring to there's a lot of businesses that are are barely making it right now who do pay the taxes Or struggle to pay the taxes at times, but are paying the taxes And doing the right thing a lot of the Non-profits open to the public Really are open to members only and very few are actually open to the public for to gain business One of which is it's a columbus. So you can go use their facilities and not have to worry about Well, they had the facilities and it is open to the public is my understanding. I'm not a member But that's my understanding of that. So I do agree that that without some kind of payment is not fair to those businesses That are doing the right thing for a business that's in direct competition with them to To not have to pay the taxes However, when I look at the resolution We're also asking to negotiate well negotiations a two-party thing. It's not Unilateral you can't simply demand that they accept our offer plus the seven hundred and and 82 792 702 702 dollars As calculated for for a pilot They can say no and they can walk away from the deal and say no That's at some part of me would be fine with them walking away and saying no Keep my fingers crossed and hopefully we sell the property to somebody else But what happens if they say no, perhaps they move to another location in the city They still don't pay taxes and they're not buying from us. So we have no leg to stand on to negotiate a pilot And we still have a building across the street that we need to fix the older it gets the more money We're going to have to invest in fixing that up to make it a sellable fixture. We have an offer right now That's as is with no contingencies So I know that there was as you mentioned there were other negotiations previous to that So we know that's assessed at 172 without the parking stalls But what was their initial offer that came through what are they asking for they're not asking for right now That probably another entity if purchasing the same building would probably do the same thing and ask for in the first place Well, they wanted another strip of land They wanted to widen the drive by two or three feet which meant taking out some lawn and some trees between them and transit They wanted an additional Spot for handicapped in the back. They wanted an island put in the back to separate their parking from the rest of the city parking Please um, and they were asking for They were offering substantially less money, correct as well as contingencies the city would have to spend some money And I heard numbers on 15 to 25,000 to fix up the roof. Well, the roof is an issue Because of the slope of the way the water drains that could be anywhere from zero to maybe 20,000 The item they looked at was the flashing and the crack in the back wall Which we had estimated between 3500 and 5000 dollars So that was always a moving target with them Um on the amount of escrow to see how much they could really get out of the city You know, I believe the original their original offer on a purchase price was 175. I think when they first came to us Yes, I believe um Because of the accessibility at 172 That's what was what I heard They had it appraised at 170 And that was with one or two parking spots one or two parking spots. They wanted 10 um They wanted to pay 175 Myself and the mayor and chad talked, uh, and we went back Encountered with 199 and a pilot Uh, they came back and said 199 no pilot Uh, and then after that there were another series of events where Once they had their foot in the door, they thought they can get some more Uh, another And none of which was any different than any Taxable entity would be if they offer for the same property correct. We'd probably looking at uh Spending some money on a roof prior to selling it to a taxable entity. That is that is the thing that this offer I think Is is advantageous for us as we don't have to put any money into the building There's no uh, what ifs in this equation? I mean the other thing that also happened Was that we took some of the built-in cabinets when we moved to engineering? So we have some exposed walls. They're not opposed to that But there's exposed walls and flooring which if we had to look at a resale Um, they'd have to be willing to accept that Knights of columbus said they were going to gut it in inside anyway to the bare walls So that wasn't a factor But these could be additional repairs that we'd have to do if we try to sell it to a third party So the thing that I'm going to be weighing as I decide this is the fairness factor to Competitive businesses if you will that I'm familiar with versus I think In my mind, it's probably the best offer we're ever going to get for that property and as is we walk away Is it taxable right now? No, but we're looking at $700 a year In taxable event versus what we may have to spend to make it sellable in the long run So I'll weigh that decision to make it my mind. Thank you Thank you, Jim. Thank you Alderman or inflation in that $700 a year could get eaten up very quickly If we're starting to carry costs on that building and repairs on that building One thing I'd like to point out. I mean if we look at I've got a list here of all our exempt properties in the city And if we just go down a page here, we have parks. We have schools. We have Christian organizations Christian school, of course all of our parks churches The masonic hall We've got a lot of organizations here that are not on the tax rolls And to take one organization And to single them out saying that we're going to get a payment lieu of taxes out of this organization Because we may have the power to do that right now I don't think it's fair I think if the council wants to address the payment in lieu of taxes for Fire and police protection and for public work services that should be done on a more broad basis and not just on One individual property Alderman Well, I have nobody oh alderman hammond. There we go. I think my light's in the corner somewhere First off, I'd like to thank alderman born for at least bringing this forward You know, I don't necessarily have a problem with having the discussion about payment and lieu of taxes but as said before to Single out a particular organization when you've got groups like the american legion Who of course have a drinking establishment inside Of course the elks the moose many others If we want to have this discussion as a matter of policy Then I think we need to have that discussion But if you look at the payback, it's going to be 20 plus years Before based on $700 before we accoup the cost that we could have to put into that building I think the other thing we got we have to consider is yes, there's payment lieu of taxes of 700 But what are these organizations put back into our community in the form of of charitable work? You know again. I American legion Many of these other organizations are benevolent and as such do many great things for this community that I would submit is probably greater than $700 a year in value and then finally the argument explains they can go anywhere else They could find any other building in shabuigan and unless we were going to hold their liquor license hostage Would be off the tax rolls So again, if we want to have this conversation as part of a larger policy Decision Then we should bring that forward but to pick on this one group and say no We're going to make you the example. I just don't think is fair Thank you alderman hammond alderman borne Thank you, marine. Uh, first I've got a question The 10 or 11 parking spots are we currently getting any rent for those spots? Those are owned by I Returning McLean mentioned that those are under the jurisdiction of the transit Are the part of parking utility under jurisdiction of the parking utility? Yeah, I think they're You know parking utility assigns them and things but most of those right behind the building are city employees Or at least they they have been in the past the ones farther south may be rented. I'm not even positive of that But I Although the ones for used by city employees We do there is a charge internally the departments get charged for So much a stall per month You know so it comes out of departmental budgets if if they're using one of those stalls now so And then the other stalls would be used just for the general public If somebody let's say is working at a bank and they want to rent a stall they can rent it or How how how do we get a rental from those from those stalls? I guess what I'm driving at is we have to kick the city employees out and move them somewhere else For the nights Then that's going to be less parking revenue because we won't have less stalls to rent to somebody else. Would that be correct? Well a good number of those stalls were in engineering that is gone now. Anyway, that's down at the service building Uh I don't know who all has assigned stalls in there, but Alderman borne at the moment We have no shortage of downtown parking Since the the police department was moved out of this building. We have the metered lot right across the road That during the day is never more than 20 full We have a lot more parking right in this area than we have vehicles at the moment That of course is owned by the parking parking authority also Um, so we could move People over to there. We also have more stalls over here behind the building that are available also And all with all to respect mayor some of the some of the lists that you read off of there I don't believe any of those own a bar Or run a bar in the city and that's what the Knights of Columbus is going to be doing and that's what they've been doing for years And I guess you know the only time that you can get a tax exempt organization to even consider a pilot Payment in lieu of taxes is when they want something Giving example, this is on a much bigger scale, but recently Aurora built a hospital in Grafton The the village of Grafton got 1 million dollars out of Aurora healthcare to help build a public works building down there And they're getting many thousands of dollars a year in lieu of property taxes before they could break ground So as I say the only time the city is in a good position to negotiate any pilots Is when a non-profit wants something and right now they want something Director Amorio Were they given the figure of 700 dollars in your negotiations because I talked to Nancy about that today and it took her Three hours to call me back. No, it was actually more than that. We threw out a high number Okay, uh, I don't think I think in the spirit of things I think you should try one more time to get the 700 dollars If they've got their five slot machines and they're like the rest of the bars in town They should be able to pay for that pilot and probably a week Thank you. Thank you again Alderman born Alderman samson Thank you, mr. Mayor a couple couple questions said we had any other offers on that building No, nothing and how long has it been taken to before we have not officially put that building on the market Knights of Knights of columbus came to us knowing that it was going to be vacated We haven't had it on the market because up until the end of this week We still have engineering in the building and who appraised the building you said they got it appraised Who appraised that so it was an independent appraiser that they hired They being Knights of columbus. It was uh, we had an appraised Ken Sontag did the last appraisal on it. I believe who also does the appraisals for We had an appraised. He's a reputable appraiser Ken Sontag did this one too just for this deal. Yes. Oh, okay. Thank you I believe they had Ken. Yeah, right and Ken is a reputable appraiser in the area Thank you Okay, Alderman Bowers. Thank you You know Here we have a Christian organization takes advantage of All our services And I last like to ask the people that negotiated this what are the reasons for not paying Mr. Mow or whoever it did in negotiations for not paying A You know payment and new taxes what their reasoning is Don't they understand that we if there's a fire we're going to be there If there's going to be an ambulance call, we're going to be there if there's going to be a snowstorm They're going we're going to be there The water utility if something goes wrong, we'll fix it. They also get the water from the city what As Christians, what are they telling us the city of Sheboyga? Is it They don't want to do it or they can't afford it or what does anybody know that in your negotiations Is See That's the kind of reasoning we're getting and I think they probably think they're going to set a precedent So maybe there's something this council should look at as Get all of your organizations and maybe an act I don't know if we can force them to do something but we need money And these people take up the services just as much as my home and your home and the businessman And they're all made up of people that pay taxes. So why shouldn't These organizations do something Maybe not taxes but payment in lieu of taxes. Did that something we can look into? Alderman bowers That's one thing that if I believe this council may want to look into if the council It would be this council's prerogative to look at it as a matter of policy Uh city-wide rather than singling out one organization, you know, you speak of this being a good christian organization We have a a good artists organization named the john michael kohler art center that Doesn't pay taxes either. I understand that. So I mean, I just don't think it's fair to single out one organization In my opinion. Is there any further discussion? If there is none roll call, please in i vote would authorize the sale of the property As is a you got a motion Oh first we have i'm sorry jim first we have Sorry, I jumped the guy there jim. No disrespect intended Your motion Jim States to just send it back to the city attorney and the finance director for further negotiations Can we send this back to the city attorney and the finance director? Does it have to go back to a committee? I think the preferable way would be to have it if you're going to refer it back is refer it back to finance committee So that it's in the system as opposed to sending it to department heads I think if it went to the finance committee with With the Direction that the city attorney and the finance director negotiate. That's fine I'll embed my motion then to send it to finance first Okay, so the motion on the floor the rest of the wording of the resolution remains the same. Okay, uh an amendment to alderman borne's resolution here To send this Back to the finance committee. So an i vote would be to send it to the finance committee For further discussion a no vote. We'll keep it for a vote on the council floor. We'll call please Alderman rindflash Thank you before we vote. I'm just looking at the commercial offer to purchase again The offer as made must have acceptance by january 31st And I don't know if it goes back to committee if it comes going to be able to come back to council final approval As we call a special meeting by january 31st. Basically if we don't get back to them by january 31st There is no offer it would make that offer null and void exactly So some to think about when it comes to the resolution as well If you're Alderman rindflash, is there any further discussion before the vote on the amendment? There is no roll call, please Other way around motion fails back to the original Resolution authorizing the sale of the property 20-50 is there any further discussion There is no discussion and i vote will be to To authorize the sale of the property at 199,000 as is a no vote will be to turn down that offer Alderman rindflash have a discussion I vote a no so that the On the amendment so that we can move to the commercial offer to purchase and get this property Off our hands before we have to invest a lot of money in there My hope though is that the Knights of Columbus or members thereof have heard of the debate and Hopefully do the right thing and Volunteer themselves to do a $700 contribution payment to move taxes. Thank you Thank you vice president rindflash. Is there any further discussion? There is no roll call, please Hanna I Heidemann I Coth I Kittleson I Montemayor I Rindflash I Raceler I Samson I Vanderweel I Versi No Boren No Bauke I Bowers No And Hammond I I I I 11 eyes 3 nose Motion carries Report of committee 9 2051 by public protection and safety recommending creating section 1847 of municipal code So as to place restrictions on dangerous and vicious dogs amending section 18-3 of the municipal code So as to establish an increase certain penalties for violations of animal ordinances in the city And repealing and recreating section 18-46 so as to modify the city's leash law Ppns Alderperson montemayor Thank you, mr. Mayor I'm glad you asked me to do this one because I feel strongly about this one. We had a good subcommittee Good participants. It was a alderman versi alderman samson myself and we had a veterinarian we had The humane society dog groomer Dog food seller. We had lots of the dog People who objected to our first request In that committee and they gave us lots of good ideas lots of good information Police chief domigalski was there Chuck Adams was there. I think And their main concern was All the rules were good if it's a dog that is of danger To a community a specific dog not just a breed. So that is pretty much what we've done Alderman montemayor motion. You need to make a motion. Thank you. I certainly do But it sounds great. Yeah I'll make a motion that the rcb accepted and adopted and the ordinance be put upon its best. Thank you Thank you all the person about to me or under discussion President kiddleton Well, yes, thank you. I do So what changed here is you took away we took away the breed specific portion of this Is that it Can someone answer that I think all the person montemayor and versi and samson would be happy to And then what are we going to do as far as you know, the enforcement portion of it? And now I believe can the csls can write citations Somebody like to give us a quick synopsis of the resolution Thank you, mayor Um, thank you Alderman kiddleton that's pretty much it and we also Added that Those retractable leashes should not be used. It should be a sturdy Six foot leash or an eight foot leash that the actually can control and even the veterinarians and humane society and all the other Dog people agreed with that strongly as well And it will be the police who will now respond to these complaints and we'll have some sort of our ordinance To use to help them with the complaints To enforce something. Thank you all the person montemayor Alderman borne Thank you, mayor ryan I looked over the document and I like the document But I think the only shortcoming that I can see Is or maybe somebody on the committee can answer this is what is this going to do? To increase people to license their dogs I think there was Some of the veterinarians were willing to do it in their office if they were given a fee To cover their administrative costs, but that fell by the wayside. Can anybody tell me why that wasn't in the final document? Thank you Chuck adams talked to the county about that and the county clerk felt very strongly that would not be legal For us to do that or for veterinarians to do that now chuck adams disagreed with that, but He didn't feel it was worth causing the commotion right now about that Veterinarians were willing to do that the city was willing to do that But the county clerk was not she felt very strongly It was not legal and it is the county that is issuing the licenses. We're just doing it for the county Thank you all the person montemayor Ottoman Samson. Thank you. Mr. Ray. I think it's The licensing issue I think is going to be something totally different that we're going to have to work on In the future. It's going to be ongoing. I think very important To note here is now we have a process in place That once we established that there is a dog And we took the breed specific portion out of it because that was the highly emotional Part of it. That was a big part that we took out but we also added a Process now that if there is a dog that is deemed dangerous or vicious You get your citation you can challenge it now. We didn't really have that there's a there's more of a distinct process now that they can challenge that Through the city and and and they can they can argue that so at that some point if they believe that they were unfairly Targeted or whatever they can certainly bring that up and they can argue that now and They'll be heard and it'll be taken into consideration at that point But I think it's important now. We have now a process in place that actually gives The police something in the city something that we can do with Addressing dangerous dogs and vicious dogs Thank you. Thank you. Alderman samson Vice president rinflash. Thank you I had received a call earlier today. I'm constituent with some questions on that. I don't know if if The person had seen it Online or wherever it was but had some pretty specific questions first one are definitions definition of a dangerous vicious dog, excuse me The concern was number two causing injury by biting a person in the face or neck And there is no other Further definition on that and the question was if I have a dog inside my house protecting my house This one breaks in and bites somebody in the neck or face doing their duty. Is that now considered a vicious dog? But then they further looked at and said in section two A dog except one assisting police officer, etc in there it says Chased or attacked any human being or domestic animal without provocation And the assumption was then someone in my breaks into my house. That's provocation of my dogs not going to be Deemed a a vicious dog And the further point then they made was that well, then I see that there's a whole process for notification hearing of declaration of a Dangerous dog so for the public if someone of the committee could kind of go through the process if Of declaration a bite occurs is it automatically a dangerous dog or does it have to go through this process? First that was basically the question is to see what rights to the dog owners have Before declaration of a dangerous dog or is it simply just an appeal of that process? Well, if somebody breaks into your house, you hope they're tall So the dog like bites them in the arms or shoulders or something not the face of that Alderman versi I I I know you want to speak on all right. Yeah, and actually in section 3a Actually defines that and when it defends its owner caretaker another person or animal of the young food from a trespasser Or an attack by that person or animal that sums it up in one little sentence right there for those people Ain't anything inside their home let them attack As far as them appealing it It's once that dog has bitten in a face or neck outside of their own surroundings unprovoked They can go ahead and appeal it if they want and say well, it was provoked by that person teasing him with whatever But now they have to prove their case. That's where it comes to yeah, you can appeal on anything you want But now you have to prove it So, I mean the the the appealing matter is once it's unprovoked and then they're deeming it dangerous or vicious right away Follow the marriage the proving The owners is not on the owner to prove it's not a vicious dog The proving is on the police or in the corporate city to prove it is a vicious dog So It seems you know it's half six and one and a half dozen in the other but the rights of the property owners is still intact That owns the dog that Someone simply can't claim it's a vicious dog and though you have to prove it's not how do you disprove a negative? I guess it's that you have to be proven as a vicious dog first So your rights as a pet owner are so protected I think with the balance of this committee With the so-called dog people as all in person not to me are referred to them And I guess the others would be the non dog people We had a pretty good balance. So if this committee came up with this document and they all agreed on it I think that I think that is a good accomplishment They agreed with it enthusiastically Enthusiastically, that's even better. So I think the committee it must have been uh, I'm sure many long hours of spirited discussion Alderman Bowers Yes, thank you. So let me get this straight all or person Montever and your committee Our attorney Chuck Adams who has knowledge of the law said he thought it was legal We have a county clerk that says no, this isn't legal. I can see why you people Didn't want to go through with this because you wanted to get the body In effect in that fight city hall What is our procedure now to instigate where the county clerk because she's looking at it this way She's got 11,000 license to issue probably so she doesn't want the extra work. This is what it's all about And what can we do to get the county? Do is it one of our committees to instigate this so that the county issues it or what? That's the next committee not tonight Well, okay. I'm not saying your committee. No What's the procedure that we can go about because we our city attorney thinks it's illegal The work So why can't we instigate something and I believe that somebody could come in with another resolution Strictly regarding dog licensing and probably we could discuss the the matter of dog licensing and and open that up for more discussion or Alderman versi Yeah, I'll add to it It becomes because instead of shabuagan county licenses the city can only cannot delegate what the county does That was the issue that the county clerk had Is they issue the license we're issuing them on their behalf because they're city residents So at the county board would have to take on The licensing issue not us So we would need to contact the county board and talk them into pushing the veterinarians to process licenses That answers your question. Yes. All right, that's one thing that's very rarely heard around here It's said it's called a call your county board member Who are they? Alderman samson Thank you, mr. May. I think I just want to clarify the one statement by alderman versi Even though they are in their house that doesn't give The owner Free rein and let the dog just bite people like crazy. They have to be doing that person That's in the house has to be doing something unlawful. It isn't just a you can have a vicious bite inside the house And that person not be doing something illegal or unlawful so It's just just to clarify. It's not just because they're in their house They can just bite and then that won't be taken into consideration. Just so there's no confusion I thought the gist of it. I got was alderman vice president rindflash was referring to intruders Alderman versi add one last thing. I don't sell libra insurance for dogs Okay, just want to put that out there at tv land. I don't sell liability insurance for dogs You'd have to talk to alderman hannah about that. No No Anybody else Okay, nobody sells insurance for dogs here. That's good. Okay. Any further discussion If there isn't an unrolled call, please Cut hi kittleson. Hi montemayor. Hi rindflash. Hi racler. Hi samson. Hi rander wheel. Hi versi. Hi Warren hi bauk Ham, I'm sorry bowers. Hi. Hammond. Hi hannah. Hi and heidemann. Hi 14 eyes motion carries 25th our ordinance is introduced 10 2052 and 2053 to be referred Other matters authorized by law attorney mcclean 2054 is an arrow by the city clerk submitting a communication from march madden stating our concerns over spending 25 000 dollars to install cameras in the municipal courtroom I think we could file that motion to file second We have a motion in the second to file all in favor say aye. Aye post 2055 Is an arrow by the city clerk submitting communication from tix sushi regarding taxes for mental financing districts That'll be referred to city planning 2056 Is a communication from janelle coonard of washington school requesting a change in the location of wording of the signage for the Washington elementary school circle drive Will be referred to public protection and safety 2057 is a summons complaint in the matter of wisconsin housing and economic development authority versus chad Coisman at all will be referred to risk management 2058 is a resolution establishing public participation procedures for the city of shaboyan comprehensive plan update Will be referred to city planning 2059 is Arrowed by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending june 30 2011 and june 30 2012 We'll go do vice president rinfly shanlon licensing Okay, that is all for uh other matters Looking for a motion to glow go into closed session for those folks out there. We will not be coming back on the air We have a closed session to discuss To discuss some matters there will not be a vote on any matters. It's for information purposes only We have a motion in a second to go into Session do you want to read the whole thing please? I can do Motion to convene in closed session under the exemption provided in section 19.8 51 Of the wisconsin statutes for the purpose of deliberating the purchasing of public property The investing of public funds and the possible modification renegotiation And assignment of leasehold interests for competitive and bargaining reasons require a closed We have a motion in a second all in favor of going into closed session say aye opposed We are in closed session