 I'm going to go ahead and call the leading to order at 4.15. Let's go ahead and do a roll call. Alder Heidemann? Here. Alder Decker? Here. Great. Alder Ackley and Alder Felde are excused. Culture sales are here. If we can all stand for 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. Great. Agenda item number four, introduction of committee members, staff, and guests. We don't have any guests today. We all know each other, so we'll skip that. Agenda item number five, approval of minutes for the September 22nd or 27th meeting on 2023. Motion to approve. Second. Great. Any discussion? All those in favor, please stay aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. Chair votes aye. Motion carries. Agenda item number six, resolution number 362324, a resolution establishing polling locations for the city of Sheboygan beginning in 2024. Meredith? Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to pass out the maps that are effective right now that we're in effect 2023. And then we can talk about the changes that we are proposing. First of all, we don't like to polling locations. It is like in the best interest of our voters because it has caused confusion. Secondly, polling locations, according to the stage, it's highly recommended that those polling locations be in city-owned buildings for many reasons, mostly because we can control fixing, plowing, opening, closing, if there's an issue, those kinds of things. So what we are proposing since Uptown Social is now open and it's a beautiful building, we would like to start using that as a polling location. So we are looking to move. So Uptown Social is about at the corner of 8th and Zimbal, right in Ward 5. So we are looking to move Ward 5 and Ward 6 to Uptown Social. So that would be eliminating Alton Park as a polling location, the church there. And that's actually a very good idea because Faulton Park has stairs or an elevator. So our polling location is on the lower level and it causes everybody to use the stairs or an elevator. And the door entering and exiting, the polling location is pretty small for a rotation of voters coming in and out. So that's the first proposal is to put 5 and 6 in Uptown Social. The second proposal is to move the Humane Society to EV Free. So EV Free right now has one, seven and eight and we would like to include Ward 2 in there and there's several reasons. Number one, when the Humane Society first became open they were very excited to have us as a polling location and then they switched management. And so that kind of decreased a little bit for us and they have opened a dog park which has affected parking as well. And then there are concerns with, we have received several calls with allergies and smells because the voters go through all of the guinea pigs and rabbits before they enter the polling locations. So there have been calls for the smells and allergies if somebody is allergic to something like a guinea pig they would have to pass through there. EV Free has recently remodeled. They have a magnificent building there and they've always been 100% accommodating for whatever we need. They really like to partner with the city and feel it's their duty to give back. And so that's one thing they've worked with us for years and they have the space to accommodate that. So those are the only two changes that we are looking to make. Would it be really hard to move? I'm just thinking about how far away it is from ward two. Yes. There's no possibility to consider using the quarry. We had the quarry. There were some issues with the quarry. The door is not ADA accessible right now at the quarry. I think that revisions were made to the building. That would be an amazing spot. It really would be because that's more in that area. But we moved it out of there to the Humane Society because of the heat and the coldness in there as well for our issues. But we used to have that as a polling location and we would consider going back there if the building were updated. Got it. But we also, I mean, we looked at this map many times. We looked at even moving eight out of EV-free and putting that at Uptown Social so it would balance them out a little bit more. But EV-free is in Wargate and that causes a lot of issues for voters who live in the same ward as their polling location but have to go somewhere else. So that was one concern we had about moving eight and we want to move the least amount possible. We could stay in the Humane Society, that's not, I mean, just with those issues, it's a concern. But that's... Do you think it's too hard to move six to the Mead? Instead of Uptown Social? Yeah. I, yes, the Mead library cannot hold three wards. Oh, I just get... No. And Uptown Social, actually, if there's more that we could put in Uptown Social with their gym being done and their space, we could put more wards there. But I'm not sure it's worth anybody else. Okay. I'm just gonna stay down. No, if I'm willing for suggestions because we stare at this map a lot, trying to figure out what's best for voters and what voters are going to say and what their needs are. Yeah, I can see where some people come in and not be thrilled with it. You know, I guess we try the two in there and see what happens. Made the two where? In the, you know, going there. I know it's not quite as convenient as they would like but, you know, again, if they... I can see where the complaints can be with people with allergies and things like that. Might be not be happy with the... Yeah, it's a really large decat, so. Yeah. I mean, society would not be a place I'd like to go to. Yeah. I mean, we don't want to be an infusion to anybody voting, so. Yeah. Okay. So looking for any other additional discussion or questions? Great. Looking for a motion? Move to approve. Second. Any other discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. Chair votes aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Agenda item number seven, general ordinance number 22-23-24 and ordinance amending section two dash 115 as to eliminate the need for older person signatures on council documents and revising the deadline for submitting requests for documents to the legal department. Is trying to tag team this one. Thank you. Some of this is updating current practices. Most of our ordinances and resolutions, almost all of them go through the legal department to begin with and the section had talked about them going directly to me. And so it updates that portion of it. The new way the documents look since we changed them, there wasn't spots for signatures, so we weren't quite sure that that was necessary to have the resolutions and ordinances signed. The RCs are still signed, so the report out of the committee, all the olders will sign whatever the report was by the committee still. Anything else that I see? No, I would add though that the additional language to sub A setting a time limit for submitting items to the clerk is really important to have that codified. It's pretty regular occurrence for people to seek exceptions to deadlines unless that's part of the ordinance, so we appreciate that. And then I also am very supportive of the language added to section B that just reiterates the importance of legal review for resolutions and ordinances. In section B, you're saying? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. We always want you guys to look at it, but we don't. Yeah, and there are very few things that we look at that we don't change. Any other questions? I guess, so by eliminating the signatures by the aldermen, I don't understand why we wouldn't be doing that anyway. I mean, I've done it for years. I think it's one of those things where you sign yourself, you sign your name to a document that you have approved that's been through committee. I think it's the responsibility of the aldermen to sign that document and not having a signature. Where else would you ever get somebody say, well, did you sign that? Nowhere else in the process. Yeah. So we can just shove it right straight through and nobody has to sign it. Nobody has to read it. Nobody has to do anything. They have to vote on it, though. That's what I would say to constituents who are concerned. They would say, well, did you support this? And you could say, yes, I voted for it or no, I didn't. Or I abstained from voting for whatever reason. The framework that we're operating within for our new ordinance format is set by the software that we're using. And we've tried making changes to accommodate local practice. And the software is not able to really accommodate many of our requests. So the software does not have a field for aldermen to sign anymore. Our old ordinances were written up internally so we could add that section. And correct me if I'm wrong, Liz, but I believe that even if we signed the document, right? So even if we signed it as a committee based on licensing and hearing, even when we got to the council, you could still vote against it, which has happened before, right? We've all still signed things that were on those documents. And then we've been able to still vote yes, yay, or nay to them. Well, I wouldn't put my name to a document that I wasn't gonna vote for. Why would I do that? Wait, wait, wait, you mean some could. You mean- Well, yeah, well, you can change, you have the ability to change your mind. The other day I had a situation where again, I had an attendant public works meeting and it was the buying of these 717 trees. Okay, obviously I agree with that. I wasn't there, but I actually felt uncomfortable signing a document that I didn't have anything to do with. And again, I think that's a responsibility of an alderman. They should be doing that. They should be held responsible. They should know what they're signing. They should be reading their documents and why it's so hard to get somebody to sign something before the meeting. I don't get it. I just don't, I'm not comfortable with it myself. So I guess one accommodation that could be made is a cover sheet could become part of the standard ordinance process of resolutions and then the cover sheet is internally developed to be signed by council members. But I'm not, meaning no disrespect to your position, I'm not sure that it's legally necessary to have those signatures. It doesn't seem that it's legally necessary. It's just a personal preference. So if a majority of the council wanted to continue with signatures, we could do a cover sheet. That's just a signature page. And that would bypass the software limits. Dean, go ahead. So what's like the practices around the state? Like, That's the exact question I was going to ask. You know, what's practice in like, Bob Black, Racine, you know, La Crosse, whatever it is. I don't have an answer, I don't know. Any kind of a sense on how that, you know, because of the software is that way. I'm sure that a lot of other municipalities are using this software. So what are they doing? Are they kind of limited as part of this? Also, that why it's not even in the software because these municipalities aren't even doing it. Haven't been doing it in the first place. Is this something that's just a shabuigan thing that, you know, and that's why we're doing it. We've just done it because that's how we've always done it. That sometimes is the practice in shabuigan. Sometimes we do it because that's how we've always done it. I don't like this, David. Well, and I will say that why we changed our ordinances to begin with, to look like, and our resolutions to look like this and not the other way is because the software made general ordinances look a certain way. And we didn't want one ordinance to look one way that was in our Muni code. And then another one that we created in our Word document to look another way. So yes, the software will not allow, I don't believe for the signatures, but the ones that we create in Word, like the resolutions, we could add back in lines for the elders to sign those. We would just have to think of an accommodation for the ones that are made through the Muni code, if that makes sense. Because these are still an in-house document, these resolutions. These are still done in Word and we could add a line if that was what was preferred to have it signed. Did you, when we were researching document format, did you ask other cities what they were doing for signatures? I feel like we've looked at that, but I can't remember. I think every municipality does things very different. Everything looks very different depending on where you go. Some are signed, some are not, some don't have RCs, some are just resolutions that are read twice and there's not a report of the committee. You know what I mean? It's just, we could get some information, but every municipality, I feel like we've looked at. Yeah, even of those that use the same software, because there are different options as in select when you're printing, it only prints as a PDF, so you can't modify it after that. That sucks. And then there are different options you can select for how it formats, but none of the options had the signature line. It was more for things like, do you want red lines? Do you want the original ordinance without edits proceeding the ordinance as edited? Do you want it in color, black and white? Do you want an effective date provision, bunch of whereas clauses, things like that? So to get some clarification on it, for Joe's question of saying, is there a way, by doing this, is this going to eliminate opportunities for elders to not see things or read them? I mean, no, right? The thing is, is it would just place it in front of you. Majority of us do the reading ahead of time, or should be. And then you would still be seeing the documents as is connected on the Muni code, correct? I'm just making sure that everybody's... I mean, for the last several meetings, they've not had signatures. You've only signed the RCs. This is practice then when we switched that was that it's just updating this ordinance. Now, we would go back to a different practice, but for the last several meetings. So we've already been doing it. Okay. I mean, because to your point, I mean, there have been some of them that have been like this thick. We're not reading those after meeting. We're not looking at those when we're reading. We're not, you know, basically, okay, that's what that is. And we sign it, you know, that's, so, I mean... Yeah, I think of that Parkland, that was very big. Yes, yes. That was very big. There was another one that was, I think, I'm trying to think, there was another one that was really thick a couple of months ago that was like... Oh, you had a recadification in your notes. Yeah, yeah. It has like 10 clips on it. Yeah, we maxed out our printing budget. I think because of the recadification of the project. Maxed your printing budget. If you guys even have one of those, it's silly, don't we? Okay. Do you have any other questions or discussion that we want to talk about? It's up. Do you have something? Don't go ahead. Well, again, the other portions of this ordinance, I'm fine with. It's the removing of the signatures of the ornament that I'm not fine with. So I would not be supporting this. Only because I believe it's a responsibility for people to know what they're doing and be accountable. Okay, so if somebody wanted to go back, you always look at the voting record, that's fine. But if they voted for it in committee and they didn't vote it then, but they signed it, that they signed the document while they were in chambers. Can I ask what you believe a signature will do then? Like, if I even signed it and I still don't... It's telling everybody that I read this. It doesn't... I agree with this. I put my name on something. What if my vote do that? Amanda, you're not going to change my mind on this. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to get you to explain it. That has been done for years and years and years. And where's the problem with having to sign a signature before a council meeting on a document that you voted on in committee? I don't think there's a problem. We're saying we're creating a new standard that fits what we want to... What is being put forward through the software. And so, whether... So the software is more important than showing your constituents and following a procedure that's been in Sheboygan for a million years. And I don't see that it's so important not to have the signature. I don't think it takes any more time up. But again... It does. They'd have to make a cover letter. It adds time to now that it's not printed on a software. So you were like, ooh, but if you want to talk about where we want to put work and labor towards, the software is a tool to now do better. So prior to that, you had hundreds of people working to create documents and type them out and make edits and redo it on a typing machine. Now we're like in the 21st century. We have softwares that help us streamline these. And so I believe that what you're saying, if you're saying, I believe a signature does this, it actually doesn't. A signature is just the document saying you were there. Your vote is what counts. You're either pushing it through or you're not. A signature doesn't do anything. I'm not, I'm just on a contract. Hi. Right? Is it a contract? One of the second is that the RCs still have the signature line. Everything that comes out of committee, if you vote on the resolution today that to change the polling locations, you will have to sign the RC. That's not changing. It is the, it is the change. It was just on the ordinances and the resolutions. Those are the only two that it would be removing. And I will say there are some instances and it doesn't happen as much anymore, but there are two names on that. Resolutions and ordinances usually. And there are meetings where those two people are not there to sign it. And then that becomes an issue for us. But the RCs will stay that you would still sign what you discussed in committee. I'll be honest with you. I always thought of it just as it was a formality. Even if I didn't support something, I'm a member of that committee. I signed it. Even if I didn't support it, my vote was my vote. My signature didn't, my vote was just, my signature was just there because I'm a member of that committee and I signed it. That's how I always looked at the signature. The signature I always look as a formality. The vote is where my constituents look at. That's how they look at it. I agree with that statement. That's what I was trying to get to. Yeah, it's kind of a formula. Okay. So I will make a motion to approve. Are you gonna second it? No. Can I second it? I will second it. Okay, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Oh, I can't say that. Any opposed? Opposed. Great. Chair votes aye. Motion carries. Great. I knew you were gonna have the votes anything. You just, you just wanted to debate with me. I don't know. I know. That's why I came earlier. I live for that. I came earlier. I'm glad you did. Did you have a cup of coffee? I bought a bra when I brought a soda. Okay, agenda item number eight. Ordnance, an ordnance, agenda, no. General Ordinance number 23-23-24. Ordinance amending section 26-20 sub C as to update the list of public buildings where smoking is prohibited. I will speak to this. This ordinance amendment updates names and locations of city buildings so that the signage in and around those buildings can be accurately reflecting back to the ordinance prohibiting smoking. Smoking in the building or around the premise? In and around. Cool. Michael, did the fine change at all? No, we haven't changed the bond amount for this, but we are working through a massive bond schedule update following the recodification. So if there are forfeitures that you're looking to modify, now would be a good time to bring those to our office. Right, I see you also had to clean up because the public works in 33, that was still listed as- That's not that one. Oops, how many years ago was that? Do any of the other parks buildings in here? I see the D-Land Park Community Center, but not like Kiwanis or any of the ones you own, Roosevelt? Those would be subject to park rules. There's a different ordinance. Okay, got it. Thanks for clarifying that. Okay, all right, great. Are city employees allowed to smoke in their vehicles? In city vehicles? Yes. No. Since it's our number four. Well, that was a unified, no, that's- I know it's on here, that's why. Okay, I've lost my other part of it. So section C, sub-14, prohibits smoking within city-owned or leased motor vehicles. And then sub-13 is our catch-all for city-owned or rented office spaces. Okay, so if I'm sitting in the parking lot at DPW, I can smoke in my car there. Your personal vehicle. Your personal vehicle. But not your work vehicle. If you're park 25 feet away. From the main entrance. I don't smoke, so I- I'm afraid you're never gonna get- You're gonna get today. You're gonna get again. Yeah, it'd take a lot more than that. You're smoking around County. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. No, sometimes it's just an, you know, if you see somebody when you say, hey, are they supposed to be doing that? Are they not supposed to do that? You know, there's always people that are willing to bend the rules anywhere they possibly can. And smoking is an addiction. And again, I feel, you know, and I worked in the tobacco business for 25 years. Did you really? Sure. But I didn't smoke. So it's one of those things where I feel sorry for those people. Do I want to smoke in our city vehicles? No. Do I want to smoke in this? No, yeah. No, smoke in this, in city vehicles, devalues them and also creates health hazards for other people. Yeah, yeah. Second as well. All right, any other discussion? Okay, looking for a motion. Move to approve. Second. Great. Any other discussion? Nope. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion carries. Agenda item number nine. RO number 542324 by City Clerk submitting a, submitting a licensed application. Just one. It looks like it's for Shaboyan ACE for the X-bar to include the first floor. And there's no objection to it except that we are working with them to kind of tweak their description. But it talks to us that it does not need to be granted contingent on that. We will just get the promised description. Yeah, and so the first floor is where they have escape rooms. So if you want to do the escape room, you have to, I actually did this for her friend's birthday. You have to have the cocktail upstairs and then leave the cocktail and then go into the escape room. So like while you're waiting for the next group to go in, you can't actually drink down there because they don't have, it's not on their premise license. So I think this is a win for them. And for the constituents going are gonna enjoy it. Sure. It'd be kind of odd not to be able to have your drink where you're in that escape room. Yeah, and we didn't, yeah. Well, not even going in the room, but like just having it as you're waiting, we had to like, we got there thinking we had enough time to hang out and then they were like, you could only hang out up here. You can't hang out downstairs. I would have done it. And it like gives you like a preview of like what you're to expect. And so I think this is a great competition. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. Any other discussion? Sure. All those in favor of PCI? Aye. Any opposed? Take care everyone's aye. Motion carries. All right. Next meeting date will be October 25th of 2023, looking for a motion to adjourn. To adjourn. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Great. Any opposed? Taking adjourned for further three.