 Here's a script over here if your court would go that far down and put it in the middle here I'm gonna call the shabuigan common council committee of the whole meeting for Monday, July 23rd order Carlson, would you please call the roll? Here here Here here Here here Here absent Here here Excuse Absent Quorum is present. Let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of 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 Next thing on the agenda item number four is approval of the minutes from the May 2nd 2012 meeting Motion to approve second. We have a motion and a second to approve any discussion All in favor I opposed Chair votes aye Next thing on the agenda number five is a public forum on agenda items Those wishing to speak will have three minutes per person Who would wish to speak tonight? Mr. Hansen your first for the record mr. Hansen, would you give your full name and address please? Terry Hansen 508 New York Avenue shabuigan. What's that? 508 New York Avenue You will have three minutes. All right Thank You chairman boron and City council members. I'm here to talk about the combined dispatch That you'll be discussing in closed session today and the county's proposal as you know the city county shared services committee has reviewed this and Just recently that you the common council and the county board have both supported resolutions Endorsing the concept of combined dispatch center After that was supported by both entities both city and county officials. We had mayor van Akron involved alderman Hammond The city administrator Jim Amorio chief Domikowski chief Herman and Dave Augustine involved with some County staff in discussions on some preliminary steps on what to do after we went through some of those early schematics County administrator Adam Payne challenged the county staff to come up with a proposal that would be a win-win for both the city and the county and The proposal that I believe you have Data June 7th shows what we think is a win-win proposal Under this proposal this county would run the combined dispatch operations out of the law enforcement center and fund the full Operations out of its tax levy In order to do that we're looking for the city to help with that a construction of that facility and then also to look at Chipping in for the upcoming radio system upgrade that the city and the county utilizes for Emergency services right now We're looking at this as a win-win because under this proposal for the first ten years City of Sheboygan tax payers would be saving about $150,000 a year So that first ten years we'd be looking while that debt service is funded that the total savings would be 1.5 million then after that ten-year period the city of Sheboygan tax payers would be saving $800,000 a year So it definitely is fiscally beneficial for the city of Sheboygan tax payers and On the converse side BB will be speaking as to some of the benefits that the county will be seeing But on page two just to give a little background on the document is how we came up with those numbers You can see what the city of Sheboygan tax payers are paying right now for combined dispatch and What the proposal would be and page three shows the impact for an average homeowner if their home is valued at a hundred and fifty thousand dollars Essentially that city average homeowner with a hundred fifty thousand dollar home would be saving about ten dollars a year for the first ten years And it would be saving nearly fifty dollars a year for the every year after that And that's not including inflationary savings that would be included and the county tax payers would be paying an Additional amount of twenty dollars for the combined dispatch But for the first time both the city and the county tax payers would be paying the exact same dollar amount for combined dispatch services So for exactly the same level of service, they're paying the same amount Which would equate to about three dollars and 13 cents per month for 3750. Time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hansen next Mr. Brookbauer Director Brookbauer if you could just give us your full name and address for the record, please William Brookbauer 525 North 6th Street You will have three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman members of the council I'm just gonna briefly touch on what I would consider the highlights not by any means the entire advantage of going to a combined dispatch Probably the number one advantage that we have is you'll have a singering single answering point for everybody calling in for an emergency service within the county Currently all number one calls do come into the county, but anything occurring to the city requires us to transfer those calls to the city dispatch Which does delay dispatch of services for those calls the amount of time it takes to relay that call Second you're gonna have a standardized operation of all protocols and training for everybody in the comm center You'll standardize your levels of service whether you live in glimbula or you live in the city of Sheboygan All dispatchers will be trained the same protocols will be the same services should be standardized out Second we have speak for the county I know that I believe the city is also short at the current time of dispatchers within their center having a larger work group will allow us to Be able to absorb Fluctuations and staff a little bit better once we reach full staff Versus having smaller work groups one or two dispatchers go out for whatever reason family medical leave get a new job Or whatever it is a higher harder hit for that work group to absorb and causes Overtime and it can eventually if it goes on long enough like in our case as well over two years starts to get very stressful for that work group We will be able to handle large-scale incidents much better Just with the regular enlarged Com center of not even talking about a backup center We'll have more staff on call that can handle a direct impact Usually if you have a situation where it might be busy in the city for some reason, but it's not busy in the county I would have four dispatchers I could regulate three to deal with the city and have one still handle the county while I brought more help in if needed We don't have that availability in either house right now the most we're gonna probably have on duty Anyone time is to vast majority of the time maybe three Second we have the ability to have right now We only have in our center have three full-time council the city has four We'd be able to go to six in a new council We'll have more equipment to put our bodies at once we get them there Lastly we will have a true backup center Which would be the city police department's dispatch center, but you do not have any longer right now We do not currently have that we back each other up But for a long-term situation if it was something where a comm center was down for a lengthy amount of time Neither one has the facility capable to handle dispatching for both departments long-term We'd also go from having three dispatch centers basically the city county and our emergency dispatch center Fire station down to just two ours in the backup center. We should also then become your EOC backup center Those are the highlights Thank you very much. Thank you Anybody else want to be heard supervisor fighter For the record supervisor fighter your full name and address, please. Yes. My name is Peggy fighter My address is N 6 6 7 0 Rangeline road Sheboygan with the 8 3 zip code Thank you, mr. Chairman. It's thank you. Okay Thank you, mr. Chairman for allowing me to speak tonight to the council members and members of the audience I too am here to address the issue of combined dispatch, which is nothing new in Sheboygan County We've been talking about this for years There is a new proposal in front of everybody and I would respectfully ask that The council consider it with the most sincerity We have an obligation not only to the city but to the county and most Importantly to the taxpayers and citizens of both Sheboygan County and the city of Sheboygan to consider this deeply I couldn't help thinking over the past couple of days the Episode that happened in Aurora, Colorado and how that would have played out here in Sheboygan County Had that happened at the Marcus cinema in our city What would have happened is what all 9-1-1 calls for emergency would have been Come in to the Sheboygan County Dispatch Center which would in turn would have had to redirect all of those calls to the city Dispatch for emergency services because That's the way our system works and how many lives could have been lost During the delay of response and the frustration on Emergency personnel and so forth So I think the case is closed on it and we need to move forward and I think the council for Its consideration and I'm happy to be part of any further discussions on this I am also chair of the shared services committee which met on July 10th and Thanks to Alderman wrestler. I was elected chairperson of the committee So I'm happy to do that and happy to talk to anybody else on this matter. Thank you very much. Thank you Anybody else wish to be heard? Anybody else wish to be heard? Anybody else wish to be heard? Thank you to the People who spoke tonight at the public forum Next on the agenda is item number six chairmen's comments. I don't have any at this time Next on the agenda. We have items for discussion only and that's item number seven Council document number 3.6 from July 2nd 2012 our own number 76-12-13 by the city clerk submitting a communication from Alderman born along with an issue of capital buzz regarding the contribution rate for the 2013 for the Wisconsin retirement system and Our chief administrative officer Jim a Mordio will be leading that discussion Like to come up While while mr. Mordio is coming up here. I think for the benefit of the people at home This is rather short. So I think I'll read it This came out of the league of municipalities capital buzz on June 22nd Wrs employer and employee combined contribution rate likely to be between 13.2 and 13.7 percent for 2013 an Article in today's Washington State Journal reports that the combined employer employee Wisconsin retirement system contribution rate for 2013 will likely be between 13.2 and 13.7 percent of payroll That would be a big jump from this year's 11.8 percent Contribution rate Wisconsin employee trust fund staff confirmed for me today that the article was accurate ETF will be sending employers an update in a week or two ETF staff said the contribution rates are usually approved in June this year However, the rates will not be finalized until September due to delays caused by changes made to the retirement system by Act 10 and The biennial biennial budget The 2013 contribution will be split by government employers By government employers and employees most of the increase is the result of the system's continuing recovery from investment losses in 2008 World financial market crash, but an unintended consequence of Act 10 is expected to boost the employer employee contribution rate to about 13.2 percent and possibly as high as 13.7 percent of payroll the highest Since at least the mid 1980s without the Act 10 effect the rate would have been about 12.5 percent according to the ETF Jim go ahead. Thank you What I passed out in front of you is from the ETF and this is dated Some of the key things here is one is Jim's covered already Normally, we have these rates at the end of June. It looks like somewhere towards the end of September We'll be seeing the real rates that affect the entire state The key the key in this is that the tables that are presented on the next page Actually leave out the sick leave rates, which doesn't affect the city because that's really a state rate But it doesn't include the disability rates or the underfunded pension liability rates Which it normally does so when you flip to page 2 you can see that The current rate we have in the general category for this year is 11.8 percent Next year you can see the estimates 12.8 to 13.7 and again There's no adjustment in there for the underfunded pension liability There normally isn't any Disability payments or percentage that gets tacked on to the general court category. That's more in the protective with and without social security When you look at the protective with or with with social security the rates of 15.6 to 16.5 Again have to be adjusted by at least 2.4 percent because that's what we paid this past year for disability and Also could be increased for any underfunded pension obligation Protectives without so security again 17 9 to 19 3 That would be closer to 20.3 percent or 21.7 just adjusting that for disability The rates that we use in our budget this year use the low side and the high side of Both of these sets of numbers and those were just the 13.2 to the 13.7 percent numbers Again, not making any provisions for any increase in disability or unfunded pension liability above what was seen in 2012 and that impact came out to be between $180,000 on the low side and 240,000 on the high side So we've used an average in this year's budget that we'll be presenting Of about $210,000 as an added cost to cover WRS contributions for 2013 Any questions I have one Jim the $210,000 is that part of the I believe we had a budget shortfall in the budget that I was looking at of what 869,000 whatever it was is This 210,000 is that an additional 210,000 on top of that which would bring it up to almost a million bucks Or would be a million the budget that was presented was a balanced budget What this does is it increases the cost to that budget by roughly 210,000 the offset to that is really tid 3 closing 2013 which would be an offset of close to 200 Alderman Heidemann and I had some first-hand experience with this stock market crash back in 2008 Over at near South High School right South East of South High School right off of Washington Avenue. I believe it's Cherry Lane We were gonna have capital we were gonna put that on our capital improvements budget I believe it was for 2008 and Alderman Heidemann myself and Mayor Perez at the time met with the neighbors over there And those people were on the waiting list for that project for almost ten years and we finally thought it was gonna be done well because of the fact that we had to cut back on our Capital improvements budget for 2008 I believe we were gonna bond if my memory serves me correctly about four million dollars And I think we cut back to two million dollars and the cost of that project over on our district was two million dollars So we always hear our constituents say well, why don't you spend the money on repairing the roads? Putting in mini sewers, whatever the case may be Well this hit that we had to take as a result of having to repay this money into the Wisconsin retirement fund and Our just our district alone that project is still not done And I don't know if it'll be done in the foreseeable future Correct me if I'm wrong mr. Amodio, but I believe the total impact on That market crash back in 2008 I believe the total financial hit to the city was about four million dollars am I correct and it had to be paid back Over a period of five or six years You recall I don't all I know is that in 2008 there was an unfunded pension liability for the city and The boroughed $4.7 million from the motor vehicle fund and about three point three million dollars another bonding to pay the fund current as I recall and Then if I recall the financial hit on the city of Milwaukee Which has many many more employees than the city of Sheboygan But I believe that budget hit that were on the city of Milwaukee was about 40 or 41 million dollars That they had to pay to make whole the Wisconsin retirement fund So yeah, it's a lot of money for the city of Sheboygan, but also a huge hit for cities like Milwaukee who Have their budget problems like everybody else and we're how they're gonna come up with that 40 mil 41 million dollars Alderman Hammond Thank You mr. Chair I think one of the things to keep in mind when we're talking about How this works for those that aren't familiar with WRF and got plenty of clients that are impacted by it This is a five-year smoothing So what happened in 2008's market? Really didn't have anything to do with the money that we pulled out of those particular funds to fund the unpension Unfunded pension liability that was from things that happened down in Madison Rating from funds and doing those types of things or not putting enough away in early years So when we look at this, you know for example, you know, we're still paying for the sins of 2000 I shouldn't say since but the market of 2008 they use a five-year smoothing so that they don't have the huge Swings that you would see if they were trying to keep this funded year after year after year after year So, you know note that you know next year in 2013. We're still within that five-year window Of that smoothing now obviously 2009 was fairly decent 2010 and 2011 not so good But again, it's a five-year smoothing. So we may not have seen the end of this one yet Thank You Alderman Hammond any other questions for mr. Modial Thanks, Jim I'll entertain a motion on this document can't for discussion only. Oh, that's right. Thank you. You're welcome Next we have Under items for discussion and possible recommendation of the Common Council. We have number Agenda item number eight council document number 3.3 from July 2nd 2012 in our own number 73-12-13 by the city clerk Submitting a communication from Alderman Bellinger regarding the reduction of the Chewbacca Common Council from 16 members to eight members Alderman Bellinger Thank You Chairman It's my opinion That the makeup the size of the current council is unnecessarily large and as a governing body We are especially during this time period going through the budgets. We're asking department heads and All the city's employees to do more with less and I think it's important that we look at ourselves as a governing body and see Are we doing things in the most efficient and economical manner and it is my opinion? That we could be doing things in a more efficient manner and That's why I would like to make the recommendation that we go from 16 Alderman council members down to eight cutting it in half keeping the same eight districts in not screwing around with the maps or any of that and Just having one Representative from each district and how I would go about achieving this would be in the 2013 Aldermanic election The eight alderman that would be up or the eight districts. It would be up for Election I would have that change from a two-year term to a one-year term Then in the 2014 aldermanic elections all 16 alderman would be up for re-election and Going forward at that point in time each each district would elect a single representative So that's how you'd get from 16 to 8 and I would propose that the odd number districts would elect their alderman Or alder women to a one-year term in the even number districts would elect their alderman or alder women to a two-year term This is necessary to achieve the half of the Council coming up for election every year, so I would just have it fall on odd and even years depending upon what district you're in That's when that would come up for re-election Then 2015 then that's when everything would just kind of settle down in everything would go on from from that point on and Doing this would yield a savings although not anything real significant, but it'd be approximately $35,000 in savings from The reducing the council by that many so this would require a charter ordinance would be a two-thirds vote I've have discussed this with Attorney McLean The clerk sue and they don't see any problems doing this I've mentioned the committee structure and they said that there would be some issues with that with They're possibly having more people on attending more committees I asked in an email to attorney McLean if it would be Possible to reduce the number of standing committees and he said sure that would again I believe it would take a charter ordinance to do that. No, it would not But but we could do that But I would like to see This voted on or go before the common council and just on the merits of do you believe that we can do things more efficiently and more Effectively with less people. I think we can represent our constituents equally as well with a single Representative from the district. I also did some research. I looked at comparable size Municipalities in Wisconsin. I looked at Eau Claire Jamesville West Alice lacrosse while I told us a fondellac and Manitouac out of all of those And I picked those because they've got relatively close Population as we do Eau Claire has 11 councilmen Jamesville seven West Alice 10 lacrosse has more than we do They have 17 while the toast that has what we have 16 Fond de Lac has seven and Manitouac has 10 I also talked to the president of the fondellac common council in the Jamesville common council just to see how those numbers worked out for their Group and they were frankly surprised at how large our group or how large our council was and They're very pleased with how theirs how their system works So with that, I'll just open it up for discussion All of them and one of them you're first Thank You mr. Chairman before them before the meeting All of them Belanger and I were speaking and I had done some research on this in the past And there's a reason why we have 16 all of them because if you go back in the Sheboygan's history quite a ways You're going to find out that the all of them had an awful lot more work to do than we do now In fact, they handled the budgets each all of them had to handle the budget for his district He had a police and fire budget. He had a sewer budget He had a school budget the council in those days handled the school system budget And they had all these budgets to work with and so they had a much more Active input into government and a lot more responsibility probably than we do now And it really took on it took 16 people or at least one person for each district or Award to handle all this work and so things were a lot different than what we're looking at now is we have a somewhat archaic system on our hands and I I agree with Alderman Dullinger that this needs to be looked at in fact I came across the city in Illinois that did this and it was a city about the size of Sheboygan and then the name escapes Me right now, but they cut their aldermanic Members on the call in half and what they did was they abolished all the committees and they had every document go through the Committee of the whole and that's how they handle all their stuff and that way they felt that each alderman Would share in all the workload not that one alderman has to go to six committees the other guy only maybe two or three Which in some cases we have now But they felt this was a much more equitable system and for them it works out very well so it I think this really bears some looking into and As the alderman bellinger said it's not a necessarily a huge Money-saving thing, but I think what we're looking at is cream lining it and becoming much more efficient But I thought a little past history on this was valuable and why do we have 16 alderman? It's just like out in the county you have town governments you have county government You have a town constables you have the sheriff, but that's because people it took so much time to travel If you needed a the sheriff's department You didn't have a phone and you lived in random link heaven knows you may have to go five ten miles before you found a phone But that doesn't exist anymore And so there could probably be some trimming done there too, but that's beside the point But for the city government it was the same thing in fact the alderman years ago also had four arrest powers And they carried a badge so if your neighbor gets through a rock through your window You didn't call the police department you called your alderman and he went over there And if you felt that arrest was necessary he did that too and if you go back even a little farther And the alderman had a light the street lights at night They in our district and you had to put them out in the morning So alderman had a lot of a lot of our work to do and it's kind of interesting when you look back And it isn't hard to see why we needed 16 alderman, but the question I guess here is do we need 16 alderman anymore? Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you alderman wangaman All our all our prison Donnie who? Well, I was going to speak in favor of alderman Bellinger's proposal now. I really am Based on on Bill's information and I'm my cut on it is just a little bit different Because we have this odd thing of two older people representing one district Our constituents are put in Potentially a bit of an odd spot if alderman matta check and I Have a disagreeing vote or we vote in disagreement on a particular issue that essentially means that our constituents have Not been able to have representation come forward on a particular issue in other words district 4 Well one was formed one was against so district 4 is not really we're heard but not really able to make an impact How about constituents who don't know first of all I would suggest that a fair number of our constituents don't even know That they have two older people But how do they know which one to contact? Sometimes they contact both Sometimes those older people take different routes trying to resolve problems and there's a duplication of efforts So it's not particularly efficient for our constituents as well I think there are obviously efficiencies to be looked at the cost savings are pretty minor but I do think it would be Frankly if we just mirrored it in in terms of Wisconsin government if we had two people in Assembly district 26 if we had two assembly people in in in district 27 How about said the state senator Joe Liebham, you know, maybe he and I could share that or both be from from that district There's a reason that we just have singular representatives in all of these Voting districts and I think for these reasons Getting to the point does require some you know step-by-step year-by-year kinds of Changes, but I think ultimately it really is better for the for the Common Council is a more efficient body and also For our constituents as a whole Thank you Anybody else have any comments? Alderman Hammond Thank You mr. Chair And I agree to echo a lot of the comments that Alderman Donahue made and bill that was quite an insightful history lesson there. Wow. I don't think they want me climbing up light and lights That would be a bad idea But I do believe it warrants some reviewing I did have an opportunity to talk to Alderman Bellinger about this You know whether it's eight or ten to match the Citywide County Supervisory seats I don't know if that's easier from a polling place standpoint because you have ten you have ten You know polling place. I don't know that's probably a Sue Richards question But I think it all I might also bring up a larger question and just to kind of a review how we do government in general Inside the city, you know, do we look at things like you know going to eight in a city manager? Do we look at you know various different other options because many of the municipalities you mentioned also have? City manager form of government government. So I don't want to necessarily I Like the idea. I just think we warrants a larger discussion on how do we do city government going forward? Because on the surface, you know, I like the idea I do have a concern with the committee structure because I'm one of those guys It's on seven different six or seven different committees And it can be onerous and and a lot of work. Yeah but you know if we can figure that out and Make it so it runs efficiently but yet still represents our constituents because I have a one concern I have is if if we have a three-person committee, for example You know making decision a three-person finance committee making a decision or a three-person pps committee or a three-person dpw Public-worth committee, you know is that really a Representation I would argue that three people out of fifty thousands probably not fives probably maybe not even so you know if we can work Some of those things out either abolish them and go to a committee the whole structure It's a great idea or something like that I'd certainly be in support of it, but I like the concept to begin out begin with at least at this point Thank You Alderman Hammond Alderman Lewandowski Thank You mr. Chairman Well, I'm a sort of against this right now because I've been getting phone calls from People in the city and a lot of times I'm told well My alderman doesn't get back to me and right now we have two alderman that they could talk to it I'm getting back to him in some instances So I'd like to keep the two because they feel more comfortable with two Also, I remember last year when Alderman Ryan flesh resigned and nobody was Picked to fill his position for six months and if this would happen again with only one Representative that couldn't mean that one Aldermanic district would have no representation for half a year And I also feel that there are too many committees right now and everybody would have to be on twice as many committees So I'm against this, but I would be in favor of trying to give some cost savings that attacks payers and Have the alderman take the same percentage pay cut that Mirvan Akron took a couple months ago Thank You Alderman Lewandowski Alderman Versa you're next. Thank You mr. Chairman I'm actually in full agreement with my counterpart here Alderman Hammond first time for everything, but Can we get that noted in the press tomorrow? I Would major support with this because we do need two words Effective efficient are good words to have in government, which we don't have right now And I do believe bringing it down would make it more universal with things to get done I have spoke to a couple department heads on a matter too and you look at other municipalities that do have lower Council members things are done a little bit faster because there's more either agreement or disagreement. It's done faster Which that makes more efficient government? We do have to look at the committee structure because and the same as far as the savings goes If you're increasing if you're not changing committee structure, which we know you have to do you're gonna have to increase the pay to Go with it so the savings isn't really in my mind isn't there It's the efficiency of the government and how it work So I'm in full support of us doing this and furthering discussion if we can if we can make ten work And actually in my mind it would be an odd number. So you don't have to worry about tie-breaking boats Milwaukee does an odd number several other companies misspelle's did odd numbers I would be it's a kind of logistic nightmare for Sue, but I'd be more in favor of an odd number too. So thank you Thank you all of them versey all of them and one of them in your next Just just one small comment yet in the in this municipality where they send everything to the Committee of the whole none of the alderman represent a specific district. They're all alderman at large And so every alderman if you want to call an alderman you just call one You don't have to worry about what district he's from and this is what they did there in Illinois and they said it works out Very well Thank you. Thank you all of them one of them All of them cut your next Thank you chairman. I will put in my two cents. I am in favor of this resolution Except half of it. I'm okay with the eight alderman. I'm going to have a problem with the pay I mean, this is a full-time job and the first three years if there was a lot of drama and there was a lot of ours put in I was hoping this year is going to be a little bit easier, but it's still a full-time job so you get what you pay for the primaries are evident of that and Thank you Thank you all of them and cut any other discussion. I'll just mention a couple things I guess Me being a retired person. I put in an awful lot of time. In fact that earlier this year I had to step back on some of my responsibilities But I can just imagine what this job must be like I did I wasn't had my business for about the first six months that I was on the council back in 2006 and I didn't know how I how I ran my business Came to my committee meetings and with going down to eight people for people that Have a family children and all of their events I just have some concerns that people are going to be really stretched very thin and I also would agree with alderman kath that If we're going to go down to eight Alder persons with more responsibility than I think the pay has to reflect that You know our new our new board docs system that we got earlier this year I really like it from the standpoint and I don't have to come down here and pick up my documents But from the from the standpoint It's costing it's costing all of the older persons more out of our meager salary in Paper and ink because what used to be done by the city is now done by the older persons. So I'm more receptive to it than I was a few months ago But I I would agree with alderman Hammond I think it has to be should have some more study as far as what exactly the committee structure is going to be what committees We can eliminate I did have one concern from from constituents a couple of years ago when we were talking about this and Couple of constituents called me and said I hope the committees are still made up the standing committees Are still made up of just older persons because I don't want public members on those committee For example, if we're down to three alderman and put a couple public members on there The reaction of my constituents was is that if I don't like what you're doing alderman born or alderman Heidemann's doing at the next Election we can get rid of you, but you can't get rid of public members So I think that I think that it has to be some further study done on exactly how many are going to be on the committees What committees we possibly can combine or get rid of? So those are my thoughts alderman Hammond, thank you mr. Chair just a real quick more of a logistics question for City Attorney McLean as a charter ordinance. Does that have to be? Put out the referendum to change it the charter ordinance you forgive my ignorance on this one I just go to the group clarify that please Thank you alderman Hammond. No would not have to go out the referendum a charter ordinance allows before it's effective 60 days in which Citizens can petition for a referendum on the subject matter, but it's not required that there be a referendum Any other discussion? All our person Donnie you I'm hearing that there is at least some general sense that we should go forward and look At this in more detail and my question. Mr. Chairman would be the best way to do that I think that there have been some questions about numbers in Compensation committee structure just how they the proposal is implemented Would there be a sort of an ad hoc committee? Constituted to work on some of these issues. Would that be the best way to proceed? Just a question Attorney McLean if that would go if this would go to a standing committee, would you recommend? salary and salary and grievance I Were talking about renumeration That's that's up to the council wherever you'd want to send it But I rather than create a new committee I'd be inclined to suggest that it go to an existing committee, you know I've heard a lot of conversation here about an awful lot of committees already that maybe Make more sense to go to an existing committee whether it's finance or souring grievance wherever Or the strategic fiscal plan, you know Somewhere but an existing committee is my recommendation. I see alderman racelor isn't here today Maybe we can assign it to his committee Last week I know that feeling Alderman Hammond, thank you mr. Mayor I you know given the You know the gravity or not the so the gravity but that might be the wrong word but given the the significance of this I might recommend strategic fiscal planning as the first stopping ground for this particular Resolution would you like to make a motion to that effect so I move that we refer this document to strategic fiscal planning second We have a motion and a number of seconds to send this strategic fiscal planning under discussion We have no discussion Alderman Carlson do you want to call the roll? We better do a roll call Ballinger I foreign hi Carlson no Decker. Hi Donnie you hi Hi Off I Sorry The endows key no Maddachek. No an Akron Bursey hi Longman hi nine eyes Motion carries Okay, next we have item number nine, which is Motion to convene in the closed session under the exemption provided in section 19.851 e Wisconsin statutes for the purpose of deliberating the investing of public funds Relative to proposals for joint dispatch where bargaining reasons require a closed session So moved We have a motion and a second to go in the closed session I think we can do it. Can we do allies in that or do a roll call? We do it. We have to do a roll call on that also Ballinger I Born I Carlson. Hi Decker. Hi Donnie you hi Ammon. Hi Hi Hi The endows key hi Maddachek. Hi An Akron. Hi sander wheel Bursey hi Longman hi We're now in closed session We will not be going back on television after the closed session is over. Let's reconvene at about ten after seven to give the television people a chance to turn off the cameras and microphones