 Before we start, I'd just like to address one thing, and I always like to recognize our outstanding employees with the city of Sheboygan. And tonight, we have one that works down in the IS department. Joanne Decker, and she got the US Air Force E-Award for her outstanding work with the Army. She's been out for, she's back now, but she was out as a reservist, correct Ed, for a year, and we got a letter from the Pentagon. Addressing the medal. So if anyone would like, take a look at it, come on up and read the letter, look at it, and this will be put in her file. I think that's a great accomplishment that they do that for our employees, so give her a hand, Joanne, if you're watching. Oh, okay. She's out of town. Okay, with that, we'll start the 19th regular meeting of the Common Council. Pat, what'd you call the roll? Eberg, Doyle, Manny, Moody, Perez, Ports, Schultz, Steffen, Devin Akron, Teevin Akron, Vanderbilt, Longerman, Warner, Winninger, 16 present. Corms present, Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Your Honor. I would move that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting and as entered on the record. To move to the second that we accept the minutes of the past Council meeting, the same stand approved under discussion. Here are none, all in favor? Opposed? Motion carried. Pledge? Almond. Alderman Baldwin, would you lead us in a pledge, please? Forgot. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'd like to just recognize one of our Alderman, Alderman Van Akron's wife, Nita, is in a hospital, again in Milwaukee, correct, Don? She's doing better. Don told me this evening she possibly will come home this weekend. Possible. And everything's going all right now. So I hope everything works out well and she's home with us soon. Thank you. Okay, next thing we have the hearing. We have a hearing tonight to rezone property located between New York Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue between North 10th Street and North Water Street and North 11th Street. Any interested parties wishing to be heard on a hearing? Any interested parties wishing to be heard on a hearing? Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. Make a motion to hearing be closed. Move to the second that the hearing be closed under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Public forum panel. Okay, consent agenda. Everything from 19-1 through 1914, Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Your Honor. I would move that we accept and file all ROs, accept and adopt all committee reports and all resolutions and substitute resolutions be put upon their passage. Move to the second to accept and adopt all RCs, accept and file all ROs, pass the resolutions and substitute resolutions. Under discussion, Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. I would like to poll 19-8 for a separate vote. Alderman Warner. First, Your Honor, I would like to read what this resolution is allowed so the public is aware of what it states. And then I have some comments. Okay. This is a resolution reaffirming the October 7th, 2002, unanimous vote of the City of Sheboygan Common Council to forward the City-County Coalition proposed agreement for Ambulance Service to Orange Cross Ambulance. Whereas it is in the best interest of the City of Sheboygan and its citizens and visitors to ensure the provision of emergency ambulance services through a written agreement and whereas the proposed agreement is similar in scope to the contract honored for the past decade which ensured the provision of dedicated, verifiable and guaranteed ambulance service. And whereas the provision of quality ambulance service requires the guarantee and agreement provides to maintain a prescribed availability and level of service across the entire City of Sheboygan. Whereas without a legal binding agreement, the citizens of the City of Sheboygan will have no guarantee of continued ambulance service and without set agreement, the provider may discontinue service without notice for any reason at any time. Now therefore be it resolved that the Common Council of the City of Sheboygan reaffirms the need for an ambulance service agreement and views set agreement as a necessary component to ensuring the health and welfare of its citizens. Be it further resolved, the Common Council of the City of Sheboygan directs the City Attorney to forward the proposed contract to Orange Cross for further review and make the document public. Under discussion, Your Honor, this resolution does reaffirm the October 7th decision of the Common Council to move forward with and enter into agreement with Orange Cross Ambulance to provide emergency ambulance service to the City of Sheboygan. We believed then and I believe now. It is very important to the health and safety of the people we represent that this city have an ambulance provider that is legally bound to provide service. There are many reasons why an agreement to provide service is essential, but foremost is the very lives of our citizens. We need an agreement that guarantees ambulance service. Not one that simply says, oh yeah. By the way, we will provide the service for you just like always. What kind of dedicated and guaranteed service is that? If you say you will, then you should have no problem putting it down on paper in a way that legally binds you to do so. In the proposed agreement, the provider could not simply discontinue service. They had to provide advance notice allowing us to prepare for their departure. Without an agreement, they can discontinue service at virtually any time. In the proposed agreement, the coalition was guaranteed the use of the ambulance's and equipment for six months if the provider decided to discontinue service. This is the same as in the previous agreements. In the proposed agreement, response times for emergency 911 calls in the city of Sheboygan were to be six minutes. The same as the last 10 years. Without an agreement, there is no response time requirement. The provider can respond whenever and however they want. A major reduction in service. In the proposed agreement, there was a review process, a process to address quality of service. Issues and a way to solve service provision problems. Without an agreement, we will get whatever the provider wants to give us. I believe we need an agreement that provides the same benefits and level of service that the contract of the last 10 years provided. This council agreed with that last October 7th. And I asked for your support in sending the proposal to Orange Cross, asking one more time for them to reconsider. Let's give the proposal to the public and the media. I hardly believe we are wrong in wanting to guarantee the existence of reliable ambulance service for our city. Thank you. Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. I don't know what Alderman Warner's point is in making all those comments right now. He just came from a meeting where the contract or a proposed contract was talked about and Orange Cross did agree to take it back and they are going to review it and come back and respond to the city. So everything that he said, Orange Cross is hopefully going to address and hopefully we will get a contract. It's unfortunate that it has dragged out this long. It should not have, but we can't turn back. Hopefully, I agree, we need a contract. It's in the best interest of the city and for our citizens. We do need a contract with the ambulance service and hopefully they will come back with it. I think we need to, again, as I've stated before, we need to look at our service providers as partners, we can't look at them as adversaries and I think in the past, some of that has happened and we need to get away from that and I hope we will, we are and we will and I hope Orange Cross also does look at us as a partner as we look at them as a partner in providing good ambulance service for our citizens. Thank you, Alderman Schultz. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. When that vote was taken last fall or whenever it was, that followed a committee of the whole meeting and perhaps I'm hard of hearing, perhaps I was led down the Primrose path. At that meeting, I read the contract after Steve explained it, I was reading through it and it was clearly that the language was, I felt highly unfavorable to Orange Cross and lay down parameters that they couldn't meet without great difficulty. I raised that question at that meeting and said, is Orange Cross really buying into this contract? And I don't wanna quote people because that was quite a while ago but the gist of the reply was that yes, Orange Cross knows about the conditions in this contract and it's largely acceptable to them. Well, in the events that followed, I found out that Orange Cross largely wasn't in the negotiating room that much that invariably they were in the hallway and second, they turned down that contract which means that it was not acceptable to them and so I certainly agree that we need a contract but I don't think that the proposed contract is necessarily fair and that we need to get back and negotiate fairly with Orange Cross. Thank you, Alderman Doyle. Alderman Orner. Thank you, Your Honor. First, I would like to answer Alderman Schultz. The reason that I felt this necessary is because I think the public has missed some of the factual things that have taken place over the past year and a half and it actually has been that long that we've been talking about an ambulance contract. It didn't really pick up steam until last spring but that's natural as it's getting closer. I guess it was a surprise to many that Orange Cross decided they did not need a contract but it was not a surprise to everyone. They have made statements in the past that they would provide service even without a contract as at least as long ago as last June. That makes me wonder though, was this their end game or their plan? I kind of think it was. It's my belief that their goal all along was to get out of the contract and to do so by splitting the coalition in two. Thus making it look like we the coalition that could not agree, which we did, we came together on it. Orange Cross knew right off that the contract was virtually the same as the one that we lived under the last 10 years with some verbiage changes and some improvements in service that they had agreed to all along and up to that point. I believe we need to have an agreement that guarantees that ambulance service will be provided to the people in the city of Sheboygan. Not one that just says that we'll use your 800 megahertz radios and we won't and we'll hold you harmless if you drive our ambulances for us but we need one that says you will be here to provide service to us. So I think we should send this back to them. That doesn't mean that they can't be changed or negotiated but I think they should take another look at it. Thanks. Thank you. Alderman, Stefan. Yeah, speaking on this, I do think that we've got to send a message to Orange Cross and to the community in general that we want this contract and yet we haven't changed. We're not asking for anything like Alderman Doyle thought. To my knowledge, I mean, and I haven't been privy to all the conversations and all the meetings, I'm not a strategic fiscal. We're not asking for the sun that stars in the moon here. Like Alderman Werner said, cost containment, guaranteed times and locations of the ambulances. I mean, I have two teenage sons. I compare this to them coming home from school one day and say, dad, don't worry, we're gonna go to school tomorrow. We're not gonna tell you what school we're going to. We're not gonna get grades, but don't worry. And by the way, leave your wallet on the desk because I don't need an allowance anymore. I'll just take whatever I think is fair and I need it. That's what Orange Cross is telling us. We'll take care of things we're trustworthy and they have been, but you can't judge us. You can't control the costs. How many citizens out there watching tonight know that if Orange Cross has their way, they make their own prices. There's no control. They can charge whatever they want and what's the alternative to the guy with the heart attack? I'll argue about it later on. I just think we have to come to an agreement with Orange Cross. They have to see that we want a deal. They want a deal. I apologize. Comments earlier on, thinking the county wasn't with us. I've been very impressed talking to people from the county. They're on board. They're on our side. They see this as a joint thing with Orange Cross. And I think they're with us. They understand the problems. I think we need to get Orange Cross on board and see if we're done playing games. We want a contract. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Van Akron. First of all, a question. Steve, a lot of the discussion we had about with Orange Cross and the contract proposals that they gave to us were in closed sessions. Are we able to talk about that now? So yes, and it might be a long night. You know, I don't know about the details of what took place in the meetings, but certainly the document itself, I think, is out there. The proposal that the coalition submitted to them. I don't see any problem with discussing that. Their counter proposal? Even their counter proposal. I don't think that they've ever said that that's not public information or not for us to share that with anyone. You know, that's their counter proposal, so I'm somewhat hesitant to talk for them, but they submitted that to the group in a closed session discussion. And I guess, I don't know that I can answer the question as to whether or not their counter proposal is something that they'd be willing to share with the public. I don't see why not, tell you the truth. Could somebody tell me what he said? Can I talk about it or can I talk about it? I think you can talk about it. All right, thank you. Much to what Alderman Steffen said and Alderman Warner said, and again, for a long time we've been sitting relatively quiet about this contract because of the closed session issues, and I'm concerned about that, because we should be discussing these things in closed session, but I think since the contract negotiations have been broken off and literally have stopped, I agree, but I wanted you as a lawyer to say that, that this should become public than what we've been talking about. Alderman Doyle, I disagree with you that the last contracts that we've sat down with Orange Cross, Orange Cross has been in those closed sessions. We went line for line, right down every line of the contract with Orange Cross. They came back with a proposal of what they thought those lines should be, and then we went through line for line again with what they had thought and what the coalition, again, not the city, the coalition, the county and the city group, thought to their response to our response. That's called negotiations. They were sitting right in there with us, so there is no myth out there that they weren't involved in this. This is their document that came back from our proposal with their concerns, and we addressed those concerns, which ones we thought were worthwhile, which ones we didn't think were worthwhile. What we wouldn't agree to is just what Alderman Warner said, is we were trying to protect what we felt was important in this contract being response times, which is one thing they were walking at and did not want to have to be held to the response times. We felt that was important. That's quality of care. Also the locations of the stations. The locations of the stations, they came to us saying they wanted to be able to put those ambulances in any location, any site, whether it be one site, two site, or three sites, that was their option. We didn't feel that was right. We thought the people in the south side still needed protection, like they've been doing for the last 10 years, and this is why I disagree with you. All these things aren't new. These were all in the contract, in the last contract, correct Steve? The last two, the last, we've had two five-year contracts. The last, well, that's 10 years. The last two five-year contracts, we addressed the location of these, because that is important. Why do we put fire stations way on the south side, way on the north side? Even I can figure that out. It probably got better coverage by doing that. They didn't want to do that. They came to us asking for that to be removed. We wouldn't do that, because of what we felt was that was important to us. The response time was important to us. The rate increase, we weren't saying they couldn't increase the rates. What it says in that contract is, if it's going up, you have to come to the coalition, and they've done this for 10 years, come to the coalition, and just explain why you need a rate increase. They have done that every year and have never been turned out. They have always been able to come and explain their rate, and they've got it from what I understand. Some, is that correct? That's what we were asking. We've actually sweetened the pot on our side, saying for the, I think it was the cost of living, up to the cost of living, they didn't even need anybody's approval, or to explain it, they could just do that. And anything above that, they then would come to us and just explain why they needed it. And if they could come and say, this is why I need it, because our costs here were reasonable, we've been reasonable for 10 years in doing this. So that's what, from my understandings, and I've been in every one of those, those were the major hang-ups that we had in the major differences. Those differences weren't anything that wasn't already in that contract. The major differences in the wording of this contract was making up the city and the counties and who represented how on the board. And that board is just, isn't even a binding, it's just recommends back to the city and the county. That was the only major, that I saw unless I missed something, major difference in this contract, but when it came to actual things that Orange Cross had to live up to, they signed that same contract 10 years ago. And five years after that, with those same stipulations in there. So I was surprised in the fact that this didn't happen. No controls, as Oliver and Warner said, how do you now, we don't have the right to even question. If it takes them 35 minutes to get an ambulance, believe me, that can happen. If it takes them 35 minutes to get an ambulance to do, what do I do about it? Right now, I at least have a board that I can go to and say, I've had a problem here. I called an ambulance and somebody didn't show up for 35 minutes and we've called them three times. Can you look at that? You don't have that now. You have absolutely nothing that can look over that. They have total control of whether, now they have a EMS plan. I think the EMS plan says that they have to respond to most of their calls or within two minutes beyond the scene and that's hard to understand. And 25 minutes to be there. So under their EMS plan, they have 25 minutes to respond. If that's reasonable for you, allow them to follow the EMS plan. I think it's to our, and I agree with continuing this, not just a little bit earlier as Alderman Schultz said, strategic planning, voting unanimously to reinforce that we think it is important to have a contract. What that contract is, we have to sit down and negotiate with Orange Cross. Alderman Schultz is correct. We did give Orange Cross some language again, but that's negotiations. If they want a negotiation with us, we're willing to do that, but you gotta have two people at the table to negotiate. So if they want to negotiate a table, and no negotiate a contract, we're willing to sit down and talk to them about that. We were willing a few minutes ago, we've been willing last month, we were willing a month before that. But not having a contract, I don't think is acceptable because the people that we represent have had a contract that's exactly what we're talking about here for the last 10 years. And it's worked well because we've been able to hold them to those times and to the things that we thought were important 10 years ago, the things we thought were important enough five years ago, and the things that we're reassuring today that we still feel are important. And that's all we're asking for. We're not saying we're gonna move it or anything, we're saying we want, we think as they say, they don't think they need a contract, we as city aldermen are saying, we think it's important to have a contract, and we wanna work something on it. Whether with them or whoever, we think it's that important. That's all we're asking. Thank you. Alderman Schultz. Thank you, Your Honor. I don't know how much you wanna discuss this evening because Orange Cross is taking it back, they're going to re-evaluate it and then come back to the city. I disagree with almost everything that Alderman Ben Akron said except when he said that I was right. That's the only part of it. If we had the same contract and was given it to Orange Cross and said let's extend this contract for five years, I think they would have done it the first day that the first meeting we ever had. Orange Cross has been at several meetings, closed session meetings, but there's been numerous meetings, closed session meetings where Orange Cross has been excluded. And I don't think that was fair. I think one of their concerns, and it's a major concern, and I think it's a realistic concern. As the contract and as discussions went on and as the contract was worded, I think the Orange Cross had the fear that the city's goal is to have a contract with Orange Cross but train our fire department and at our convenience move the ambulance service into our fire department. And I think seriously, I think that is the agenda of some folks up here on this council floor. So the Orange Cross is looking out for their welfare and the city's welfare. We're looking out for the city's welfare, not necessarily Orange Cross's welfare. And that's where the conflict comes in and I think we have to give them a fair shake. I think they understand and realize, recognize that we need a contract and hopefully they will come back with something that's agreeable to both of us. It's not as negotiations go, nobody ever comes out with exactly what they want. Everybody has to give a little. And I think we do have a chance to do that, Jeff. Thank you. Alderman Vanderwillen. Vanderwillen, Will. Thank you, Your Honor. The Orange Cross publicly said that they didn't want a contract, that they were too good for a contract. So why are we still negotiating with them? If they don't want this contract, then game over. They don't want a contract, we stop negotiating, we stop talking. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. Well, I'm sympathetic to Alderman Van Akron and Warner, their stories sound wonderful. I am bothered by the fact that we were offering them exactly word for word, the same contract and they rejected it. That doesn't sound feasible. There's three perceptions out there in the community. The first one is the community wants Orange Cross. There's absolutely no doubt about it. The second perception is they believe that the common council is trying to give it to the fire department. That's the second perception. The third perception that's out there is that the city is writing a contract that Orange Cross can't meet so that the city will find some reason to reject the contract. I think if we're serious about doing what the public wants, we do have to negotiate with them, but I think it has to be in the open so that the truth comes out. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Warner. Thank you, Your Honor. This is the third time I'm speaking. I know that. So for a lot of order, I ask your patience with me. As far as Alderman Doyle's comments, it is true. We did negotiate with them in good faith and the points that they brought back that they had concerns within the contract are points that were all approved in the last two contracts. The things that we added in as changes, the major things as far as training our firefighters to work at a higher level on scene, especially when the ambulance takes a while to get there was things they have agreed to. They approved that. They didn't even question those facts. And as far as the fire department, and there are a few of that, this common council on October 7th voted unanimously to send the contract to Orange Cross Ambulance, not to the fire department, not to Peratec, not to Gold Cross or any place else. So I think that's a good point. Thanks. I'm still in order. I disagree with Alderman Sholes and Doyle again. Did I say that we had to word for word? No. I said the important things like the response times and the station locations and the things that we were asking for, the things I believe they're walking at are exactly word for word for what we had in the past. That I think is correct. That I think we haven't changed in how we've asked for those locations. So they've signed that contract. You saying that we're trying to set them up to fail, I don't believe that's true. I think we're doing something. And if they feel that that six minute response time, I heard them again tonight saying that they respond in most cases in three minutes, a three and a half or something they said. If they feel that some of these aren't reasonable, you know where they can address that at the committee and say, we need six and a half or seven and talk to us about that. If that's their concern and if that's what they are publicly thinking is that they can't meet some of the things we're asking them of, tell me what they are and let's talk about it. But I haven't heard that from them. In their requests that I have that Steve so eloquently said I can talk about now, those aren't what they're addressing. Isn't the response times and the locations, they're addressing other things that are. So that's not what they're, in most of the cases they've adopted that same language. There's a few other things that they're looking at that are trying to change. I think like Alderman Werner said, we haven't been negotiating with I don't know whoever Manitowoc is, Gold Cross, Blue Cross, Red Cross, whoever they are out there. We haven't been, we have as a coalition, I thought for the first time in the long time I've been up here in the city council, the city and county have really worked hard together and have come up with a good work in relationship. Probably one of the best ones and I think you'd agree, Bear, that we've had in a long time with working with the law committee and we've gotten that same respect from the law committee as Alderman Steffen said and the same feeling from the law committee that we have done this jointly in the best interest of what we thought was best, negotiating with Orange Cross, not the fire department, not outside people, trying to make a contract work with Orange Cross. That was our, no, if some of you have a hidden agenda that I'm not aware about, that's your hidden agenda but it's not mine. We could discuss this to death tonight if we wanted to but I do wanna say two things. We did have a good meeting tonight, probably one of the best we had in two, three months with Orange Cross and I look forward to having more meetings and moving forward and I think we will but we all have to keep cool heads on it. Had good discussion from Chief Zier tonight, had good points, Ed Sirick, Mike Hutts, all the Alderman in that meeting, it went very well. I think we're on the right road but we just have to take our time and make sure that everyone's comfortable when we do sign a contract. You're right, there will be a contract. What city should we go? If not with them, with someone. So we did agree on that tonight. So with that, Pat, would you call, you don't need a roll call? I think you're gonna want one. Okay. Suggested. D-Berg, E-Berg, Doyle, Manny, Moody, Perez, Moody, Perez, Ports, Schultz, Steffen, Deven Akron, Teven Akron, Vanderbilt, Wongerman, Warner, Wenninger, Bowman, 15, I is 1-0. Motion carried. All right, everything, oh, maybe not. Alderman Doyle. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to pull 1911 and make an amendment, please. On the backside, Taxicab driver's license, the bottom 150, 864, we'd like to have that removed and held for future meetings. It's moved in second. Are you referring to that back or are you just holding it? Referring back. Referring back to committee, right? That particular person back to keep you asked. That license number would be referred back to committee, under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. New motion to accept. Now I need a new motion. Alderman Doyle. I need a new motion to pass it as amended now. Yes, sir. I move that the ROB passed as amended. Moved in seconded that the ROB- RC. RC be accepted and adopted as amended. Under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? I need a roll call. Eberg. Okay. Doyle. Aye. Sorry about that. Manny. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Portz. Aye. Schultz. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Divenakren. Aye. Tivenakren. Aye. Vanderwheel. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Aye. Weninger. Aye. Bauman. Aye. D-Berg. Aye. 16 ayes. Motion carried. Through 1914, if you put up on this passage. Hearing none, would you call the roll please? Sure. Doyle. Aye. Manny. Aye. Moody. Aye. Perez. Aye. Portz. Aye. Schultz. Aye. Stefan. Aye. Divenakren. Aye. Tivenakren. Aye. Vanderwheel. Aye. Wongerman. Aye. Warner. Weninger. 16 ayes. Motion carried. 1915 to be referred. 1916 through 18 to be referred. 1919 will lie over. 1920 through 35 to be referred. 1823, NRO by City Planning Commission, recommending rezoning property located between New York Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue and between North 10th Street, North Water Street, and North 11th Street. All of them done by NACCEN. Warner. Warner, excuse me, I'm sorry, but that's great. I thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to accept and file the report of officer and pass the attached ordinance. I move to sign the file, I roll and pass to general ordinance under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. This is relative to the rezoning of property located between New York Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue and between North 10th Street and North Water Street and North 11th Street from Class UI Urban Industrial to Class UI Urban Residential Classification. This is the former Kingsbury Brewery property, which is owned by the redevelopment authority at this time and the redevelopment authority is soliciting proposals to develop the property of single family, condominiums and or apartments. And as a former industrial site, it's zoning classification needs to be changed. Thank you. If there's another discussion, would you call the roll please? Manny? Moody? Perez? Ports? Schultz? Steffen? Dieven-Akron? Teven-Akron? Vanderweal? Wangeman? Warner? Weniger? Bauman? Bauman? D-Berg? E-Berg? Doyle? Sixteen-Eyes? Motion carried. 1833, a resolution by Alderman Teven-Akron, Schultz, Perez, Doyle and Steffen, transferring appropriations in a 2002 budget. Would you like to take the next two also? Sure, thank you. 1834 is also a resolution by Van Akron, Schultz, Perez, Doyle, Steffen, transferring appropriations into the 2003 budget. And resolution 1835 is a resolution 223-0203 by Alderman Van Akron, Schultz, Perez, Doyle, and Steffen, transferring funds to establish an estimated revenue and appropriations for sale of a fire truck to a fire department, vehicle maintenance account. I would move that all three resolutions be put upon their passage. Move a second to three resolutions be put upon their passage under discussion. Hearing none, Pat, would you call the roll please? Moody? Perez? Quartz? Schultz? Steffen? Deven-Akron? Teven-Akron? Vanderweal? Wangeman? Warner? Weniger? Bauman? D-Berg? Doyle? Manny? Sixteen-Eyes? Motion carried. 1636 by Alderman Warner and Teven-Akron, amending the municipal code relating to room tax to increase room tax from 6% to 8%. And on that document, Alderman Warner and Van Akron, we do not have a starting date. He's gonna make an amendment after he makes a motion. He'll make the amendment? Okay. We need that. Make a motion to pass first. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to pass to General Ordinance. Thank you. Moved in second to the pass to General Ordinance. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor, I would move that we amend the document. On section two on the back page of your document, in the last sentence, it says, all ordinance or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and this ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage and publication as of April 1st, 2003, and the as of April 1st, 2003 is what we need to add. Correct, Steve? Your Honor, I'd recommend having a start date that provides a little lead time and also the payment and the reporting for room taxes on a quarterly basis, so April 1st would be the start of the next quarter for the room tax. And Rich isn't here, but discussed this with Finance Director also, and he recommends April 1st as a start date. I'm not, Your Honor, I'd make a motion to pass the General Ordinance as amended. You don't need it? Amendment, here you go, thank you. Been moved in second for the amendment under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. On that, Your Honor, I would make a motion to pass the General Ordinance as amended. Been moved in second to pass the General Ordinance as amended. Alderman Doyle. Yes, Your Honor, that room tax was going to be designated for a certain purpose, certain business purpose, and I was 100% behind that. What would happen in the event that that business situation would not work out since this tax was going to be used for that purpose if the purpose no longer existed? What would happen to this tax money and so on? Because my concern, it would just be going into the general fund and would not accomplish anything for development. Address that, Mayor. We have a current contract with the Chamber of Commerce on having a certain amount of money go to the chamber. It goes through 2003, 2003, 2004. And provides that the chamber gets 6% room tax. If we raise it, the city could retain the difference between the 6% and 8%. And that would be what we'd be able to do. We'd be able to retain that, but still under the statutes, have to use most of that money, roughly 90% for tourism promotion purposes. Even if the city retains more money, we still have to use it for tourism related and promotion of tourism related purposes. Statute provides that we can use a certain percentage. Basically 10% in our circumstance for administration and non-tourism related purposes. That percentage would be the same as it currently is. We'd currently retain 150,000 of the total we collect. We still have to use a total of 90% of all we collect for tourism promotion and development. All right, Alderman Dyle. Yes. Thank you. Pat, would you call her old, please? Perez. Ports. Schultz. Steffen. Deven Akron. Teven Akron. Vanderwill. Wongerman. Warner. Winninger. Bauman. Dieberg. Eberg. Doyle. Manny. Moody. Sixteen eyes. Motion carried. Okay. That D, I forgot to get back to you on that today about starting in April 1st. I apologize. I know you were thinking January, but like Steve said by late time, it's taken a little while, so just so. 1746, General Ordnance by Alderman Warner, Doyle, Vanderwill, and Manny. Add stop signs on Alabama Avenue and Kentucky Avenue before entering South 15th Street and South 16th Street. Alderman Warner. I thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion that General Ordnance be put upon its passage. Moved in second to Ordnance be put upon its passage. Under discussion. Under discussion, Your Honor. This is an ordinance that relates to stop signs so as to add stop signs on Alabama Avenue and on Kentucky Avenue before entering South 15th and South 16th Streets. This actually came to our Public Protection Safety Committee on November 27th and with the holidays. It was held up a little while before it got through the council. But at the present time, there are yield signs on those two streets. And this keeps them in line with the streets to the east and west of it. I drove by there today just to refresh my memory because I haven't been over there since early December. And this just replaces four yield signs with four stop signs. It's a very quiet pocket, quiet area, but it would keep it consistent with what's all wrong on the rest of the street. So we recommend passage. Alderman Mooney. Thank you, Your Honor. Since this is our district, I was just wondering if there was a recent accident history or something that this is being changed? It seems just from Sergeant Tarkovsky, it wasn't a communication from one of the citizens, Betty, but it is something that community policing unit driving around in that area just recognizes as something that would benefit the neighborhood. Okay. Alderman Warner, Sergeant Tarkovsky, do you want us to see if you need him to address that or? Do you have anything to add? We move back to the second floor, second. Move to the second to open the floor under discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you, Your Honor. The reason for the stop signs is it brings a little bit of uniformity to that basically four to six square block area. One of those intersections in particular is uncontrolled, basically came to our attention both through community policing and Mike Hotz's office and concern from one of the residents there. Although there is no accident history which would warrant the actual installation of the signs, it just brings some uniformity to that general area. And as a neighborhood which does not affect any basically heavy traffic or anything, Police Department felt that this would be a good change for that area. Thank you. All right, there's no other discussion. Would you call the roll please? Quartz? Schultz? Steffen? Aye. Deven Akron? Aye. Teven Akron? Aye. Vanderweal? Aye. Wongamon? Aye. Warner? Aye. Wieninger? Aye. Bauman? Aye. Deberg? Aye. Eberg? Aye. Doyle? Aye. Manny? Aye. Moody? Aye. Perez? Aye. 16 Ayes. Motion carried. 1936 will go to Public Protection of Safety and we'll go to Finance. 1938 will go to Special Committee on Risk Management. Steve, other matters? 1939 is an arrow by the City Clerk submitting an application from Miranda and Leon Schleider for a change in zoning classification property located on the south side of Superior Avenue, west of North Taylor Drive from UR Urban Residential to SO Suburban Office Classification. Plan commissioned. 1940 is an arrow by the City Clerk submitting an application from Great Lakes Physical Therapy, LLC for a change in zoning classification property located on the south side of Superior Avenue, west of North Taylor Drive from UR to SO Urban Office Classification. Plan commissioned. 1941 is an arrow by the Finance Director, Treasurer submitting the Harbor Center Marina Balance Sheet from operations dated November 30, 2002 as submitted by Skipper Marine. Special Marina Committee. 1942 is a resolution directing a public hearing to be held in connection with change of the City's official zoning map for property located on the south side of Superior Avenue, west of North Taylor Drive. Alderman Doyle or Bowman. These are your two, 42 and 43. 42 and 43, they can be passed. They can be passed tonight. They can be passed tonight, 42 and 43. Could you make a motion, please? Yes, Your Honor. I make a motion that 1942 and 1943 be accepted and adopted. The move to second to 1942, resolution 1942 and 43, we put upon their passage under discussion. Hearing none, do we need, no, we don't need a roll call. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. 1944 is an ordinance amending the official zoning map of this Oregon zoning ordinance to change the use district classification of property owned by Rhonda and Leon Schleider from UR Urban Residential to Class S.O. Suburban Office. Plan commission. And 1945 is an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the Oregon zoning ordinance to change the use district classification of property owned by Great Lakes Physical Therapy, LLC, from Class UR Urban Residential to Class S.O. Suburban Office. Plan commission also. Move to the second to adjourn under discussion. Be right over here. Hearing none, all in favor, don't. Opposed?