The Meeting of the Common Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 8, 2006. It was noted that the meeting had been announced and a notice posted at City Hall.
Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Mayor Jim Bialecki, Ald. Mike Giese, Ald. Diane Oldani Wulf, Ald. Gary Gonczy, Ald. Jim Olson, Ald. Kim Smith, Ald. Clarence Stellner.
Also present: City Engineer Jarrod Holter, Land Use & Development Director Jason Gilman, Finance Director Fred Buehler, City Attorney Sean O’Flaherty, Human Resource Specialist Elsa Kulig, and City Clerk Cari Burmaster.
Mayor Bialecki acknowledged and welcomed Troop 48 that is present tonight to observe the council meeting until 8:00 p.m.
Item 2 - Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was declared.
Item 3 - Approval of amended minutes from previous meeting.
Amend Line 655 to read Motion withdrawn by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson.
Motion by Ald. Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, to approve the amended minutes from the previous meeting as printed and on file in the City Clerk’s Office. On voice vote, motion carried
Item 4 – PUBLIC
INPUT: (limited to 3 minutes/individual)
Mayor Bialecki turned the agenda item over to anyone wishing to provide input.
Mayor Bialecki called twice more for anyone wishing to address the Common Council. Hearing none, Mayor Bialecki continued on with the agenda.
Item 5 - REPORT
FROM THE MAYOR.
A. Resolution 24-2006 - Designation of the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) as the Basis for Incident Management in the City of Onalaska.
Resolution 24-2006
DESIGNATION OF THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (NIMS) AS THE
BASIS FOR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF ONALASKA
WHEREAS, the President in Homeland Security directive (HSPD)-5, directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS), which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, and respond to, and recover domestic incidents regardless of cause, size, or complexity; and,
WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security partners has been, and will continue to be, vital to the development, effective implementation and utilization of a comprehensive NIMS; and,
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that all Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of incident management; and,
WHEREAS, to facilitate the most efficient and effective incident management it is critical that Federal, State, local, and tribal organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures, uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform standards for planning, training, and exercising, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies of disaster; and,
WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities and resources will improve the county’s ability to utilize federal funding to enhance local and state agency readiness, maintain first responder safety, and streamline incident management processes; and,
WHEREAS, the Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part of various incident management activities throughout the State, including current emergency management training programs; and,
WHEREAS, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9-1-1 Commission) recommended adoption of a standardized Incident Command System.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Onalaska adopts the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) as the City’s standard for Incident Management.
Dated 8th day of August, 2006.
CITY OF ONALASKA
BY:_____________________________
James S. Bialecki, Mayor
______________________________
Caroline Burmaster, City Clerk
PASSED;
APPROVED:
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Smith, to approve the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) as the basis for incident management in the City of Onalaska.
On roll call vote: Ald. Gonczy – yes, Ald. Olson – yes, Ald. Smith – yes, Ald. Stellner – yes, Ald. Oldani Wulf – yes, Ald. Giese – yes.
Motion carried.
B. Authorization to enter into a contract with Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Company, LLP to analyze non-union compensation study.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Olson, to approve the contract not to exceed the amount of $11,000 as specified in the agreement.
Under discussion, Ald. Wulf questioned, “I realize that not every contract has to go out for bid. My one question would be whether or not if we should just accept this bid or if we should get a second one – what would be the most cost efficient way to go. I’m certainly not against this, but the second one would be under Number 1 of this letter dated July 28, 2006 - Review and Update Job Descriptions. My only question would be whether or not it would be more cost efficient (and this is just a question – and observation on my part), if it would be more cost efficient (since we’ve always been the one for our human resource person to do it), if we should be reviewing the job descriptions since we’ve always been the ones to do it in the past.
My other question is – I guess the major concern I have with doing this is whether or not we’re doing this in the wrong order. I think I could have bought into this if we had done this prior to July 1. We’ve just gone ahead and this council just a month ago sat here and approved the non-union compensation study as of July 1 and did the increases and such, and I kind of feel like we’re doing it in reverse order. So I’m kind of wondering what is the plan – if this were to come back and they say everything we just did we just approved is all skewed, what happens with everything that we just did”?
Mayor Bialecki replied, “I’m going to answer it in this way, starting with the first thing – It would have been difficult to do prior to July 1 because the suggestion to do this came at the July council meeting and so here we sit today. I think generally speaking, Barb was just going to do an overall on everything and make recommendations back. And as the deal is with the component of job descriptions, too, I would hope there would also be a recommendation in how to properly conduct a job audit, which includes job descriptions – in that way in the future when requests for reclassifications are here, we can assure that there has been a policy in place that’s been followed to substantiate the request”.
Ald. Smith added, “I would like to also comment that the action that we took effective July 1, those were decisions that were easy to make and now we’re moving into a phase of implementing this program that is a lot more difficult to make – there are legal implications, and it’s much more complicated, and I think that we will really, at this point, benefit from external confirmation of what we’ve already done and also professional guidance in how to proceed so that we don’t take any further action without external verification”.
Motion passes – 5 yes, with Ald. Wulf voting no.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR APPROVAL AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION FROM THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES / COMMISSIONS
/ BOARDS:
Item 6 – Finance & Personnel Committee
FINANCE
A. Vouchers.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve Vouchers No. 1628 through No. 1856, expended since the last Common Council meeting of July 11, 2006, in the amount of $2,417,297.46. On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Presentation of the 2005 Financial Audit/Report.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to accept this report upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Promissory Note to the Community Development Authority (C.D.A.) – Omni Center not to exceed $60,000 and paid back on or before 2/15/2007.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Finance Committee to approve the promissory note to the Community Development Authority for the Omni Center not to exceed $60,000 and to be paid back on or before 2/15/2007.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D.
Lease between the City of Onalaska and the Community
Development Authority (C.D.A.) – Omni Center for the completion of Building II.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Finance Committee to approve the lease.
Under discussion, Fred indicated that he had a meeting with Bill Leathen and City Attorney Sean O’Flaherty concerning two possible revisions and issues that Bill Leathen had raised. These will be brought forward at the council meeting tonight so the council will be comfortable with these revisions:
Sean reported, “The issue is in Section C, which states that the CDA would have five days to contest any liens that are filed against the property and the request was for more time. If we provided 20 days, that should be sufficient”.
Fred noted that Bill had a concern that there was no limit.
Sean explained, “With respect to that issue, it’s my opinion that there is not a good reason for the city to incur liability with respect to this property. The CDA (in its lease arrangements with its tenants), can be covered with respect to these indemnification provisions – they can have indemnification provisions within their sub leases or their license agreements – they can require insurance that then will be used to cover this indemnification of the city. So I wouldn’t recommend – and I can’t see a basis for recommending a change to that section as drafted”.
Sean further explained, “The standard lease used by the CDA at this point requires their tenants to provide $1 million in coverage, and so it would be the request, to my understanding, of the CDA that be reduced to $1 million, and I think that would be reasonable. That is what is reflected in the other lease agreement with the CDA with respect to the Omni Center property”.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Giese, to amend the lease between the City of Onalaska and the Community Development Authority (C.D.A.) – for the completion of Building II to read as follows:
On Page 5, Section C, change to read 20 days instead of 5 days.
On Page 7, Section B, change to read $1 million insurance cap instead of $2 million.
On voice vote, amendments to the motion carried.
Mayor Bialecki returned to the original item as moved and called for the question.
On voice vote, motion carried.
E. Resolution 29-2006 – for 1% Tourism Room Tax towards the completion cost for Omni Center Building II.
RESOLUTION 29-2006
A FINAL RESOLUTION REGARDING THE APPORTIONMENT OF ROOM TAX TO THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – OMNI CENTER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OMNI
CENTER BUILDING II
WHEREAS, the City of Onalaska increased its Room Tax from five percent (5%) to six percent (6%); and
WHEREAS, the City of Onalaska’s Community Development Authority (“CDA”) is currently developing the second phase of the Omni Center; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to financially assist the CDA by allocating funds raised by the Room Tax to the CDA for application against development and construction costs related to the Omni Center Building II; and
WHEREAS, the
City’s direct assistance shall include an amount equal to one percent (1%) of
the Room Tax collected annually until the construction costs of the Omni Center
Building II are paid in full; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Onalaska, an amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Room Tax collected pursuant to Section 7-5-1 of the City of Onalaska’s Code of Ordinances shall be made available to the CDA to pay the costs of construction of the Omni Center Building II until the construction costs of the Omni Center Building II shall be paid in full.
Dated this _______day of __________________, 2006.
CITY OF ONALASKA
By:___________________________
James S. Bialecki, Mayor
By:____________________________
Caroline Burmaster, Clerk
PASSED:
APPROVED:
PUBLISHED:
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon
recommendation of the Finance Committee to adopt
Resolution 29-2006.
Under discussion, Ald. Giese explained, “Your Honor, I will be voting in favor of this resolution that reflects dialogue I’ve had with the hospitality industry. It is not consistent with my views. I feel that the tourism tax is an example of a tax that is levied, produces revenue, and then does not show a return on the expenditure of that revenue, so I find it to be counter-productive, although I will reflect the constituents and vote in favor of it”.
Ald. Stellner asked, “Also, I think it was discussed that these monies were going to be used for the new renovation or the upkeep, rather than maintenance or general operation of the OmniCenter, is that correct”?
Mayor Bialecki answered, “Strictly capital costs, yes”.
On roll call vote – Ald. Giese – yes, Ald. Oldani Wulf – yes, Ald. Gonczy – yes, Ald. Olson – yes, Ald. Smith – yes, Ald. Stellner – yes.
Motion carried – 6 - yes, 0 – no.
F. Resolution 26-2006 – Initial Resolution Authorizing $1,815,000
General Obligation Bonds for Parks and Public Grounds Projects.
Resolution No. 26-2006
INITIAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
$1,815,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
FOR PARKS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS PROJECTS
RESOLVED that the City of Onalaska, La Crosse County, Wisconsin, borrow an amount not to exceed $1,815,000 by issuing its general obligation bonds for the public purpose of financing parks and public grounds projects, consisting of constructing and equipping a multi-purpose recreational facility.
Passed this 8th day of August, 2006
Approved this 8th day of August, 2006.
___________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________
City Clerk
On roll call vote – Ald. Gonczy – yes, Ald. Olson – yes, Ald. Smith – yes, Ald. Stellner – yes, Ald. Oldani Wulf – yes, Ald. Giese – yes.
Motion carried – 6 – yes, 0 – no.
G. Resolution 27-2007 – Resolution
Directing Publication and Notice to Electors.
Resolution No. 27-2006
RESOLUTION DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE TO ELECTORS
WHEREAS, an initial resolution authorizing general obligation bonds have been adopted by the Common Council of the City and it is now necessary that said initial resolution be published to afford notice to the residents of the City of its adoption;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall, within 15 days, publish a notice to the electors in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A in the official City newspaper as a class 1 notice under ch. 985, Wis. Stats.
Passed this 8th day of August, 2006.
Approved this 8th day of August, 2006.
Published this 18th day of August, 2006.
______________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon
recommendation of the Finance Committee to adopt Resolution 27-2006.
On roll call vote – Ald. Oldani Wulf – yes, Ald. Gonczy – yes, Ald. Olson – yes, Ald. Giese – yes, Ald. Stellner – yes, Ald. Smith – yes.
Motion carried – 6 – yes, 0 – no.
H. Resolution 28-2006 – Resolution
providing for the sale of $1,815,000 General Obligation Recreation Facility
Bonds.
Resolution No. 28-2006
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALEOF $1,815,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
RECREATIONAL FACILITY BONDS
WHEREAS, the
Common Council of the City of Onalaska, La Crosse County, Wisconsin (the
“City”) has adopted an initial resolution authorizing the issuance of general
obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,815,000 for the public purpose
of financing parks and public grounds projects, consisting of constructing and
equipping a multi-purpose recreational facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
Section 1. Issuance of Bonds. The Bonds authorized by the initial resolution referred to in the preamble hereof shall be designated “General Obligation Recreational Facility Bonds” (the “Bonds”) and the City shall issue the Bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,815,000 for the purpose above specified.
Section 2. Sale of Bonds. The Common Council hereby authorizes and directs that the Bonds be offered for public sale. At its meeting on September 12, 2006, the Common Council shall consider such bids for the Bonds as may have been received and take action thereon.
Section 3. Notice of Bond Sale. The City Clerk be and hereby is directed to cause notice of the sale of the Bonds to be disseminated in such manner and at such times as the City Clerk may determine and to cause copies of a complete, official Notice of Bond Sale and other pertinent data to be forwarded to interested bidders as the City Clerk may determine.
Section 4. Official Statement. The City Clerk shall cause an Official Statement concerning this issue to be prepared by the City’s financial advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated. The appropriate City officials shall determine when the Official Statement is final for purposes of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and shall certify said Statement, such certification to constitute full authorization of such Statement under this resolution.
Passed this 8th day of August, 2006.
Approved this 8th day of August, 2006.
______________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Finance Committee to adopt Resolution No. 28-2006.
On roll call vote – Ald. Smith – yes, Ald. Gonczy – yes, Ald. Stellner – yes, Ald. Olson – yes, Ald. Giese – yes, Ald. Oldani Wulf – yes.
Motion carried – 6 – yes, 0 – no.
I.
Bethany Lutheran Homes Development – Mason Street
Area.
1. Determination
by assessor of exempt or taxed (whole or in part).
2. PILOT
Agreement.
3. Consider
authorization to pursue one of the City Authorities to act as a conduit issuer
of Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds to Finance the project, timeline and any
other options.
Ald. Smith turned this item over to City Attorney Sean O’Flaherty.
Sean reported, “The Bethany Lutheran issue – there have been several discussions in the past week or two with representatives from the developer that Bethany Lutheran Homes is using. The main purpose of the discussions have been to review the possible issuance of tax exempt conduit bonds to help fund their project. We’ve conferred with the city’s bond counsel and the underwriters that the city typically uses, and Bethany Lutheran has made a request to issue $20 million of conduit bonds during the 2006 fiscal year. The affect of issuing $20 million of bonds would be that typically if the city issues less than $10 million in bonds, all of the bonds are bank exempt. And the issue is if in November there’s $20 million in bonds, it would push the city over that $10 million limit, clearly. It is the recommendation of the bond counsel and the underwriters that the city ask Bethany Lutheran to wait until January or address this issue in some other ways. Bethany Lutheran has come back and requested that while they requested that this matter be tabled because they’re reviewing it, I’ll give you the background of the discussion. They’re exploring with housing authorities in neighboring municipalities whether those municipalities would be willing to issue the bonds instead because they want to lock in the rate prior to the end of the year. As I said, they asked that this matter be tabled while they explore this. That was Number 3.
In going backwards to Number 2, the PILOT Agreement:
We have sent a copy of an agreement regarding payment in lieu of taxes. One of the conditions of the plat approval was that Bethany Lutheran enter into an agreement for payment in lieu of taxes – and we did draft one and in the agreement provide – at this time we don’t have enough information to determine what amount of the property is going to be tax exempted and what amount of the property is not – so the draft of the agreement that is currently circulating provides that to the extent any of the property is tax exempt, they will make a payment in lieu of taxes to the extent that its tax exempt – so it will be floating from year to year, depending upon the exemption. And with respect to some background on that, this spring in a statute narrowly failed in Madison that would have made a project like this non exempt – so there’s a great likelihood that there will be some changes in the state statutes with regard to property tax exemptions for this type of housing. So we wanted to keep the options open with respect to the PILOT Agreement. Bethany Lutheran is currently reviewing the PILOT Agreement, but has stated that they felt that the PILOT Agreement was tied to the city’s cooperation in the issuance of conduit bonds, and they have asked that discussion of the PILOT Agreement be tabled also. So that’s the current update with respect to the status of the discussions with Bethany Lutheran Homes”.
Mayor Bialecki said, “What I might want to suggest you do too, is to get a hold of Claire Silverman or Kurt Wertinski down in the legal municipalities, legal staff, and they’ll enlighten you to several examples in Milwaukee County where their Planning Commissions there, city and county, set conditions of PILOTS and how valid they are – there is no question as to the statutes anymore. So for this to move forward, there will be a PILOT. On the other hand, it is disappointing there too, because you did state the fact that we’re in practically going toward the end of the year here, and I really think that if we’re going to issue $20 million of bonds, we should have a quicker heads up to that – that portion we could table for the time being at their request, but the PILOT stays alive”.
Ald. Gonczy questioned, “Do we need to make a motion that for this project to continue, we will expect a PILOT Agreement? Do you want a motion or do you just want to table the whole thing and let the record stand – “
Mayor Bialecki replied, “No, I think we can table the whole thing because Condition 11 from June 27, Planning Commission Minutes, speaks that one of the conditions is a PILOT in place”.
Ald. Gonczy asked, “So do we need to reconfirm that with another motion or is this just information”?
Ald. Smith questioned, “Or if we just take no action”?
Mayor Bialecki answered, “And just take no action and be referred to whenever they’re ready”.
J. Authorization for disposition of:
1. 1994
Buick Century (#372 Fire Department).
2. 1976
Ford 4x4 Pickup (#365 Fire Department).
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Finance Committee to proceed with the disposition of these vehicles.
On voice vote, motion carried.
K.
Review/modify/approve existing contracts or solicit
for bids.
1. Information
Management Services Inc.. – Computer software/hardware maintenance – 2007.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Finance Committee to approve the contract, reflecting a 5% increase.
Ald. Giese questioned, “I think in reviewing the minute from F & P, there was reference made to a policy of how often we go out for bid on contracts. Do we have a policy along those lines”?
Ald. Smith stated, “I believe the policy is every five years that we go out for bids again. In this case, I think we’re within the five-year window, but, correct me if I’m wrong. But the primary staff users had requested that we continue with IMS due to their high level of service.
Fred said, “I can tell you within the last two years, IMS, if that’s the one you are questioning, was out for bids here in the last two years”.
Ald. Giese explained, “And I don’t want to be late with the point now, but I’m raising the issue because I don’t recall exactly how that policy came up, and I’m questioning whether we want to have that kind of a guiding policy – It seems like business climate and individual circumstances warrant decisions to strike when the iron is hot or when we need to, so I think maybe that needs to be brought forward at another time in reference to the policy – it’s not on the agenda right now, but I do raise that as a concern”.
Mayor Bialecki added, “I’d like to ask about that, too, because do we not go out for accounting and legal services every three years, and if we do, what’s the difference here”?
Fred replied, “No, actually what we do is we go out for three and then an additional extension of two”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
2. Heating,
Ventilation and Air Conditioning services for City Hall, City Library,
Community Center, Street and Utility Shop and Park Facilities – 2007.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Finance Committee to accept a 3% increase in costs. This actually resulted in an overall decrease in annual costs of $96, due to the removal of Tourism.
On voice vote, motion carried.
3. Cleaning
services for City Hall, Police Department, Library and Community Center – 2007.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, upon recommendation of the Finance Committee to continue with the current contract at no increase for 2007.
Ald. Oldani Wulf thanked Fred for working with IMS to get the proposal and also thanked Todd Weymiller for Items 2 and 3 to get those bids this year.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 7 –
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:
A. Approval of Community Development Authority (C.D.A.) Omni Center Employee Handbook.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Personnel Committee to approve the handbook.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Administrative
Assistant (Tourism)
1. Pay
Range.
2. Post
and Advertise.
Ald. Smith – This item was actually deferred at the Finance and Personnel Committee Meeting; however, the request has changed. So at this time I’ll propose for Item B (1), Administrative Assistant – Tourism, we set a pay range of $9 to $11 per hour.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve the above pay range for Administrative Assistant – Tourism at $9 to $11 per hour.
Ald. Oldani Wulf asked, “I would like to know what the old range was and then is this new range part of the new study”?
Ald. Smith answered, “I can summarize that and if someone wants to jump in and correct me, they can. The incumbent’s current wage is $13.60 per hour. That person has been on staff for 8 years. The job is rated as an 11. If you would compare it to the Office Clerical Support position – well first let me say, if that was a full time position, the minimum proposed wage based on the compensation study would be $28,541.00”.
Ald. Oldani Wulf asked, “So the $28,541, is that as an Administrative Assistant title”?
Ald. Smith said, “That would be a full time Administrative Assistant.
Ald. Oldani Wulf questioned, “Okay now that’s according to the new pay range”?
Ald. Smith answered, “According to the new proposed minimum range”.
Ald. Oldani Wulf asked, “Okay, and what was the old”?
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Ald. Oldani Wulf clarified, “If we did not have the new ranges now that was approved by council. What would we be advertising that at”?
Ald. Smith explained, “Well, that would be up for debate. The current incumbent in the position who has been there eight years is making $13.60 an hour. However, a somewhat comparable position would be the Administrative Secretary in the Police Department, which we just hired, that person it was advertised at $10 to $11 per hour, based on experience with no COLAS, and they actually hired someone at $10.50 an hour. When that position in the Police Department was full time, it did have a grade of 13. So this position, if we’re going to look at just the grading, this position would be graded lower than that”.
Ald. Oldani Wulf said, “I am going to continue to vote no on any future positions that have to be filled. Not because I don’t think they should be filled and not because I think they should be paid what I think they deserve to be paid, but only because my past opposition because people, not everyone was brought on board, because of the staggered wages and such. So, that is the only reason why I will be voting no – because I still believe that everyone should have been brought on board at the same time. So that’s the only reason why I will be voting no”.
Ald. Smith added, “And just one short comment to address Diane’s concern which I also share - I’m just trying to figure out the best way to move forward knowing what I know. And that is the $9 to $11 an hour range, would allow this person to still be paid in an hourly consideration than the person who is in the office clerical support – the person of lesser seniority in the office clerical support position. One of my concerns was that this person not be paid more than that person comparatively – mainly because the job responsibilities would be defined as this being a lesser skilled position”.
Mayor Bialecki agreed stating, “It’s a matter of waiting until we have the right policies in place to do a job audit, and then at that point to consider a re-class, if warranted”.
On voice vote, motion carried – 5 – yes, with Ald. Wulf voting no.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, to post and advertise the Administrative Assistant position.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 8 -
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE:
Item A - Approval of Operator’s Licenses
Name Location Type of Application
Herbert J. Bassett La Crosse Country Club New
Judy L. Cravens Kwik Trip Renewal/Provisional
Beth A. DePetro Stoney Creek Inn Renewal
Matthew J. Duval Lakeview Restaurant Renewal/Provisional
Elizabeth E. Eide Woodman’s New
Anna K. Friendshuh Applebee's New/Provisional
Ronald A. Henderson Kwik Trip Renewal/Provisional
Jessica I. Himmer La Crosse Country Club New/Provisional
Travis L. Klingaman Applebee’s Renewal
Kathleen Mitchell Woodman’s Renewal
Cassie L. Pfaff The Wharf New/Provisional
Steve J. Phelps La Crosse Country Club New
Jamie M. Sanders Hillside Inn New/Provisional
Anthony R. Suchla American Legion New/Provisional
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve the Operator’s Licenses as listed.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 9 - BOARD
OF PUBLIC WORKS:
A. 2006 Capital Improvement Project – Completion of Omni Center Building II.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to approve this item in the amount not to exceed $1,815,000.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Resolution 30-2006 – relating to the capital improvement project
for completion of Omni Center building II.
Resolution 30-2006
A RESOLUTION
RELATING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR
COMPLETION OF OMNI CENTER BUILDING II
To the Honorable Mayor and Council, City of Onalaska, Wisconsin
WHEREAS, The Board of Public Works in the City of Onalaska has held a Public Hearing on August 1, 2006 at 6:30 P.M. on the proposed for completion of Omni Center Building II, and
WHEREAS, The Board of Public Works in the City of Onalaska has reviewed the total Capital Project cost of $2,200,000 with estimated issuance costs/premium of $22,642, pledges applied of $370,642 and Room Tax applied $37,000.
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED, the Board of Public Works has recommended the adoption of
the Capital Improvement Project as outlined in the budget attached to this
Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Common Council of the City of Onalaska has considered the Capital Improvement Project as presented by the Board of Public Works, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Onalaska does hereby adopt the Capital Improvement Budget of $2,220,000 with a financing of $1,815,000.
Dated this 8th day of August 2006.
CITY OF ONALASKA
By: __________________________
James Bialecki, Mayor
____________________________
Caroline Burmaster, City Clerk
Passed:
Published:
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, to adopt Resolution
30-2006.
On roll call vote – Ald. Smith – yes, Ald. Gonczy – yes, Ald. Stellner – yes, Ald. Olson – yes, Ald. Giese – yes, Ald. Oldani Wulf – yes.
Resolution passed.
C. Retaining wall on Esther Drive at 566 Pralle Road.