The Meeting of the Common Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 9, 2007. 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. Jim Olson, Ald. Kim Smith, and Ald. Clarence Stellner.
Excused Absence: Ald. Gary Gonczy.
Also Present: City Engineer Jarrod
Holter, Land Use & Development Director Jason Gilman, Finance Director Fred
Buehler, and City Clerk Cari Burmaster.
Item 2 - Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was declared.
Item 3 - Approval of minutes from previous meeting.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Olson, to approve the 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.
Bob Muth
Onalaska
“First thing I’d like to do is thank Mayor Bialecki and two unidentified
councilmen for talking Mr. Sarnowski in running against me this coming
April. Without competition, I wouldn’t
have been able to bring up a number of issues for my campaign. I, too, believe we need more citizens to get
involved and look into what’s going on here at City Hall. The issue I’d like to speak about is the
reorganization of the Police Department.
If you recall, when Deputy Chief Bill Crothers retired, it was Randy Williams
that came up with the idea of the two captains positions to replace him. At the time this was done, it didn’t affect
any personnel whatsoever. Since that
time, I believe it’s been Captain Hauser that’s put the budget together,
performed most (if not all) the duty as described in Chief Williams’ new
description for new Assistant Police Chief.
The only thing keeping Captain Hauser from applying is the required
Bachelor’s Degree. So under Chief
Williams’ guidelines, I’m not sure who within the department qualifies other
than Captain Moan, possibly Sergeant Berg.
My question: Is this going to be
open to outside the agency, or is the promotion going to be on the inside
only? By pushing this proposal through,
it appears you’re taking a 30-year veteran of the Onalaska Police Department
and it appears to be punishing him by reducing him to rank to possibly
patrolman, if there is no sergeant slot open.
Is that a reduction in pay? Does
he lose his seniority, benefits, therefore affecting his retirement? Not because he did anything wrong – for the
sake of reorganization. I think Captain
Hauser is 51 years old and he can retire with a full benefit at age 53. I suggest you come up with a possible
compromise of waiting a short period of time left to allow him to reach
retirement age so it will be the same as when Chief Williams assigned two
captains - it wouldn’t affect
anybody. There’s the same situation that
happened with the Wisconsin State Patrol.
There was a Captain King who was reduced down to trooper status due to
reorganization of the Wisconsin State Patrol.
He had to go to an area where his wife (he wanted to be with his wife –
good move) and so to get there he had to stay at trooper. He is currently receiving pay and benefits as
a captain while serving as a trooper. If
you’re willing to treat a 30-year veteran of this police department this way,
what message are you giving the rest of the department and citizens? Please think about the actions after all the
things that have happened in the Onalaska Police Department, I do not think
this will encourage healing, but more fear and mistrust. I truly hope we can find a compromise not to
affect Captain Hauser after this many years to treat him this way. My final comment is directed at the Police
and Fire Commission. I applaud their
conduct and their recent decision – it showed great effort and thought with
their findings. As a citizen, I thank
them for their hard work”.
Larry Pohja
Onalaska
“During the last few years, the city has provided financing for some very
large projects – the Pool, for one, the expansion of the
David Novitske
Onalaska
“I, too, would like to speak on behalf of the library expansion and I
would urge the council to approve the capital budget request for the
modernization and the expansion of the library.
It’s a valuable community asset, it serves all age groups, and it serves
all the citizens of Onalaska.
Investments were made of good planning, 20 some years ago, good money 20
some years ago. We have a valuable asset
and let’s take it and take it up to the next level and it will continue to be
an asset to the City of
Randy Williams
Onalaska
“I also serve as the police chief here in Onalaska. I’d just like to make a couple of comments
regarding my reorganization plan since it was brought up here. Is, first of all, I drafted this plan - I’m
in charge of the police department. I’ve
always been in charge of the police department and all parts of the
department. Part of that includes the
budget. In my reorganization plan, I
planned to create an assistant chief’s position and the way that I drafted it,
is that I hope that all of my supervisors would apply for it because it is my
opinion, based on the way I wanted it drafted, is to have all of my supervisors
eligible - because I have 6 supervisors that I believe are capable, excellent
supervisors, and I think that they could fill this role. And I believe based on the way that I wrote
the requirements, I believe they would all be eligible for that position. It identifies education, experience, or a
requisite combination of both. My plan
is not to go outside the department, but to go from with inside the department
because I believe we do have capable personnel within the police department now
who could fill that role as Assistant Chief of Police. And I believe that all 6 of my supervisors
are eligible for that position and are capable”.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was anyone else wishing to address the
council.
Item 5 - REPORT FROM THE MAYOR.
A. Household Hazardous waste
Agreement.
Mayor Bialecki indicated this will be referred to next month as there has
been an agreement prepared for all municipalities to review and approve;
however, there must be a county board resolution authorized to do this. As this will not be seen until next month,
this item will be heard at that time.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL
AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION FROM THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/BOARDS:
Item 6 – FINANCE COMMITTEE:
A. Vouchers.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to approve Vouchers No. 2781
through No. 2970 for 2006, and Vouchers No. 1 through No. 134 for 2007,
expended since the last Common Council meeting of December 12, 2006, in the total amount of $7,650,801.72.
Ald. Smith noted that Voucher No. 2907 to Engberg Anderson Design for the
library consultant and Voucher No. 65 to Star Building Systems for the City
Shop were not approved at the committee levels and approval is requested by the
council.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Review options for Police Department mobile
computer cellular service – Sprint vs.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the
Finance Committee to review options for the Police Department mobile computer
cellular service and change service from Sprint to U.S. Cellular.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Modification to Building Inspector – Marv
Horman’s contract to add a CPI to his rate/ inspection.
Ald. Smith requested clarification on what action the council is taking
on this.
Jason explained that last month the Finance & Personnel Committee
approved this and approval from council was received followed by the
recommendation from the F & P Committee.
After this, there was a question regarding what was approved. Jason clarified that this is a one-time
increase rather than an annual increase which Marv is requesting.
There was also a question regarding whether the agreement be modified as
it stands or if the request should have been submitted to the City in
October. Jason reviewed this matter with
City Attorney Sean O’Flaherty and in Line 3 of Marv’s contract, there is a
statement, “Contractor shall be paid $30 per inspection. No reimbursement for mileage or any other
cost disbursement shall be paid”. Jason
explained that Sean indicated this line could be modified to just include the
CPI increase that is appropriate for 2006 as this is a one-time change.
Mayor Bialecki asked if this considers the 90-day window to inform of the
intent to have that increased.
Per his discussion with Sean, Jason indicated that both parties in the
contract have the ability to amend the contract by just amending that line.
In response to a question from Ald. Olson, Jason indicated this increase
would take effect upon council approval.
Ald. Olson reminded this was discussed as taking effect in April.
Members discussed this and indicated there were some unanswered questions
regarding this. Ald. Giese said, “We
have a contracted employee that’s performing good work, we have a department
head that I have a lot of confidence in - so I would, for the record, indicate
that the contract has a bit of uncertainty in it, but it apparently would give
us the option to not make any change for 90 days. But I’m willing to support the motion that it
be made payable now.
In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Fred answered that it would
not be retroactive, but rather effective on approval of council.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, to authorize the modification
to building inspector, Marv Harman’s contract to add a CPI to his
rate/inspection to take affect upon approval by the council.
Under discussion Ald. Smith asked, “I thought that Jason’s comment and
perhaps Sean’s advisement was not so much to approve the cost of living
increase, which we’ve already approved, but to make the change in the format of
adjusting one line of the contract – instead of saying $30, to say whatever the
value would be - is that correct, Sean?
Sean replied, “I think the recommendation is to change the $30 amount to
$30 plus an amount equal to the CPI on a one-time basis. And I think the motion made last month and
some of the comments made after the meeting were related to was it a
year-by-year change or was that a one-time change”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D. Refund Onalaska T-1 LLC the difference on Park
Fee based on newly proposed development.
Ald. Smith referred to Fred for clarification as this was not discussed
at the committee level.
Fred explained that after the Plan Commission approves the necessary
conditions that the City will be reimbursing this firm the difference in the
funds that were paid by them two years ago.
In response to a question from Mayor Bialecki, Jason reported this is the
Barston’s Square Development that was proposed by Dick Barber and now Ted
Thompson has taken it over. This development
is across from
As background information, Jason explained that originally they came in
with a plat that had planned 12-unit apartment buildings, three 4-unit
townhouses, and a variety of housing.
The park fee amounted to approximately $98,000, which was paid in advance. Two years later, the project was re-evaluated
and they decided to put in a large condominium project with substantially less
units. They requested a refund to the
park fee because they are not building as many units and the City’s park fee is
based on impact of the parks and the benefit of the residents that would be
moving in.
Jason added, “This all happened before
Mayor Bialecki agreed that they should be refunded these funds. Mayor Bialecki questioned if the new owner is
required to bring a new plan before the Plan Commission and if the new owner is
presently bound by the conditions placed in that property when the previous
owner had it.
Jason indicated the new owner has brought in a new plan which has been
approved by the Plan Commission and also the Council and they are presently in
the process of construction of the development.
As good practice, Fred suggested the council go on record to approve
reimbursement of the difference in the funds, which Jason indicated would be
approximately $20,000 as the original fee paid was $98,000 and the new fee is
$77,000.
Members discussed the necessity of approving this at council level.
Ald. Giese stated, “I think whenever we modify from the budget in any
significant amount, i.e. if we’re going to refund money that has once been
reported to us as income, that warrants an action of the council here”.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Smith, to refund T-1, LLC the
difference on the park fee based on newly proposed development in the
approximate amount of $20,000.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 7 – PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:
A. Compensation and Policies.
1. Compensation Study – Barb Davis from HABCO.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Personnel Committee to accept the Compensation Study completed by Barb Davis
from HABCO.
Ald. Smith indicated that Barb Davis is available if the council has any
questions for her.
In response to a question from Ald. Oldani Wulf, Ald. Smith indicated
this document was received to the record by the Finance & Personnel
Committee.
Ald. Giese questioned the 3-year plan which was part of the report which
identified green and red circled employees as he was unable to identify who
these employees were or what positions those involved.
Barb explained that there were no red circled employees in this plan as
there is not a position that is above the maximum, and that the employees are
not literally green circled, but rather is a complete list of those people that
are “green circled”.
Ald. Giese noted that for each one of the categories there were no
comparisons identified as “Previous Study Average” to the original study. Ald. Giese indicated it would be useful for
him to have the information to map these back to the original study.
As a formatting issue, Ald. Giese also suggested the average or midpoint
from the original study be listed on the same page as the table submitted in
the present compensation study.
Barb explained this had been done.
The average of the present compensation study is listed above the
original study figure in every position.
As example, Page 1, Police Chief position displays the present study
average as $67,511 and below that is the original study average of $74,000.
Ald. Giese asked what the $71,875 represents in the right hand column.
Barb explained this is what the City of
In response to a question from Ald. Giese regarding what the midpoint is
referring to, Barb explained, “Some of the cities gave the midpoint for the
salary and some just gave the actual so that’s why I labeled it actual or
midpoint. So in some cases it was the
actual salary that one person was making or it was midpoint of the range”.
Ald. Giese asked, “Then you came up with a job classification scheme for
exempt and non exempt on 1 through 10.
We had a classification system going to 30 and there’s no mapping
between those two systems and no discussion of that. How would we relate our grading system to
your grading system”?
Barb explained, “I redid it making it less, what I felt was less
cumbersome – fewer levels, wider what they call sloped difference between each
level, a greater difference between each level, but fewer levels. And I also broadened some of what they call
the spread, so each level is wider”.
Ald. Giese asked, “Well, we’re talking two different things here in terms
of the - I’m just focusing now on the
classification system and not on the compensation that’s going within
that. And I saw advantages into the
compensation system as we had put it because of the fact it had more detail –
because it was more specific. And I
still am curious then how – so you came up with an entirely new classification
system that is not mapped in any way to our previous classification system”?
Barb said this is correct.
Ald. Smith added that Barb had conducted interviews of the staff to try
to gain more insight into the job duties of each position.
Ald. Giese said, “I appreciate that.
You identified a different set of comparisons and gave reasons for doing
that – comparable size and proximity to major metropolitan market areas and
those sorts of things. The comparables
that were used in the first study were influenced among other reasons by what
is used in the calculation of comparables for arbitration for represented union
employees in this situation. And so there is some rationale behind why it was
done that way. There was also some consideration
given as to the operations of the city and the histories of the city relative
to size of work force and organization of structure of departments so I’m not
criticizing the choice of cities but just saying there’s good rationales both
ways. And I would think there would be
some advantage to melding both of those lists together. But I would hate to lose the comparable that
we have been using since I’ve been on council for four years now”.
Ald. Oldani Wulf explained that both her and Ald. Giese had served on the
Compensation Sub Committee in 2005.
There was a City of
In response to a question from Ald. Oldani Wulf, Barb indicated she did
not use these specific things in her study.
Ald. Oldani Wulf raised concerns with this as the council went on record
to use these types of comparisons as adopted through the City of
Ald. Oldani Wulf indicated she is in agreement with many of the issues
brought forward by Ald. Giese. She has
noted the document has worthiness for the amount of work that Barb put into it
through the questionnaires submitted to the employees and department heads.
Another concern of Ald. Oldani Wulf is the comparisons for the individual
job descriptions relative to the population size. Ald. Oldani Wulf said, “Those types of things
concern me because we always seem to be so concerned about trying to average –
look at comps, true internal comps, and I’m not seeing that. I still think it’s a wonderful compensations study
that you did, but I think it reinforces the point with our previous human
resources person that there is no perfect system to look at. It’s really difficult – I don’t there’s any
perfect plan out there to look at. I
think it’s very, very difficult when we had our previous human resources person
to do it. I think you’re in a position I
think it’s equally hard for someone who professionally does this all the
time. And that’s my point, I think you
did a great job, but I think it’s still a difficult task before anyone to do”.
Mayor Bialecki agreed, “You’re right, there’s a lot of different
scenarios, a lot of different ways to interpret the two. One of the things that’s interesting in that
whole plan as well as the previous one is you can leave public service and go
into the private sector, and perhaps you can make a few more dollars, but
that’s where you’re going to get a great fluctuation in the fringe benefit
ratios”.
Ald. Giese also noted there was no data from private sectors.
Barb indicated this is correct but she has local LaCrosse area benefit
data as well as salary data from the LaCrosse Area Society for Human Resource
Management which she can include or submit.
Ald. Giese said, “That was something noted I would like, as part of the
report, if we could have some detail supporting that so that we have
comparables that go beyond just roll up numbers so we can see what’s happening
that would make the report that more useful”.
To answer a previous question from Ald. Giese, Ald. Oldani Wulf consulted
with Human Resource Specialist Elsa Kulig regarding the original compensation
study which was dated November 2005. The
previous study average matched equally with the present study completed by
Barb.
Ald. Smith said, “I’d just like to add in summary and thank you again,
Barb, I’m sure you probably didn’t plan on such discussion. But I just want to remind the council that the
purpose of asking Ms. Davis to complete this compensation study was to give us
some external validation to the study that we had already completed. And I think if you look at the study just in
an overall – yes you can sit and look at the details and you can find some
differences – but if you just look at the overall spirit of Ms. Davis’s study,
I think it is fairly in line with the study that we already have done. And the reason that I think we needed this
external validation is because the council has historically been extremely
conservative when it comes to making any sort of wage adjustment whatsoever,
and we wanted to have as much assurance as we proceeded into doing that as what
we could possibly have. And so,
hopefully, we’ll have enough tools to come forward with some change”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
2. Review Vacation Policy #7.05.
Ald. Smith indicated the Personnel Committee took no action but requested
Elsa to come back with more information for the next meeting.
3. Non-Union Compensation Plan.
Ald. Smith indicated concerning that plan, the committee set several
goals for the next meeting:
Ald. Oldani Wulf questioned whether or not this document has been shared
with department heads or only given to council members or if the plan is to
share it with department heads.
Ald. Smith indicated that there is no plan and they are looking for
direction from council members.
Mayor Bialecki indicated that this is a public document and anyone wishing
to review it is welcome to do so.
Ald. Smith indicated it would be appropriate to be on the next department
head meeting for discussion.
Members agreed.
Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Smith, to ensure copies are
made and distributed and placed on the next Department Head Meeting in January
2007.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Ald. Giese indicated in the spirit of Ald. Smith requesting direction
from council members, he concurs that the outside study was important to give
validity to what was done as an internal study.
His observation is that both of those reinforce one another – they are
more similar than they are dissimilar. His
questions were raised to support the complexity of the situation.
Ald. Giese stated, “I took some time to go back and review the minutes
from our deliberations, both in the compensation committee, in F & P, and
at council. Even though we did pass a
resolution that was very specific as to a course of action relative to bringing
employees in line with what our intentions were as a compensation philosophy, in
almost every instance that was discussed, a reference was made to the fact that
within the comparison of public sector to private sector, fringe benefits would
make a significant contribution to that comparison and we didn’t have the
complete information as to fringe benefits relative to private and public
sector. We now have validation of that
number, and we have a better idea of where we stand. So my recommendation or comment to F & P
is I think now we’ve got enough data, it’s been validated, we should be able to
make some recommendations as to where we go here, specific to compensation and
fringe benefits in the next 60 days or so”.
Ald. Smith reminded the council that there is one more year of transition
regarding this item. They are attempting
to make some adjustments to wages while moving to a performance based pay
system.
Ald. Oldani Wulf questioned whether department heads had clarified to
their employees that even though the performance based pay system begins
January 1, 2008, the actual performance reviews began January 1, 2007.
Elsa indicated that this is her understanding as this was passed in June
of this year, but she will distribute copies during the January Department Head
Meeting.
B. Letter of Understanding – WPPA
(Wisconsin Professional Police Association).
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Personnel Committee to accept the Letter of Understanding – WPPA (Wisconsin
Professional Police Association).
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Administrative Manager.
1. Job Description.
2.
3. Post and Advertise.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Personnel Committee to approve the job description for the administrative manager,
to set the salary range at $36,000 to $39,000 annually, and to post and
advertise the position.
Ald. Oldani Wulf indicated that because of the pay plan which she
opposes, she will be voting no to this item.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Ald. Oldani Wulf explained
that this is regarding the old pay plan and said, “Whenever you have new hires,
I’m going to vote no for the salary because this council went on record to
bring everyone on board, and you’re doing your step thing. But I support the position, though”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Three – yes, two – no.
D. Assistant Chief.
1. Job Description.
2.
3. Post and Advertise.
Ald. Giese suggested voting on these three items separately.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Giese, upon recommendation of the
Personnel Committee to approve Item D1, Assistant Chief job description.
In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Elsa indicated the grade is E7
which was graded by the process that was used in the consultation by Hawkins, Ash,
and Baptie.
Ald. Giese commented on the table of job classifications by grade
stating, “It seems reasonable, but I really find the 10 to 30 grade much more
effective relative to internal validity.
And that was one of the overall objectives when we started this whole
thing was so we could have internal validity – it just gave us a finer tooth
comb that allowed us to – I think – treat employees more fairly relative to
their actual job duties”.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Randy explained, “The formula
that we used is we took the two captain’s positions and included their
longevity. One of them makes 4%, the
other 5%. Took an average, and we added
$1500 above and beyond that but to be inclusive of longevity. So the amount that you’re looking at would be
inclusive of any longevity that would be paid”.
Mayor Bialecki reminded that the motion is regarding the job description
and requested the committee limit the discussion to the motion.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Four – yes, one – no.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
personnel Committee to set the salary range for the Assistant Chief Position at
$60,000 to $63,000 annually.
With the present grade of E7 which has a midpoint of $54,000, the suggestion
is for a salary of $60,000 to $63,000, Ald. Giese stated this salary is set at
the higher end of the scale for someone who will be starting a new job that
does not have the experience in that job and that although he understands why
it is being done in this case, it is not the best personnel policy in his
opinion.
Randy answered, “If I can comment on that – I don’t have the breakout,
the 30 level concept that you’re talking about.
But in that, there should be a place for the captain’s position for the
Police Department. This position is not
taking any less responsibility but is taking on slightly more responsibility than
the captain’s position. So if you look
at that previous list, I would be interested in what that says as far as a
salary recommendation or a salary range”.
Ald. Smith noted the patrol captain wage on that sheet is $58,000 and the
previous grade was 22 on the 40 scale.
Randy explained, “In reference to talking to Elsa, when the new study was
done by HABCO, she did not include the Captain’s positions because of the
potential reorganization that was going on.
So those positions were not included in the HABCO study so it’s not in
there specifically. I believe the
Assistant Chief’s position is in there because that was the plan for 2007, but
as I said, again, it sounds like there is a number level that the captains were
at was 22”.
Ald. Giese questioned the pay of the incumbents that would be eligible to
apply for this position.
Ald. Smith indicated that they are currently making between approximately
$58,000 and $59,000 for ’06.
In response to a question from Ald. Oldani Wulf, Randy indicated there
would be six individuals who would be qualified to apply for this position.
Ald. Giese asked, “Randy, your description of the reorganization and the
resulting cost savings would be held true with these salary ranges of $60,000
to $63,000. In other words, the savings
would be approximately the same as what you previously shared with us”?
Randy answered, “Yes, as I understood at the budget meeting and the
budget that was passed and the figures that were presented, that was inclusive
of the $60,000 to $63,000 for the Assistant Chief’s positions and the $36,000
to $39,000 for the Administrative Manager position, so that was budgeted for”.
Ald. Stellner questioned if one of the sergeants were accepted for this
position, he would make between $60,000 and $63,000 and the two present
captains would be demoted back to a lesser position.
Randy indicated this is correct.
Ald. Oldani Wulf indicated that she supports the salary range amount and
the position, but will be voting no for the same reason as indicated above.
On roll call vote: Ald. Oldani
Wulf – no, Ald. Olson – aye, Ald. Giese – aye, Ald. Stellner – no, Ald. Smith –
aye. Motion passes, three – yes, two –
no.
Ald. Smith indicated that concerning Item 3, to Post and Advertise, the
council will defer action to the Police and Fire Commission as they have jurisdiction
over that position.
E. Out-of-State Travel Request.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, upon recommendation of
the Personnel Committee to approve Assistant Planner, Deena Murphy and Park
Supervisor, Mark Hanson to attend Rochester Arborist Workshop in
On voice vote, motion carried.
Ald. Smith indicated this will be at no cost to the city other than
Officer Winjum’s salary.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Personnel Committee to approve Investigator Dave Winjum to attend Investigation
and Prosecution of Child Exploitation in
On voice vote, motion carried.
F. Approval of Local 150 Contract.
Ald. Smith indicated this did not appear at the Finance & Personnel
meeting.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve the Local 150
Contract.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 8 - ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE:
A. Approval of Operator’s Licenses
Name Location Type of
Application
Dianne L. Cilley American
Legion New/Provisional
Shawn H. Davis Applebees New/Provisional
Jacob C. Lavelle Rocky
Rococo New/Provisional
Judy L. Wellnitz Rocky
Rococo New/Provisional
Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of
the Administrative Committee to approve the Operator’s Licenses.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Smoke Free Campus for City of
Ald. Oldani Wulf indicated this is being submitted on behalf of Ald.
Gonczy and for information purposes only.
This is an ordinance to suggest that the proposed ordinance be
considered in regard to encompassing other properties in addition to just the
City of
Ald. Oldani Wulf noted a change in the present timeline indicated in the
packets under Item 8B. This is currently
listed as February 27, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. public hearing in the common council
chambers. This should be changed to 5;00
p.m. on the same date. The public
hearing will begin as scheduled and when the Plan Commission requires use of
the chambers at 7:00 p.m., the public hearing for the ordinance will be
postponed until after the Plan Commission has completed their meeting.
Further dates in relation to this ordinance:
Ald. Gonczy is looking forward to any and all input from council members,
public input from constituents, etc. If
there are any comments or concerns, please direct them to Ald. Gonczy and also
at the public hearing as scheduled.
C. Formation of a
Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of
the Administrative Committee to form a Municipal Harbor Commission.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D. Resolution 2-2007 – resolution
to create
Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve Resolution 2-2007 to create Municipal
Harbor Commission.
On roll call vote: Ald. Smith –
aye, Ald. Oldani Wulf – aye, Ald. Olson – aye, Ald. Giese – aye, Ald. Stellner
– aye. Resolution passes.
Item 9 - BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS:
A. Preliminary Resolution 1-2007
– set up public hearing for water main installation on
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the
Board of Public Works to set up a hearing for the next Board of Public Works
meeting on February 6 at 6:45 p.m. to pass Preliminary Resolution 1-2007 – water main installation on Monroe Street.
On roll call vote: Ald. Giese –
aye, Ald. Oldani Wulf – aye, Ald. Olson – aye, Ald. Smith – aye, Ald. Stellner
– aye. Resolution passes.
B. 2007 Capital Improvement Projects.
1. Recommendation and possible action in regard to
the 2007 Capital Improvement Projects.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Board of Public Works, to approve the Capital Improvement Project Budget for
2007.
Under discussion, Mayor Bialecki indicated there is a listing of projects
which total $3,043.295. In following the
public hearing and the Board of Public Works meeting from previous meetings,
the library was heavily discussed and also the consideration of present
restraints placed upon municipalities by the State of
Mayor Bialecki noted that he and Fred had extensive conversations with
Baird and Associates of Milwaukee and also Moody’s to ensure the City is
proceeding in the right direction.
In light of this, Mayor Bialecki suggested the council add another
$500,000 to the budget to total $1
million to proceed with an expansion and renovation with the library in
2007.
Mayor Bialecki turned this item over to Fred.
Fred reported, “Each of you should have two sheets – one is a goldenrod
color and the other one I believe is like a salmon color which was at your
disposal when you came in. What we have
is the first scenario, Scenario 2A represents if you were to raise from
$3,043,295 to $3,545,000, the city engineer and I took a look extensively into
the 2008 - seeing the project that we don’t have a whole lot of latitude in and
then since we met, a few more have been added to the list of less that
latitude. What this does, it kind of plateaus
because we surely don’t want to go $4 million in ’08, and so we’re trying to
stabilize with a norm between the two years.
And with that in mind, we sat down with the financial advisor, Robert W.
Baird, we drew up the necessary samples and scenarios. Mayor Bialecki and I and Sara Stoner and Brad
Vagute had a conversation with Beth Dougherty from Moody’s. She was very pleased - I thought the outcome
was very good. She was very pleased that
we took the time to talk to her showing that the city is looking further than
just ’07, we’re looking into the ’08.
Actually, I thought the outcome of that conversation was very promising
and that is why we have it before you today to adding additional dollars to the
2007 foreseeing the projects that are coming up in 2008. And as you can see, the first (salmon
colored) represents if you have added $500,000 to the existing debt schedule,
you see the impact would actually be a decrease in the overall combined mil
rate. If you’re taking a look at the
Scenario 2A, looking at the $3,545,000 as well as something in that vicinity
(and keep in mind that’s only an estimate for 2008), you can see the impact for
those two joint years is $.05 increase.
I think it’s worthwhile looking at it – it’s contradicting what we
talked about at the Board of Public Works, but like I say, we felt it was
necessary to look at it and I think that is something that the council should
take a look at”.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to increase the funding for
the library to $1 million for 2007.
Ald. Olson questioned Scenario 2, where the impact is a negative $.03 and
Scenario 2A is an increase of $.05 over three years.
Fred said that is correct and pointed out one more scenario, “If you
would have kept at the $3,040,000, the impact would be $.05 decrease and not
looking at 2008, but that’s why we wanted to look at two years together. So that scenario I did not give you, but if
you would have kept it status quo as what the Board of Public Works did, Gary
Gonczy had suggested what the impact was, and I wanted to get back to you that
it would have been $.05 decrease”.
Ald. Olson noted he would support Scenario 2.
Ald. Giese asked, “Fred, the $3,545,000, the $45,000 represents issuance
costs”?
Fred answered, “That’s right, we had to round it up a little bit because
you’re putting $500,000 more in so instead of being $40,000, it’s now a little
more”.
Ald. Giese questioned the impact on the City’s interest rate or bond
rating.
Fred indicated per discussions with Moody’s, there was no impact on the
bond rating. They were very comfortable
that as fiscally responsible the City of
Mayor Bialecki said, “Some of the other comments were that while our debt
liability is up slightly over the state average, our tax rate, if you were to
check with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and for that matter the
Wisconsin tax Payers Alliance, we still remain within the bond of 20%
throughout the state. The argument for
them to do this, on the one hand, as some of us know, we’ve been at this for
five years now. When you think about it
in recent years, we built the City Hall, we replaced our pool, we’re in the
process of replacing our city shop – that’s been long overdue for 20 or 30
years, the
In respect to city facilities, Mayor Bialecki noted that the City is in
good shape and he is not aware of many communities in the state that would be
able to accomplish that much in probably a six-year span.
Fred explained, If the City proceeds with the $3,545,000, that interest
rate of 4.57 is based on what they call non bank-qualified. In the past we’ve always been bank
qualified. To be bank qualified, you
have to stay under the threshold of $10 million. As you recall, we did not to exceed $22
million that we’ll be closing on before the end of this month for Bethany
Lutheran – we went over the threshold.
Once you go over the threshold, then you are in the status of what they
call non bank-qualified. We have an
agreement with Bethany Lutheran that anything that is non bank-qualified, they
are responsible to pay us the difference between the bank qualified and the non
bank qualified. This comes to
approximately $66,500”.
In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Fred said the 4.36% is
assuming a flat rate market and the City expects to stay in the bank qualified
limit.
Ald. Giese stated, “We are now discussing the amount of borrowing for
2007. At the Board of Public Works, we
were discussing the costs for finishing the project in 2008 and I just want
everybody to understand that we’re talking about 2007 and we’re not committing
to the concept of a total project at any dollar amount. Speaking for myself, I’m committing for that
additional $500,000 in 2007. I have
every anticipation that the library will come in at a reasonable price and will
be adequately funded. But I just want
the record to clearly indicate that we’re only dealing with 2007 at this time”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was any discussion on the motion as
amended.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Mayor Bialecki expressed his appreciation to the Library Commission and
to the Friends of the Library for their efforts these last five years.
Mayor Bialecki indicated that for those present for the
2. Resolution
3-2007 – Capital
Improvement Projects for 2007.
Ald. Giese indicated this has been modified by the previous action and
asked if Fred has the Resolution as appropriate.
Fred explained, “Yes I do. This
resolution was in your packet with the modifications you just made here with
the last motion. The $13,088,340 of
total project costs is now $13,588,340.
Previously bonded has not changed.
Other sources of revenue have not changed, leaving a balance of $3,503.295
replacing $3,003,295. Issuance costs is
now $41,705 replacing $36,705. On the last
paragraph where it says, Be it further resolved, the Common Council and the
City of Onalaska, does hereby adopt the 2007 Capital Project Budget of
$13,588,340 with financing of $3,545,000”.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Board of Public Works to approve Resolution
3-2007 – Capital Improvement Projects for 2007 as modified.
On roll call vote: Ald. Olson –
aye, Ald. Smith – aye, Ald. Stellner – aye, Ald. Oldani Wulf – aye, Ald. Giese
– aye. Resolution passes.
C – Request to add snowmobile trail spur to
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the
Board of Public Works, to approve the request to add snowmobile trail spur to
The request was also made to have a report from the Police Department
relative to the issue and the railroad crossing involved.
Jarrod reported that he reviewed this with Police Chief Williams who had
no problems with this as long as the ordinance that is presently in place
regarding snowmobiling in the city is adhered to.
Jarrod also researched Natural Resources Code 6.40, which governs
snowmobiling at railroad crossings, and the snowmobile club will meet those standards. The snowmobile club also contacted the trail
coordinator for northern