The Special Meeting of the Common Council was called to order at 7:00
p.m. on Monday, November 7, 2005. It
was noted that the meeting had been announced and a notice posted at City Hall.
Item 1 – Call to order and roll call.
Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Mayor Jim
Bialecki, Ald. Mike Giese, Ald. Jim Olson, Ald. Diane Oldani Wulf, Ald. Gary
Gonczy, Ald. Kim Olson and Ald. Bill Leathen.
Also present were City Clerk Cari Burmaster, Financial Services Director
Fred Buehler and City Attorney Dawn Harris.
Item 2 – Public Hearing: 7:00 PM
(public input limited to 3 minutes per individual). On the proposed 2006
Executive Budget including the Budgets for General Fund, Special Revenue Funds,
Debt Service Funds, Enterprise Funds, Capital Project Funds, and Community
Development Authority.
Mayor Bialecki reported that the budget comes forward from the Finance
& Personnel Committee with the Patrol Position reinstated.
Mayor Bialecki called for anyone wishing to address the Common Council.
Chris Danou, President of the Onalaska Professional Police Association,
addressed the Common Council. Mr. Danou
said, “A couple weekends ago, I was at home with my four-year-old son, it was a
Saturday night. It was my night off and
I got a call from dispatch, a call from dispatch asking me to come in on a SWAT
team call-out, which is our emergency response team. I asked them what was
going on. They advised me that a suspect who was wanted on a series of bank
robberies was probably holed up somewhere in a farmhouse outside Bangor. I
volunteered to go in, as is expected.
“And, as I was getting ready to leave, I put my
four-year-old son to bed. And four-year-olds often have sort of a sixth sense.
And he kind of looked at me and said, ‘Daddy, are you going to be coming home
tonight?’ He had kind of a worried look on his face. And I said, ‘Yes, I’m
coming home. Don’t worry’. He said, ‘Daddy, are you going to get the bad
guys?’ I said, ‘I’m going to do my
best’. And he said, ‘How do you know
you’re coming home, Daddy?’ And I said,
‘Because every other police officer whose out there with me is going to make
sure I come home tonight’.
“That is why maintaining adequate staffing for
our police department and public safety is so important. Like no other
profession, we go out and deal with people who wish to do us harm simply
because of what we represent; the ‘thin blue line’ between anarchy and
civilization. That is why police officers wear that badge above their left
breast. It’s a shield representing the protection we offer to our communities.
“The Onalaska Professional Police Association
fought hard to maintain the staffing we currently have, and we also appreciate
and understand the fiscal situation the City faces. We also appreciate the fact
that the City did restore the position to the budget at the last Finance &
Personnel Committee meeting. I realize that there are difficult decisions to be
made. And we also thank everybody within the City who helped by making personal
sacrifices like Chief Williams and Chief Menches by not accepting Cost of
Living increases and those things and the cuts to other City budgets to help
preserve the position.
“We also hold out hope that come 2007, there’ll
be no further need to make additional cuts to our staff. Again, we recognize
that the City does face a serious fiscal situation. But please understand how
important these positions are to our members. Officer Jahr, the person whose
position we were fighting for, was assaulted just a couple weeks ago in the
line of duty.
“The Onalaska Professional Police Association did
make an offer to the City that we, in our understanding, would save the City
$11,000 in the upcoming year if it is accepted. Whether the City chooses to accept that or not, that’s up to you,
but it is our belief it will bring in $11,000 of saving.
“The additional thing that we just became aware
of is Officer Kobishop made a couple of proposals to the City that I hope you
would consider seriously. Those proposals should allow us to maintain adequate
staffing and preserve the best options that we have available, as well as
maintaining Rosie Macomber’s position as secretary. And make no mistake, she is
an important part of our Police Department as well.
“I hope you take these proposals serious. And
thank you very much”.
Mayor Bialecki called for anyone else wishing to address the Common
Council.
Randy Williams, 1313 Cliffview Avenue addressed the Common Council and
identified himself as the Chief of Police of the City of Onalaska. Chief Williams said, “As recent as
yesterday, Sunday, Officer Kobishop presented us with two options to consider
as we look to balance the City’s 2006 budget, and specifically to help save the
½ secretary position. Those two proposals were 1) taking a voluntary layoff;
and 2) taking a voluntary leave of absence.
“In looking at the
proposal of accepting a voluntary unpaid leave of absence, I reviewed City
Policy 7.01 entitled, ‘Leaves of Absence’.
This policy does allow for a fulltime employee to take an unpaid leave of
absence, however, it also says, ‘A leave of absence will not be granted for the
purpose of taking other employment’.
“Initially my thoughts in talking with the Mayor
and Fred were that this proposal to take an unpaid leave of absence was not an
option because Officer Kobishop was considering other employment. However,
Officer Kobishop informed me late this afternoon that his computer consulting
business, Kobishop Consulting, is not a new endeavor for Officer Kobishop. In
fact, he has been offering this consulting business for approximately two and
half years. Therefore, depending on how the City Council interprets the City
policy on leaves of absence, it is possible to argue that Officer Kobishop’s
leave of absence is not for the purpose of taking on other employment as he is
not taking on anything other than what he has already been doing on his own.
His primary reason for offering these proposals is to save the secretary’s
position, assuming that the officer position has been put back in the budget.
“As to the proposal for taking a voluntary
layoff, my initial thoughts were that a voluntary layoff was not an option as
we have been arguing for some time that we need more officers, not less. That is why we have been working so hard to
save that police officer position. And at this time, I want to thank the other
department heads, the Mayor, and the City Council for their efforts in making
that possible.
“However, after my initial thoughts on this
proposal of a voluntary layoff, I would argue that the voluntary layoff is a
viable option in the long term. In the union contract it states under Section
6.2 ‘Voluntary Layoff’, ‘If requested, voluntary layoff may be granted in
accordance with the tenure, providing that the efficiency of the Department
will not be hindered’. As I said, we
initially argued that we need more officers, not less, and his proposal would
seem off the top contrary to that argument. However, if you look long term, and
the impact of Officer Kobishop’s offer, this will actually really help the
efficiency of the Department in the long run. Officer Kobishop is a 20-year
veteran of the Onalaska Police Department and he has served this community well
for the last two decades. He is in unique position where he can afford to take
a voluntary layoff, or even a voluntary leave of absence without pay, as an
option, if it will help the City from displacing a fulltime employee to
part-time.
“There are two distinct advantages to Officer
Kobishop’s taking a voluntary layoff, or if possible a voluntary leave of
absence. One is in the long run, with the money saved during the time that he
is on leave, enough funding would be saved to reinstate the administrative
secretary position back to fulltime position. Secondly, I have eliminated the
Community Policing position, which is currently held by Officer Barry Holm, and
I am placing him back on patrol in the year 2006. What that means is that while
Officer Kobishop is on leave, or voluntary layoff, the Police Department would
be able to maintain it’s current level of staffing with the addition of Officer
Holm on the street. And then, upon the
return of Officer Kobishop, we would actually have increased our patrol instead
of decreasing it and also at the same time saved a position.
“Therefore, as I took a second look at these
proposals, I think either affords us the opportunity to maintain the efficiency
of the Police Department and to allow the City the opportunity to save from
cutting a fulltime position to half time. I would ask the City Council to
seriously consider these proposals that would greatly benefit the City.
“And finally, I would like to express my
appreciation for Officer Kobishop for having the ability to step forward and
think of another employee for this department. Thank you”.
Mayor Bialecki called three times more for anyone wishing to address the
Common Council. Hearing none, Mayor
Bialecki asked if the Council members would concur with a last call for
input. There were indications of
concurrence. Mayor Bialecki called once more for anyone wishing to address the
Common Council. Hearing none, Mayor
Bialecki declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Bialecki said, “The comments made – very noble. My questions is,
why now? And some of this I’m kind of bewildered with. Roughly two, three weeks
ago, we came up with a very tight budget that suggested a layoff in the
department. We heard from a number of you out there. We received letters. We
had people show up, in fact this place was packed at the Finance &
Personnel Committee telling us don’t take away from the department. As a
result, and some changes in budgets offered by other staff, the position was
reinstated. Three weeks later you walk in here and tell me you want to make a
layoff. Aren’t we going against the wishes of the people that showed up three
weeks ago?
“The other question I
have, it’s suggested that we’re going to eliminate the Community Policing
position. Why didn’t we do that three weeks ago? We wouldn’t have had to go all
through that”.
Mayor Bialecki requested the City Attorney’s opinion regarding the
proposed options for layoff and/or leave of absence. Regarding comp time versus overtime, Mayor Bialecki stated that
it is his understanding that that option is a negotiable issue between the City
and the union and is not properly addressed at the budget hearing.
City Attorney Dawn Harris responded, “Chief Williams did correctly cite
the contract provision in 6.2; it does allow for a voluntary layoff. However,
we have the contradictory staffing arguments. So, I think what the Mayor had
stated about considering the fact that they didn’t want the position cut,
versus now they’re saying that we’re restructuring in different ways to reduce
the officer position when it’s contained within the current budget to keep all
of the officers at position, we would be setting a precedent on this case. It’s
ultimately up to the Council to decide to do that – whether or not you would
want to accept a layoff and whether it’s in the best interest of the
department. Typically when we’re
looking at some layoff provisions, or we’re looking at personal leave time, it
would be an extension of some type of special type of need situation – whether
the budget’s going to be interpreted that way as a special needs, like related
to a disability accommodation, a family medical leave type of accommodation.
And I’m not aware of us ever doing this before for budgetary reasons”.
Ald. Giese said, “Your advice is that it’s setting a precedent. But, to
my knowledge, we’ve never exercised that leave or the layoff option
before. So in fact we have a policy
that’s written and any action underneath that policy is going to be a
precedent, given that it’s the first time it’s going to be utilized. So it’s a
legal observation that’s correct, but the facts of the matter, the conditions
that are in place here, render it relatively insignificant in terms of what
we’re considering. I respect your legal opinion, I just disagree whether it’s
terribly material given the circumstances”.
Dawn responded, “I’m not saying whether it’s material or not. I’m just
saying that in accordance with what my understanding of what the past practice
is, this would be setting something new. I’m not saying that you can’t do it. I
think you need to determine whether or not that’s going to be wise or not and
whether or not this is in the best interest of the department and the
efficiency of it, because when you really look at 6.2, we’re only supposed to
be making layoff decisions that are not going to affect the efficiencies of the
department. And, what I’m saying that
the original arguments were that they couldn’t lose any officer positions, we
need to increase patrol because of things that are going on or we have a growth
in this area, then that needs to be counterbalanced by the policy language. And
it does talk about efficiency. And it’s been my understanding, and my review of
the minutes of the prior budgetary meetings, a big part of this analysis. And
that’s all I’m pointing out”.
Mayor Bialecki said, “If this budget passed tonight, it would be my final
shot at jail fees. Again note that the amount budgeted for 2006 is for the 2005
rate”.
Mayor Bialecki noted that the La Crosse County Board might opt to raise
the daily jail fees to $55.00 per day. Mayor Bialecki reported that there would
be a public hearing on this topic on November 15, 2005. Mayor Bialecki stated that a number of
interested parties plan to testify at that public hearing.
Mayor Bialecki said, “We think this is the only county in the State
that’s doing that and it’s clear to me then that they’re balancing their budget
on other municipalities”.
Mayor Bialecki reported that it is his understanding that the amount
budgeted for jail fees should still be sufficient due to other policy
changes.
Mayor Bialecki reported
that he had received a letter from Sheriff Mike Weissenberger and a check for
$8,125 in overpayments for calendar year 2005.
Mayor Bialecki said, “This is nice, but I guess before we accept all
this, we need to go back and find out how many years back and how many more $8,000
lie out there”.
Ald. Gonczy asked if the
contract provision for voluntary layoff pertains specifically to police
officer.
Dawn responded that the
contract affects City police. Dawn said, “We have similar, within other unions,
provisions regarding efficiency in departments… This bargaining unit only has
two provisions regarding – two sections of it, under Article 6 – for layoffs.
It’s very limited. It says that, ‘The section should not in any way interfere
with the right of the department to recall its force during an emergency. It is
further provided that any recalled employee…’ then it needs to talk about what
they need to do if they’re recalled… Typically it would be a situation where
you would talk about the lowest tenured employee. This situation has the
highest. And yes, it could be considered again – the counterbalance within the
contract needs to be what’s in the best interest of the efficiency of the
department. So, that’s the language that we really need to hone in on, in my
opinion”.
In response to a
question from Ald. Gonczy, Dawn clarified that the Administrative Assistant
position is non-union. Dawn said,
“We’re still setting a precedent with any action that we do. And we do that
with anything, as far as what we’re going to be taking voluntary layoffs for or
not, versus just reducing the position and then deciding later to reactivate it
back to fulltime. You’re making a guarantee to the person that you’re going to
be reactivating somewhat within a certain duration of time – if it’s voluntary”.
Ald. Gonczy asked if,
for example, a tenured employee were to take a six month leave and upon that
employee’s return there still were budget concerns, “we’re right back to square
one”.
Dawn responded, “That
tenured employee is going to come back and then the one at issue is going to be
the least senior employee. That person
would have the security to come back.
Or, they could change their minds during the voluntary layoff”.
Ald. Gonczy asked if
benefits would continue during an unpaid layoff. Unpaid layoffs, that are outside the parameters of the Federal
Family Medical Leave Act, do not include benefits. So, that person would have
to pay their full boat on health insurance premiums, or any other type of
benefit premium”.
Item 3 – Recommendations and possible action in regards to the 2006 City
Budget.
Mayor Bialecki directed
Financial Services Director Fred Buehler to review the General Fund Budget
Changes.
Fred noted that these
changes occurred at the Finance & Personnel Committee and since the Special
Common Council agenda was published.
Fred noted that “Set 1” reflects the changes made at the Finance &
Personnel Committee meeting. “Set 2” reflects adjustments made to enable the
retention of the patrol officer position.
Fred reported that at
the Finance & Personnel Committee meeting, Tourism building depreciation
had been removed due to the planned Tourism building move. Fred recommended that that change should be
reconsidered. Fred noted that the current Tourism building could remain in use
for as long as six months. Fred
recommended reducing that deletion from $2,028 to $1,014.
Ald. Giese noted that
the 2005 depreciation on the Tourism building was $7,000. Fred explained that depreciation affects
items other than the building. Fred
reported that the annual depreciation on the Tourism building alone is
$2,028.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy,
second by Ald. Wulf, to adjust Tourism Account 650-53690 Tourism Depreciation
to $1,014. On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Smith,
second by Ald. Olson, to accept the changes made by the Finance & Personnel
Committee on October 20, 2005, designated as Set 1.
Under discussion, in
response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Fred confirmed that adjustments could
be made later in the meeting.
In response to a
question from Ald. Giese, Fred confirmed that the net total is ($4,325).
On voice vote, motion
carried.
Fred reported that on
November 1, 2005, the Board of Public Works reviewed the Capital Improvement
Projects list and took action to transfer to the Capital Project Enterprise
Budget, Special Revenue Budget, and Enterprise Funds Budgets, items totaling
$44,550:
-
$18,000 to Storm
Sewer Special Revenue Fund.
-
$5,000 to Water
Utility
-
$21,550 to Park
Fund.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Gonczy, to transfer from the Capital
Improvement Projects Budget: $18,000 to the Storm Sewer Special Revenue Fund;
$5,000 to the Water Utility; and $21,550 to the Park Fund, for a total in
transfers of $44,550. On voice vote,
motion carried.
Fred reported that the Village of West Salem has been considering
participation in the Shared Ride Program and is requesting inclusion by
contract for six months, beginning July 1, 2006. Fred reported that this action would increase expenses by $14,380
and revenues by $14,380. Fred noted
that this would have no bearing on the budget.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Giese, to include in the Shared
Ride Contract the Village of West Salem for one half of 2006, effective July 1,
2006, with no resulting impact to the City of Onalaska budget. On voice vote,
motion carried.
Fred reported that there had been a journal entry error in the amount of
$100 between two General Fund Revenue Accounts. Fred requested action to correct the error with no resulting
impact to the budget.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to correct a journal entry
error of $100, which occurred between two General Fund Revenue Accounts, with
no resulting impact to the budget. On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Giese, to reinstate the Seasonal
Office Clerical Support for the Finance Department, Account #100-51411-125 PT
Wages in the amount of $3,150 and Account #100-51411-151 FICA in the amount of
$241 for a total of $3,591.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy said, “I’d like to thank all the department
heads and everybody that made adjustments to make this budget work so we could
reinstate the police officer. And I think there’s a way we can still do
that. I went through all the
reductions… and said which people maybe stepped beyond where they should go,
and they really do need some help? And it’s my opinion, in this department –
and I’m not saying the other departments that gave up part time people don’t –
but I think this department does need this temporary help…”
Ald. Wulf said, “While I certainly support this motion, my only concern
is, I don’t feel like it’s Christmastime just yet. It’s kind of like we’re
going to start adding things back in, but I kind of feel like it’s the Federal
budget, and congress. We add pork – and I’m not saying this is pork –we’re
adding, adding. I kind of feel like are we going to start adding but we haven’t
taken anything out. And, while I certainly support this, do you have anything
that you would like to put on the table or under discussion that you maybe are
thinking on down the line that you’re going to subtract? I guess that’s my
concern. I want to support this, but I hesitate to because I don’t know what
we’re going to delete in order to stay under the revenue caps”.
Ald. Gonczy noted that the budget currently is $4,325 short. Ald. Gonczy reminded that there had been
discussion at the Finance & Personnel Committee meeting regarding the
potential for a $10,000 transfer from a Tourism Revenue Fund.
Ald. Gonczy said, “My thoughts are – and I really appreciated all the
volunteers that said, ‘Do this’. I appreciated what the chiefs did. I think
that shows true leadership to sit there and say, ‘I’m not going to take a pay
raise for a year’, the departments that stepped forward and said, ‘Cut this and
cut this and cut this’. But sometimes we cut into people’s work that cuts into
their personal lives. And I think the same as the police officers talk about,
they have to have their personal life. And, as I watch the people that put the
hours, and hours, and hours into this City to make it operate – I walk in
Saturday morning and I know who I’m going to see here. And if I walk in at 6
o’clock at night, I know who I’m going to see here all the time, all the time.
And there’s certain faces you always see. And I’m saying those are just the
only two. There’s other ones. And, I also watched some emotions expressed when
that was made. And it was, ‘I’ll do it. I’ll sacrifice’. And I think that they
stepped beyond what they should have to step beyond. That’s my personal
feelings. I think we can still make this budget work and still tell these
people that we know what you want to do, but maybe it’s best for you – and
that’s what I think our position is here – what may be better for them, that’s
the leadership role we have to take, similar to what the chiefs did”.
Ald. Wulf responded, “I can’t necessarily say that I disagree with you on
that, Gary, but bottom line, I guess I don’t feel comfortable – it’s kind of
like if I want cable, what am I going to give up for that?
“… I guess I’d like to
hear a motion to take something out before we put something in. Because, for my
own personal life I don’t start spending money until I show that I have that
money to spend… Even though I would support this, until I hear that we have
money to spend, I can’t support this”.
Ald. Gonczy noted that the item could be removed again later.
Ald. Wulf responded, “I don’t find that to be very efficient”.
Ald. Smith said, “I agree with Gary that this is probably one – and not
the only position – where we’ve gotten down beyond bare bones and into he meat,
so to speak, for other departments giving up for another department – which is
well and fine, but I will vote no to adding anything to this budget until we’ve
resolved our $4,439 deficit that we’re sitting with right now. We need to take
care of that business before we can even think of adding on thing back in. And
I will vote no to adding anything to this budget until we’ve resolved the
problem that we still have sitting here in front of us”.
Ald. Gonczy withdrew his motion.
Ald. Giese withdrew his second to the motion.
Mayor Bialecki stated that it is his understanding that there has been
consideration of a $10,000 transfer from Tourism to the Community Development
Authority and that that transfer would have no affect on the operational
budget.
Ald. Giese said, “I still am concerned in an environment of restricted
revenue and uncertainty as it relates to State mandates and State limits on the
ability to levy revenue, the wisdom of going to a fulltime employee count
increase. The accepted of principle of hard times in the private sector is you
hold your employee count down. You try to give yourself maximum flexibility.
The other side of that coin is you don’t increase fulltime permanent employees
and the attending rollups that go with those individuals. So, with that in mind, I’m suggesting that
we modify the Parks budget, so that the Park Director has the discretionary
power to hire part-time individuals at a higher hourly rate than what was
experienced in the last budget, and would actually have the opportunity to have
a greater number of hours worked within the department to the use of part-time
individuals. However, the department would not be authorized to add an
additional fulltime employee”.
Motion by Ald. Giese, to reduce the Parks Department Budget, Line Item
100-55200-121 Wages Permanent, by $13,611 or from $92,755 to $86,145.
Fred noted that the cost for fulltime employee (FTE), beginning May 1,
2006, including wage, FICA, retirement, health and dental, would total $31,753.
Fred noted that Parks & Recreation Director Dan Wick had removed three
part-time (PTE) employees from the department.
The three seasonal PTEs, at 1040-hours and $8.08/hour, would total
$25,210. With FICA, that amount would
increase to $27,139. Fred reported that
Dan has proposed the removal of the three part-time employees in an effort to
budget for the one FTE.
Fred noted that the removal from the budget of the one FTE, and the
reinstatement to the budget of the three PTEs would result in a net difference
of $4,614.
Fred noted that the cost of the FTE is split between the Aquatic Center
budget and the Park Budget at $9,075 for the Aquatic Center and $13,611 for
Parks. The FTE wage would be
$22,685. FICA, retirement, health and
dental would bring the total FTE cost to $31,753.
Ald. Giese stated that he had come up with a different figure. Fred
explained that insurance coverage is not offered for the first four months of
employment.
Ald. Giese said, “I think the difference argues my point, because if you
go with a fulltime employee, then the last three months or whatever is left in
the year, you’re going to be paying that – and all twelve of those months in
every year following you’re going to be paying that. So, we really need to look
at the consequence beyond just 2006, especially in an item like this. We’re
looking at the consequence as we roll forward evermore. And so our $5,000 plus
or minus that we have this year is going to greatly increase when we go into
2007”.
Mayor Bialecki responded, “The only think I want to be careful about is
not to really debate 2007, because presently you know what the State mandate
is. We’ve got a fairly good picture of what our growth is going to be, probably
similar to this year, but yet it’s the variables you don’t know, of health,
utilities, Workers Comp, et cetera. It could go up. It could go down”.
Ald. Smith said, “I think what’s at issue here is that we have a $2
million City facility siting there and we need to make sure that we have a
person that we can adequately train and have focused on maintaining it now that
we have made this investment in our community. And I think that the current
staff that we have in the Park & Rec. Department, they work hard and they
do a good job, but they already are maxed out. And there is no way – they could
get through one year, when they’re all learning and they need to know the
information – but as far as a long-term maintenance situation, we need to
ensure that we have a quality person who is working up there, taking care of
our $2 million swimming pool that we have”.
Ald. Giese amended and restated his original motion:
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, to eliminate from the Parks
Department Budget one fulltime position and to reinstate three part-time
positions for a net savings of $4,614.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy said, “I agree that we should have someone
to take care of the pool and that’s how we’ve done it before. The problem I
have is the off months. And unless we can adjust the salary during the months
they’re not doing the dollar amounts we’re paying them for, I don’t think that
we can really justify paying somebody the higher wage when they’re really not
doing the technical job. And that’s, I think the argument that Mike’s having;
from the private sector you would look and say, ‘Okay, what is this person’s
value?’ and ‘How much should we pay this person’. And that’s where I think we
kind of step beyond, is we’re too high of a scale. And I understand that it’s a
union position so it would have to be something in the bargaining contract
similar to things that we do in the industry that I’m in, is you get paid so
much when you’re doing this job and when you’re doing this job you’re paid a
different rate… I don’t know if we can do that because it’s a union position,
or if we have to bring the whole scale down for the whole year and average it
out over the year. I think the scale is too high for the duties. And I do
appreciate the new job description, but I still don’t see that it’s the value –
when you do all the rollups – that warrants this. It’s kind of the argument of
working nine months and getting paid for twelve”.
Ald. Smith responded, “But, the concern that’s been in existence is we
will not be able to find a person with the qualities and the skills that we
need that will hire on for a 1040-hour position”.
Ald. Giese said, “I eagerly awaited the job description that came back
from Mr. Wick, and I appreciate it. That was going to be very influential to me
because of the point that Mr. Gonczy raised: what are we getting for this
$16.00 or $17.00 an hour? And when you read that job description, there’s a
number of item there that do not warrant that kind of compensation. I will
concur with Alderperson Smith that it’s critical that we have the right person
for the maintenance of the pool. And I’m very sensitive to that, because I know
our Parks Director spent too many Saturdays and Sundays troubleshooting down
there, and that’s not the job of the Parks Director. And we need to recognize
that and give him the resources that he needs to do the right hire, so he
doesn’t have to be there on Saturdays and Sundays for that purpose. My intent
in doing this we get it into the budget, where the part-time hours are there;
but also we have the discretion for the Park Director to go out and pay that
$16.00 or $17.00 an hour for the job of the pool maintenance, that critical
position. If that’s what the going wage is, and that’s what we have to pay,
then that’s what we will do. Now maybe that will not leave enough in the budget
to fill all two and half FTE part-time equivalents, but I trust the Park
Director to have that discretion and to make the best decision… I just think
it’s the best business management technique. I think it’s the fairest way to
compensate employees, and it gives the best value back to the taxpayers of the
City. And I would hope the fellow Councilpeople would support the motion”.
Ald. Smith asked if paying a 1040-hour employee at a rate of $16.00/hour
wouldn’t consume the $4,000 net gain realized by eliminate the FTE.
Ald. Giese explained that in his proposed scenario, all of the 2.5 FTE
equivalents might not be available.
In response to a question from Dawn, Fred reported that part-time
employees are paid $8.08/hour. Dawn
noted that the term “part-time” employee is being used when it should be
“seasonal” employee.
Ald. Giese stated that the intent of his motion was to restore the
original positions, which in this case are in fact three seasonal
positions.
In response to a question from Mayor Bialecki, Ald. Smith reported that
the positions are 1040-hour positions.
Fred clarified that they are seasonal maintenance positions. Ald. Smith added that the position
classification is Seasonal Maintenance I.
Ald. Wulf said, “I guess my only concern is, being on Common Council the
last two and half years, and when we talk about fulltime employees and seasonal
employees – and certainly not to disparage any time we’ve had seasonal
employees or the fine work that they have done in the past – but there have
been issues in the past at times with seasonal employees. What I would like to say is that when we
look at – when you have fulltime employees, you train them once, they have a
job to do. When you have seasonal employees, they are exactly what they are –
seasonal employees. You don’t know if you’re going to get them back the next
year, you have to train them again. You have to hope that you’re going to get
quality seasonal employees for the rate of pay that you are paying them. And I would like to think that if we go
ahead and we hire a fulltime person, we hire the right person, and we pay them
a fair living wage, that they’re going to do a good job and we’re not going to
have to hire people and put out the ads in the paper every time and train them,
year after year, season after season.
And like I said, we’ve had issues and accidents and those types of
things. And that is why I’m going to deny this and go for the fulltime
position. I think the $4,000 or whatever the difference may be will be well
worth the investment in a fulltime employee… I think we need to put our trust
in our department head that he has come forward and he believes that this will
be the best way to run this department. And I’m going to put my trust in him to
do that. And I will be voting against this motion”.
Ald. Giese asked if a seasonal 1040-hour employee could be paid more than
$8.08/hour. Fred stated that would be
possible if authorized by the Common Council.
Ald. Smith said, “I know that the department head, Dan Wick, was very
well aware of the difference in costs between the two. And, at the original
budget hearings, which I was at, he actually gave up many more things in his
budget. Starting with the initial executive hearing, and moving through this
budget process, this man has done nothing but cut things out of his budget. And
the reason that he has done that is because he feels that this maintenance
position is vitally important to the well-running of his Park & Recreation
Department, which he is responsible for. And I respect that and I hope that you
will too”.
Ald. Leathen said, “I’m going to agree with Kim on this because part of
the reason that we had the hard work – three years of developing a new pool –
was because we let the old pool deteriorate to such an extent that it was
unusable. And part of that was a lack of attention. And I think that if Dan
feels he needs a person to pay attention to the pool, then I’m going to trust
Dan”.
Ald. Olson said, “I will support Kim and Diane for the reasons they
stated. And I think Dan needs a lot of credit for the work that he’s done and
the things that he’s given up. And I think this is a vote of confidence for Dan
just as much as it is the position that we can count on”.
Ald. Gonczy said, “It’s not that you don’t need the individual. I think
you do need this person – I think he needs to be talented. My concern is going
forward, next year, now we have a fulltime person, because I have a feeling
this motion is going to not pass, that remember next year don’t come back for
two more part-time people because now you’re short. You’re saying it’s going to
work, you’ve got to make it work. You just basically shift the workload. And
you’re now adding a person that normally would be doing the job for $8.00 is
now going to be doing a lot of these jobs for $18.00 an hour. So, we have to
remember that. Plus, we’re going to have a full year with the benefits, so your
expense is going to be higher. From a business sense, I would rather see this
1040, or the person that’s taking care of the pool, I’d pay him 25 bucks and
hour, or whatever it is, during that time, and he only works then so I could
avoid the benefits. It’s the benefits that cost this city so much money. We
don’t overpay our people. If anything they’re probably a little underpaid, but
the benefits are what keep skyrocketing”.
In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Fred reported that over the
past year, the cost to the City for health insurance benefits increased by
11%.
Ald. Gonczy said, “We have got to figure out a way to control those
expenses, because in the private sector, what they do is they pass those costs
on. I appreciate the bargaining units making offers now, but we need as we go
forward, our budgets are going to just get tighter, because those benefits are
what hurt us. That’s why I supported Mike’s motion – is avoiding the benefits,
not the individual. I think we need a valuable person, but I just have a
problem paying them that much in the time when they’re not doing that technical
job”.
Ald. Gonczy asked if a fulltime employee could be paid one wage for
performing one job and a different wage for a different job. Dawn responded, “That’s going to be tough to
do”.
Ald. Wulf called for the question. On voice vote, motion failed two to
four, with Ald. Olson, Ald. Smith, Ald. Leathen and Ald. Wulf voting no.
Ald. Giese noted that there has been an increase in legal expenses of
nearly 100%: from $55,000 in 2005 to $100,000 budgeted for 2006. Ald. Giese said, “I understand and I’ve been
part of the explanation for why that increase has gone up. But, I’m of the
opinion that we can use some management to focus that resource that we get the
maximum benefit. Another way of saying it is that we minimize the billable
hours while not compromising the quality and the extent of the legal advice we
receive.
“By way of example, we
could focus during certain committee meetings – City Council, et cetera – so
that the City Attorney arrives one hour later, or we take the legal business
and put it earlier in the agenda so that we don’t have the City Attorney
sitting through the whole meeting. I think by doing that we can easily save
tens of thousands of dollars.
“And I remind the Council that we need to come up
with some savings if we’re going to come up with some savings if we’re going to
sustain the patrol officer positions.
And we’ve also foregone what are, in my opinion, some other good ideas
for savings – or for additions to the budget – waiting until we come up for
savings”.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, to reduce Account
100-511300-211 City Attorney by $10,000.
Under discussion, Mayor Bialecki noted that he and Fred have reviewed the
all accounts, including legal fees. Mayor Bialecki noted that there are only 12
Common Council meetings per year and questioned whether reducing the City
Attorney’s attendance time at those meetings would result in a $10,000
savings. Mayor Bialecki said, “What
else goes? Do we skip the waterfront? Do we stop negotiating? I want to be more
specific as to where that’s to come out of rather than to get caught short”.
Fred said, “This past year we had a lot of projects going on. We had
everything from grievances and negotiations on the police side… the waterfront,
the LB White issue up there on Mason Street… The project costs for the Aquatic
Center were charged to the Capital Project of that bond issue.
“I’m stating that
currently if this continues, we could be running short. I think we’re very
tight at $100,000”.
Fred stated that he is unsure how much counsel would be needed for Plan
Commission issues. Fred said, “I think that is one area – more so than the
Council meeting, because in the Council proceedings, I think that’s a very,
very vital piece of attorney advice. But I think maybe in Plan Commission you
could sift out some of the times that he sits here for several hours that may
not be useful”.
Ald. Gonczy said, “I seconded the motion, but I’d like to (state) I think
the legal service we’ve received this year has been excellent. I only seconded
it for discussion. I’m not going to vote for the motion, only because I think
what’s in there is probably the right amount. But I think that we needed to
hear Mike’s argument on it”.
Dawn said, “We have been trying to create efficiencies, and I think we’ve
been mitigating time”.
Ald. Gonczy said, “We should still take the actions that Mike suggested.
And if we find ways to save, there’s nothing wrong with not spending it. I
think that’s an administrative responsibility that we can delegate to
ourselves”.
Ald. Wulf concurred with Ald. Gonczy’s comments adding that Fred could be
charged with monitoring use of counsel.
Ald. Wulf said, “I do think that in the long run, our legal counsel has
saved us money and will continue to save us money because I think we have had
excellent representation since they’ve come on board and I think that they have
shown us that time and again. And I sincerely appreciate the counsel that they
have given us, especially personally what I have been involved in with the
whole building of the pool and the situations that we have been involved in. They’ve helped an immense amount”.
Ald. Olson concurred with Ald. Gonczy and Ald. Wulf. Ald. Olson said, “I think our representation
has been exemplary. Yes, we can make some adjustments”.
Ald. Giese said, “Dan Wick knows who his friends are. I made this motion
here not addressing the quality of the legal advice that we’ve received. I made
the motion as part of a budget exercise. And the dollar amount came up by
looking at how many hours within Council meetings, and those other meetings
that I regularly attend, totaling up the number of hours that the committees
have been in session and then using the concept whereby you could target that.
At least there could be an hour there. And at some meetings there are two our
three hours where you could just bring the counsel in at a known, certain point
to that meeting and run it by them and get the legal advice back. And this
motion was made not with the expectation that it was going to be sustained. The
motion was made for the end result, which I think has just happened. We’re
charging administration and staff to make sure that they look at it that way
and kind of laying down the line saying, ‘Let’s come it at $90,000 here, guys.
Let’s see what we can do about it’.”
Ald. Leathen concurred that there were some unusual circumstances in 2005
that likely contributed significantly to the legal fees. Ald. Leathen said, “I
know that you can’t look into a crystal ball and say that’s not going to happen
again, but we actually have addressed some of the issues that have occurred to
try to streamline the process that we went through. And so in some ways I’m
thinking we probably could save some money on the assumption that life is going
to be a little easier in 2006 than it was in 2005”.
On roll call vote: Ald. Leathen – aye; Ald. Wulf – no; Ald. Gonczy – no;
Ald. Giese – aye; Ald. Smith – no; Ald. Olson – no. Motion failed two to four.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Olson, to transfer $10,000 from the
Tourism Donation Fund to the Community Development Authority, thus lowering the
levy from $313,000 to $303,000.
Under discussion, Ald. Olson wished to clarify that the purpose of the
action is to eliminate the $4,325 over budget amount.
Mayor Bialecki said, “The Tourism Fund… I recall back when that entity
was established in 1988, the ordinance was written that the tourism funds were
for just that, and there’s provisions there that we could not raid that – say
if I wanted to spend $50,000 of that in the Mayor’s office, that can’t
happen. Is that clear. I mean we’d have
to go back and change the ordinance if we’re ever going to do that”.
In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Mayor Bialecki stated that
Ald. Gonczy’s motion is not out of order.
Ald. Giese said, “I’m prepared to make some motions to decrease
expenditures in other lines for the Tourism account with an offset going into
the donations account. I just want to get that out there as we ponder this
motion. I’m going to speak in favor of this motion. I will vote for it, but I’m
going to be making some additional motions which could even, in my strategy of
things, make more money available to help offset the limits of expenditures in
the General Fund for the City”.
Fred wished to restate the intent of the motion for the record. “The
Common Council is going on record to increase the expenses on Tourism
650-53800, increasing the revenue on the CDA of 991-48500 for Donation Income,
lowering the tax levy of 991-41100 by $10,000”.
Ald. Gonczy noted that this action would result in a surplus of
$5,675. Fred stated that is correct.
Ald. Smith noted that this issue had been discussed at the Finance &
Personnel Committee meeting and that committee had taken action to send the
issue back to the Tourism Commission for recommendation.
Ald. Olson stated that is correct. Ald. Olson said, “We did deal with the
first $10,000 at Tourism and there was some discussion about how that first
$10,000 was going to be applied, and it got interesting”.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Ald. Olson confirmed that
there had been no recommendation from the Tourism Commission on this issue.
Mayor Bialecki asked if the $10,000 is to be applied to operations. Fred referred to the Expense Summary section
of the budget, Page 47, DEPR. D/S CHRGS. – TRANSFERS. Fred noted that this report shows an amount of $46,673 under the
expenditure restraint cap.
On voice vote, motion carried with five ayes and one abstention (Ald.
Wulf).
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to reinstate the Seasonal
Office Clerical Support, with rollups, Account 100-51411-125 in the amount of
$3,150 and Account 100-51411-151 in the amount of $241.
Under discussion, Ald. Giese said, “I do want to acknowledge that Gary’s
observations are shared by myself. I’m especially concerned in the Finance area
as to performance. We have, I think, an exception tonight where Fred came up
and said he misassigned $100 with a net effect of zero. That comes about
because of due diligence and having sufficient resources. And those resources,
I’m afraid, have come at personal expense and it’s only so long that that can
be sustained. Having said that, that doesn’t mean that that diminishes the
other employees. The fact that they haven’t come back in, I’m as equally
concerned over the long-term consequence to any organization where the spirit
of benevolence and charity is part of the compensation routine of that
organization. Those systems don’t work well. We’re not the Catholic Church.
We’re not the Sister of Mercy here. We hire employees to do their jobs. And so
they need to be acknowledged for that and adequately compensated for that.
Having said that, I think this is a good expenditure of City dollars and is
something that we decidedly should do”.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Ald. Giese asked what is the status of the proposed room tax increase.
Mayor Bialecki reported that it currently is proposed that the room tax would
go from 5% to 6% effective July 1, 2006.
Ald. Giese asked if the expenditures were in anticipation of that
revenue. Mayor Bialecki responded, “Not
necessarily. I think the intent there is that sooner or later we’re going to
have special projects coming up such as the waterfront, and given times as they
are, and not knowing when that’s going to go away, that may be a source of
where we would go”.
In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Mayor Bialecki confirmed that
Tourism Budget expenditures are based upon the current 5% room tax.
Ald. Giese suggested that there would be opportunities for savings based
on the mid-year 2006 relocation of Tourism.
Ald. Giese noted that Building & Grounds expenses for Tourism was
$5,260 in 2005. Ald. Giese noted that
Tourism depreciation already has been addressed.
Ald. Giese recommended removing from the Tourism Budget the additional
employee that was to have taken effect mid-year 2006.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, to remove from the Tourism
Budget Account #650-57125-125 Wages in the amount of $8,320 and to remove for
that position FICA from Account #650-57125-151 in the amount $636.48; for the
total amount of $8,956.48.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy said, “The reason that I seconded the
motion and I support the motion is that this is the area that I work in
professionally… When I look at the budget of $330,000, I look at if I was a
business and I had an advertising budget of $330,000 how many dollars can I
devote to manpower and labor? And this amount of budget would justify about one
person with an assistant. And that’s basically where we’re at right now. I know
that Jean put together a marketing plan. But again, as I look at the marketing
plan, and I look at the expenditures, you don’t have a big enough budget to
really justify having that much staff.
That size budget should be able to be controlled by one fulltime and one
assistant. I’m just saying that if you look at the dollars, you don’t have
enough dollars to keep enough people busy that many hours…”
In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Fred confirmed that the
advertising budget is $371,000.
Ald. Olson said, “I will oppose this for the simple reason that Tourism
has been a cash cow for a lot of things for this City for awhile. It has
provided $20,000 just recently. It provided $400,000 for the OmniCenter before.
So, while Gary thinks it’s inefficient, it’s been pretty good at funding
several things around here. So, I will oppose that. I think $20,000 is enough
for this year and I think that the position should stay, and we can try it for
a year and see if it in fact will generate more revenue”.
Fred noted that the position also would be eligible for insurance at a
75/25 split. The removal of the position also would result in a savings of
$1,027 in insurance and $10 on life insurance.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, to amend the original motion
to include the additional reduction of $1,027 in health insurance and $10 in
life insurance.
Under discussion, Ald. Smith asked if the motion is to remove the
1040-hour position entirely or to reduce it to the previous 600-hour
position. Mayor Bialecki and Ald. Giese
stated that it is to remove the entire position.
In response to a question from Ald. Leathen, Fred reported that Tourism
is an Enterprise Fund and changes would not affect the General Budget.
Ald. Leathen noted that the OmniCenter is to be expanded and the
additional marketing would be necessary. Ald. Leathen said, “I would support
leaving the position there at least at this point to encourage more use of the
OmniCenter”.
Fred referred to the Tourism Personnel Justification report. Fred noted
that there already been a 600-hour position and the budget proposal was to
increase that position to 1040-hours.
Fred reported that if the proposed 1040-hour position were reduced back
to a 600-hour position, that would result in a savings of $4,931.
Mayor Bialecki clarified that the motion on the floor is to entirely
eliminate that position.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Mayor Bialecki confirmed that
eliminating this position would only affect the Tourism Enterprise Fund and
would have no effect on the City’s General Operating Budget.
Ald. Gonczy said, “My only argument is, if we do move this up, we need to
see specific goals set, and I want to see action. I’m just telling you from an
operations perspective, with the dollar budget you have, that should be able to
be handled by one person. You don’t have that many dollars to spend. I mean
we’re talking about $370,000 – it’s not a lot of money for one person to
handle…”
Ald. Giese said, “I support Bill’s observation that we need more
marketing, not less marketing. We need to have more promotion. And so this is
not any attempt to cut that opportunity. It’s trying to organize it in such a
way that we get the greatest return on our investment and hopefully months down
the road – years down the road – we’ll in fact have more marketing, more
effective marketing because of this”.
Ald. Wulf asked what staff would be left if the motion carries. Mayor
Bialecki stated that there would be two 200-hour Tourism Assistants and one
600-hour Marketing Assistant.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Mayor Bialecki confirmed that
in 2005 Tourism had two 600-hour Marketing Assistants.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Mayor Bialecki confirmed that
if the motion were to carry, Tourism would have 600 hours less help in 2006
than in 2005.
Mayor Bialecki called for the vote on the amendment to the motion. On voice vote, motion carried to amend.
Ald. Wulf called for a roll call vote on the motion as amended. Ald. Smith – no; Ald. Gonczy – aye; Ald.
Wulf – no; Ald. Olson – no; Ald. Giese – aye; Ald. Leathen – no. Motion failed two to four.
In response to a question from Fred, Mayor Bialecki confirmed that the
1040-hour position has been retained.
In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Fred confirmed that a change
in room tax would require a change in ordinance.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Olson, to accept the budget with
the changes made per actions taken at this special meeting of the Common
Council.
Under discussion, in response to a question from Ald. Smith, Fred stated
that no change is required to the Police Department budget.
On voice vote, motion carried five to one with Ald. Giese voting no.
Item 4 – Ordinance No. 1246-2006
– to adopt the appropriation budget for 2006 (Suspend rules to give the
ordinance its First, Second, Third and Final Readings).
ORDINANCE
1246-2005
AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE SEC. 3-1-3 (1) and (g) and
(h)
APPROPRIATION OF THE NECESSARY FUNDS FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE CITY FOR THE YEAR OF 2006.
The Common Council of the City of
Onalaska Does Hereby Ordain As Follows:
SECTION I. Section 3-1-3 (t), (g), and (h) of the Code of
Ordinances are hereby created to
read as follows:
(f) There is hereby appropriated out of the receipts of the City of Onalaska for the year 2006, including monies received from the general property tax levy, the amounts set forth in the budget as adopted by the Common Council on November 7,2005.
(g) The following amounts are hereby levied on all the taxable
property within the City of Onalaska for the purpose set forth in said budget:
(1) A tax of Three Million, Nine Hundred Seventy One Thousand, Five
Hundred Three Dollars and 00/100 ($3,971,503). On all the taxable property
within the City of Onalaska as returned by the assessor in the year 2005 for
the uses and purposes set forth in the 2006 General Fund Budget.
(2) A tax of Eight Hundred,
Thirty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy-Seven Dollars and 00/1 00
($832,577), on all the taxable property within the City of Onalaska as returned
by the assessor in the year 2005 for the uses and purposes set forth in the 2006
Refuse and Recycling Fund Budget.
(3) A tax of Ninety Thousand,
Eighty-Six Dollars and 00/1 00 ($90,086), on all the taxable property within
the City of Onalaska as returned by the assessor in the year 2005 for the uses
and purposes set forth in the 2006 Shared Ride Taxi Fund Budget.
(4) A tax of One Hundred-Two
Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty-Eight Dollars and 00/100 ($102,758), on all the
taxable property within the City of Onalaska as returned by the assessor in the
year 2005 for the uses and purposes set forth in the 2006 Equipment
(New/Replacement) Budget.
(5) A tax of Thirty-Four Thousand,
Eight Hundred Fifty-Eight Dollars and 00/100 ($34,858), on all the taxable
property within the City of Onalaska as returned by the assessor in the year
2005 for the uses and purposes set forth in the 2006 Joint Municipal Court
Budget.
(6) A tax of Two Million,
Five-Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand, Four Hundred Nine Dollars and 00/1 00
($2,535,409), on all the taxable property within the City of Onalaska as
returned by the assessor in the year 2005 for the uses and purposes set forth
in the 2006 Debt Service Fund Budget.
(7) A tax of One Hundred Twenty-Two
Thousand, Two Hundred Eighty Dollars and 00/100 ($ 122,280), on all the taxable
property within the City of Onalaska as returned by the assessor in the year
2005 for the uses and
purposes set
forth in the 2006 Community Development Authority (C.D.A.) Fund Budget -
Parking Ramp Incremental Levy.
(8) A tax of Three Hundred Three
Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($303,000), on all the taxable property within the
City of Onalaska as returned by the assessor in the year 2005 for the uses and
purposes set forth in the 2006 Community Development Authority (C.D.A.) Fund
Budget - Omni Center.
(h) The City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to spread the aforesaid levies on the current tax roll
of the City.
SECTION II. This Ordinance shall take effect and
be in force from and after its
passage and publication.
Dated
this 7th day of November 2005.
CITY OF ONALASKA, BY:
_____________________________
James S.
Bialecki, Mayor
_____________________________
Caroline Burmaster, City Clerk
PASSED:
APPROVED:
PUBLISHED:
*EXPLANATORY NOTE: At this time, the City does not know the final
levies of La Crosse County, Western Wisconsin Technical Col1ege, and the
Onalaska School District, therefore, an exact levy cannot be determined.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald.
Olson, to suspend the rules to give Ordinance
No. 1246-2005 its First, Second, Third and Final Readings.
Under discussion, Ald. Giese asked if
there were a practical reason to suspend the rules. Mayor Bialecki responded, “No reason to hold it up. Is there?”
Ald. Giese responded, “Other than it
gives the public more chance to comment”.
Mayor Bialecki responded, “I think we
had a meeting here tonight. There’s been an F & P, there’s been a 30-day
lag time, and definitely plenty of media coverage”.
Ald. Gonczy noted that the full
Council was present at this meeting, whereas Ald. Gonczy would not be able to
attend the November 8, 2005 regular meeting of the Common Council.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald.
Leathen, to give Ordinance No. 1246-2005
its First, Second, Third and Final Readings. On roll call vote: Ald. Wulf –
aye; Ald. Leathen – aye; Ald. Olson – aye; Ald. Smith – aye; Ald. Gonczy – aye;
Ald. Giese – aye, with Ald. Giese noting that his vote is a “reluctant aye”.
Motion carried.
Item 5 – Any other business that may come up subsequent to this notice.
There being no further business to discuss, motion by Ald. Smith, second
by Ald. Olson, to adjourn at 8:34 p.m. On voice vote, motion carried.
Recorded by:
Holly Traffas