The Meeting of the “Special Common Council” was called to order at 7:00
p.m. on Monday, November 12, 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. Bob
Muth, Ald. Tim Miller, Ald. Jim Olson (by phone), Ald. Kim Smith, and Ald.
Clarence
Stellner.
Also present were City Clerk Cari Burmaster and Financial Services
Director Fred Buehler.
Item 2 - PUBLIC INPUT: (limited to 3 minutes/individual) – On the proposed 2008 Executive Budget including
the budgets for General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds,
Enterprise Funds, Capital Projects Funds, and Community Development Authority
Funds.
Mayor Bialecki turned the agenda item over to anyone wishing to provide
input.
Jerry Arndt
“I’d like to speak you about Onalaska’s potential membership with LADCO. Economic vitality is critically important to
this great region that we’re all blessed to live in. Ongoing economic development is an important
part of economic vitality and LADCO is critically important to our regional
economic development effort. LADCO’s
mission is very focused – business attraction, business retention, and
oversight to the small business incubator.
LADCO is an organization that brings public and private members together
in a regional partnership focused on economic development.
Economic Development truly is a regional issue. When it becomes too local, it can actually stand
in the way of regional success. People
looking for a regional sight for their business really don’t want to get caught
up in the squabbles of which city, village, or town wins out over the others. When the regional attracts, retains or grows
a business, the whole region wins. As
you probably know, LADCO’s financial support is about half in the private
sector and about half in the public sector.
The public sector members today include the
The growth of Onalaska is a shining example of the economic well being of
our region. Many people that live in Onalaska
work in businesses throughout the region outside of Onalaska. I’ll use myself as an example. I’ve lived in Onalaska and I’ve been a
homeowner and taxpayer for the past 34 years.
I’ve worked in LaCrosse for that entire time. I support the region without regard to which
City, Village, or Town may appear to be benefiting most directly from any given
economic development effort. The
population and the business growth of Onalaska is the result of a healthy regional
economy.
Some of you have asked what LADCO has done for Onalaska. I think the right and the best answer is to
look at the LADCO portfolio of project successes in total in aggregate. Onalaska has benefited from most of those
whether it’s resulted directly in bricks and mortars and businesses locating
directly in Onalaska or not. And I guess
the question that concerns me, personally, as much as anything is whether it’s
really the $7,500 membership that’s the issue here or whether it’s something
else – and it may very well be about the past relationship between Onalaska and
LADCO. I’m inclined to believe that it
might be more about the relationships than it is about the $7,500 cost. If that’s the case, we just need to know what
the past issues are so that they can be addressed and corrected for the
future.
Onalaska is a huge player in the regional economy – the region needs
Onalaska engaged in the regional economic development partnership that LADCO is
all about, so I encourage you tonight to consider again considering the
membership in LADCO. I will say
sincerely that you’re wanted and needed in that role as partners in LADCO and
that you’ll be given the chance to be very engaged and have a major role in
setting the direction that LADCO goes.
So thanks in advance for your consideration.”
Rick Durst
“I guess one of my major concerns is in regards to the amount of
undesignated fund balance that’s being built up by the city. The total budget increases for the general
fund was $574,998 for the last two years combined. The amount of surplus that has been generated
in that same period was $780,639 – it’s an 18.34% increase in the surplus for
undesignated fund. What has happened, it
appears that either a person is over-budgeting and not using the dollars or
you’re getting additional revenue in. I
believe the taxpayers should be entitled to part of that money back and be used
for other appropriations – not increased taxes to the general public. Keep in mind that your own code of ordinances
says “at the end of each fiscal year, any unencumbered balance of
appropriations should revert to the general fund and shall be subject to
reapportionment. So I believe you should
be doing that.
The other concern that I have is I read in the paper where at a special
meeting of the Finance and Personnel that they reduced funding for legal
services - street salt, and Park and Recreation workers in order to raise
salaries for Mayor and other City Hall employees. Keep in mind that your state statutes 65.02
requires that the number, title, and compensation rate of each officer and of
each position and a proposed appropriation for the same shall be itemized
according to the division in each department, bureau, board and commission and
shall be incorporated in and published with the rest of the proposed
budget. If these changes are occurring,
how do the people know what those changes are?
It’s been the practice of the city in the past to just keep on going
ahead and making changes in the salaries during the year – 65.05 of the state
statutes (9) says ‘the compensation rates of pay in a number of positions
established in the budget shall determine the compensation to be paid in a
number of the positions for the ensuing fiscal year’. So in other words what you establish in the budget
is what the pay should be for those positions.
I also have concern in regards to the amount of salary for the
mayor. It’s quite an increase. You look around the state and you look at
what pay is – take the City of
Ward Kyle
“I guess I would like to commend you folks for coming up with a budget
that you have. Not that I agree with
everything that’s in it, but I think you did a pretty nice job overall – I came
in the other day and read much of it, and I really think you’re to be commended. I do have one question, however, and after I
saw it in the paper the other day and that’s where the Finance Director pointed
out it costs money for garbage – it costs this and that. It also said in there that he expected
$27,000 additional cable fees – franchise fees.
From what I read in Madison, I don’t think that’s going to happen, and
I’m not too sure when that’s going to take place, but with the money that AT
& T has poured out, especially to our local assemblyman, I have to believe
this is going to take place very quickly because it has passed the assembly, it
passed the Senate. I do not know
procedure from here on, but I can assure you that if the state’s going to get
that money, they’re going to do it rather quickly. That would be about all – nice job.”
Mayor Bialecki called three times for anyone wishing to address the
council.
Mayor Bialecki addressed some of the above-mentioned comments.
To the comments from Jerry Arndt with regard to the membership of LADCO,
Mayor Bialecki said, “I can assure you that has not been my style – nor has it
been in the past to not get along with any of our abutting neighbors. That has
nothing to do with it. The proposed
budget that came right now is strictly fiscal in nature. It could change and if I could find the
dollars to do that, I would. And so I
just want to reassure that is the case there.
In fact, I’m not aware or have any known history in the last seven years
that we’ve had any difficulty getting along with any different community and/or
organization within the area.”
To the comments from Rick Durst, Mayor Bialecki said, “What’s been
proposed by the mayoral salary at the Finance & Personnel Committee and for
that matter, at a city council meeting that passed here too, doesn’t cut ice
because you and I both know that has to be heard yet by virtue of an ordinance,
so what’s out there isn’t cast in stone.
And I don’t really think the council that evening was looking for money
to raise the mayor’s salary or for that matter anybody else’s salary when they
made some adjustment, for example, the legal costs. We’ve had some issues here, unfortunately,
that we in 2006 did have some substantial legal costs. Unfortunately you have to follow the spirit
of the law of the statutes, and that’s part of the consequence of that. Nonetheless, though, they were scrutinizing
that and would adhere more to doing more things in home versus going out, and
therefore, that’s where the reduction came in that area. And the street salt, I think when the change
came from that, that was based on utilization.
So, again, I just want to reassure that I got a funny feeling that what
you read in the paper isn’t going to be when this meeting is all out sometime
this month or next month. And then with
regard to the surplus there, I’ll let you verify the amounts on that,
Rick. Interesting you mentioned that. Fred had mentioned that to me – do you want
to apply surplus funds and I think we both in agreement said no. And not to say we can’t change that here
tonight because the proposed levy comes in at 1.6% which I think is very
reasonable considering the times and the challenge we have - meaning labor
agreements, health care costs, utilities, and so on. Also, I think if you look back over the last
7 years, we’ve got a fairly substantially good record compared to most
municipalities. And the point is that
granted there are dollars laying there, but I think indirectly with the council
and myself, we perceived it to be as a rainy day fund should anything ever
really go wrong that the city could sustain itself for a year without a dime
walking in the front door, but that is subject to change. Fred, I’ll have to ask you to comment on the
cable fees – I believe that is a result of growth.”
Fred expanded regarding the above comments, “To my knowledge, the Senate
and the House are still meeting on it as they had stated earlier. There was some conversation I had heard that
we don’t know – we have no idea as to whether or not they’re going to go
back. I know there was some talk about
going to ’07, but I don’t know how they expect to take the dollars from ’07
–for the ’08 budget that is – if in fact the budgets are passed. I’m saying is that I don’t know what the
status of that assembly bill is at. I
would be surprised if they’re going to start making it retro when, in fact,
people have set their levies. And you
and I had talked about that is if they decide to take the cable TV franchise
funds – we’re talking approximately $80,000 out of the City of
In response to a question from Ald. Stellner, Fred indicated the City of
Ald. Giese said, “I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to the
citizens who have commented at the public hearing tonight. First of all,
relative to LADCO, I certainly acknowledge the right of every council member to
make up their own mind on this issue. I,
myself, feel very strongly that a place at that table is of crucial importance
to the community. We can quibble about
the dollar amount – whether the $7,500 is a good return on investment, but the
perspective I take is that by being at that table over the course of an unknown
number of years, we’ll reap dividends that exceed that a thousand fold. The most important thing I think is for us, as
a proponent of business development, to realize that the business community is
not defined by municipal boundaries – it’s defined by commerce areas, by
manufacturing areas, by business entities, and we really need to participate
within the metropolitan service area of greater LaCrosse. So I acknowledge that I cannot at this time
gain support for a motion to actually execute it, but I’d hope that in the
future this council, i.e. in the next budget, will think differently on this
matter because I don’t think failure to be at the table is in the best interest
of the taxpayers that we represent.
The other comment I would like to make is follow up on the observations
made by Rick Durst and wondering if the city attorney has any response to that
– most specifically Section 65.05(9).
This reads, ‘The compensation rates of pay and the number of positions
established in the budget shall determine the compensation to be paid and the
number of positions for the ensuing fiscal year except additional positions may
be established where necessary . . . ‘.
The concern I have is that in the past, I guess the scope of that
statute is that the city attorney opinion then that it’s appropriate for us to
change the compensation for employees of the city as we have relative to the
cost of living indexes in mid year.”
Mayor Bialecki requested Ald. Giese clarify mid year.
Ald. Giese explained, “What we do is we have this 3% cost of living
adjustment that we make the decision to distribute that after the budget is
finalized, after January 1. And so by
reading the statute and that particular paragraph and sub section, I think it
warrants at least an opinion whether that’s appropriate or not because that
very explicitly states that it should be determined, at least as I look at it
in plain English, that it should be determined as part of the budget, and then
it is fixed going forward.”
For clarification, Fred said, “Through the budget process we allocate,
i.e. the past three years that I can recall, prior to that we used to use the
work and camouflaged it under city study – we moved 3% (if in fact the council
approves it through the budget process), we have 3% budgeted in each and every
personnel person that is full time. The
mayor in the past three years has allocated 3% for each individual full time
employee, which is how this executive budget comes forward to the council –
it’s been that way for the last – I don’t know how many years back, but prior
to that it was also in the budget, only it was under one little title called ‘City
Study’ and we felt that putting in City Study was not the proper place to camouflage
it and so then we moved it into the respective accounts. It doesn’t say - no way form or fashion - that
is what they’re going to get. So what
has happened in the last couple of years is the mayor has budgeted 3% and I
believe last year was 3% for ’07, but I think the year before that, we budgeted
3 and only gave out 2.5.”
Ald. Giese added, “If that line item – if that carries back to the
individual employee as a line item and therefore, we’re committed to do the 3%
or we’re at least committed to not deviate by position if that hasn’t been
designated in the budget.”
Ald. Smith said, “Just to follow up on what Mike was saying – it is in
this budget in this book right now – the 3% is in there for each person with a
note saying – it says, ‘Wage calculation based on estimated 3% COLA.” So I’m not sure what about it isn’t clear.”
Ald. Giese answered, “Well, in the past we haven’t considered that as a
sum certain for an individual employee – we’ve considered that a pot of money.”
Ald. Smith said, “Not if it’s called a COLA. When it’s called a COLA, it’s across the
board.”
Ald. Giese asked, “Did we not last year in our compensation discussions
consider the variance so not every employee got the cost of living adjustment
at the same percentage?”
Members agreed that everyone received the same cost of living.
Ald. Smith said, “The 3% estimated cost of living increase is listed
specifically in the budget, and it’s always been equivalent across the board for
all salaried exempt employees.”
Fred agreed and explained, “And I guess to go one step further is for an
example, if we put 3% in the budget for any one of the unions, it’s not set in
stone that that’s what they’re going to make – it’s all negotiated through
union contracts, so to elaborate on what Mike is saying is when it’s budgeted,
it’s not written in stone that that’s what’s going to be sent out the door.”
City Attorney Sean O’Flaherty elaborated, “The section creates a cap on
the number of positions and on the amount that can be paid per each position as
set forth in the budget. This doesn’t
create a right for an employee to be compensated at that rate – it creates a
cap and if the city wants to increase during the – and it creates a mechanism by
which the city, if it wants to add positions or add additional compensation
beyond what was listed in the executive budget, it provides the mechanism by
which that happens.”
Ald. Giese asked, “So there can be a deviation throughout the budget year
as to the rate of compensation for an individual employee for appropriate costs?”
Sean answered, “So long as the deviation doesn’t cause the amount paid to
go beyond the amount set forth in the Executive Budget.”
In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Sean said the amount could be
less than what was set forth in the Executive Budget.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there are any recommendations for change in the
budget as proposed.
In terms of a procedural question, Ald. Smith questioned if the budget
changes that were made at the Finance & Personnel meeting on October 17
were changes that were considered to be part of the current budget.
Mayor Bialecki answered that they are not currently part of the budget,
but will have to be adopted through this process.
Ald. Smith asked, “And taking those changes into consideration and the
action that the state government has finally taken, I’d like Fred to recap – I
know we had a goal for what our budget should be, and I believe we’re slightly
over that – do you have that final number, Fred?”
Fred answered, “Yes, it’s on the sheet that was handed out to you on
10-18.”
Ald. Smith asked if the amount is $11,453.00.
Fred said, “Well right before it, you can see, towards the bottom, you
can see prior to the sub total, it said $7,215 under the cap – the first
primary cap in the general fund, and then we had some compensation down
below. So I think that clearly shows you
where you’re at. The sheet is entitled, ‘2008
budget changes made at the F & P, 10-17-2008’.”
Ald. Giese asked, “So we totaled general in tourism and then subtract
$7,215 from that to get the overage?”
Fred answered, “That’s correct, so you’re approximately over $4,238. And keep in mind when the executive budget
was handed out, the Department of Revenue had estimated what the inflationary
rate would be. Here in the past week, I
received the Department of Revenue Inflationary Rate along with the growth, and
it’s exactly what we anticipated to the executive budget, which is 4.2% - the
combination of the growth of 1.9% and inflation 2.3, totaling 4.2%. And the executive budget showed we were at
$4,747 under the cap. This is indicated
also on the Finance & Personnel sheet.”
Ald. Smith thanked Fred for an excellent job in being so close to
estimating this and said, “I know it’s stressful to try to predict when so much
is riding on it. Fred, I’m assuming that
you’ll be able to come up with these numbers fairly quickly – if the Mayor’s
compensation were to be $60,000, what would be the impact on the budget with
the FICA and retirement?”
Fred explained, “When we were in the executive budget process, I had
drawn up, after the Finance & Personnel did that, I put some sheets on here
- If, in fact, it would be $10,000 starting in.
Of course, once the person takes office, which would be 8 ½ months of
the $10,000 figure – or $60,000 in total, you would have to add between the
wages, FICA and retirement, $8,440. the
current budget, according to the changes from the Finance & Personnel – the
$15,000 was those three items that you see on there – changes of Finance &
Personnel - $10,625, $813, and $1,227 total $12,660 – so it’s the difference
between the $12,660 that you would add if, in fact, you went to $65,000 versus
if you went to $60,000, would be $8,440.”
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Muth, to approve the 2008 budget,
including the changes made at F & P on 10-17-07 with the exception of the
mayoral salary being reduced to an increase of $60,000.
For clarification, Mayor Bialecki noted that if, in fact, there is any
change in the mayor’s salary tonight, there still has to have a separate
ordinance review going through A & J and the council as a whole.
Sean agreed.
Amendment to the motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, to
transfer the amount of $50,000 from the undesignated fund balance to the
overall budget to reduce the tax levy and meet the obligations of the city.
In terms of the original motion, Fred asked if the motion made by Ald.
Smith includes the compensation or not.
Ald. Smith said that the motion includes all the changes made at the F
& P Meeting which would result in being over the cap.
Ald. Muth said, “I seconded that motion and maybe I wasn’t clear on that
– we’re talking about not only that increase in mayor’s salary but also the
change that passed at the meeting.”
Ald. Muth withdrew his second to the motion.
Fred questioned the amendment to the motion and said, “The Department of
Revenue just passed the budget. In
conversation with Keith Seeley from the Department of Revenue, there has been a
lot of discussion about the new guidelines and at the 13th hour
today I received from the Department of Revenue, the new form, and Sean and I
reviewed it. I had HABCO stop in here
this evening trying to decipher some language.
One of these areas is very, very touchy.
I feel, however, that my interpretation as well as Sean’s is all right,
but if not, the city could have to borrow some dollars out of it’s designated
fund balance to make ourselves whole.
What I’m referring to is what they call the Municipal Levy Limit
Worksheet. The Municipal Levy Limit
Worksheet has been revamped once the budget got passed here. And there’s some language issues, and Sean
and I went on line here just a little bit ago, and we didn’t see any language being
changed. But the concern I have – a
little bit taking fund balance dollars is this may be an interpretation. I mean I’d feel more comfortable that if I
knew this – if the budget would have been passed sooner, we would have had this
paperwork; we wouldn’t be in this little issue of language understanding. With that said, I do have a comfort level of
where we are that we are under not only the – well the first cap, we already
know, we already talked about the first cap of where we’re at, but the secondary
cap, if, in fact, my interpretation is correct, we would be safe. If, in fact, my interpretation is incorrect,
we would be $42,003 over the cap. I have
a comfort level that we’re right, but I’m just doing a disclaimer right now.”
Sean added, “Fred and I reviewed the budget work sheets right before the
meeting, and there is an issue regarding whether or not a particular state
statute section was repealed. And,
again, right before the meeting the state statutes that we have available here
haven’t been updated since September 2 which is before the passage of the
budget. We did go to the budget
documents and the original bills and the republican bill in the house bill,
this section that Fred is discussing, which is Wisconsin Section 66.0602(3)(d) 4
was set for repeal. When we checked the
budget that passed, we obviously did not read all 497 pages in the 10 minutes
we had before we came in – we did a textual search and that section does not
appear, so my opinion is based upon the fact that section is not mentioned in
the final budget; therefore, it would not be affected, and it would remain in
place and Fred’s calculation, I would say that the city is under the cap is
correct.”
Ald. Giese said, “The rationale that went into posing the motion - and I
sincerely posed that motion to get the discussion under way – I certainly can
be influenced by what Fred’s saying, but the rationale behind that is first of
all my prejudice is that I like to have a lot of money in the bank as a rainy
day fund so if it was my personal preference, I would actually have this be
almost twice what it is right now and take advantage of arbitrage – we can
borrow money for less than what we get interest for. But when you look at the legal municipalities
guides; when you look at state statutes; when you look at city ordinances; when
you ring a doorbell and talk to a constituents – none of those want to have tax
dollars sitting on a shelf someplace, and there’s clear preference to only
charge for what you need right now.
Fred, you probably hold onto this data element better than I, but I
think on some of the financial reviews that I’ve seen that the recommendation
for the undesignated fund balance is about 6 months or so, is kind of the minimum
that it should be at. I think this last
year we held the same – from ’07 to ’08.
But if you go back four or five years, we were closer to that 6 months
figure – now we’re up to three quarters of a year, and so that’s the logic that
goes into my mind to say that we might as well do this because that’s what the
taxpayers are expecting me to do and I really represent the taxpayers.”
Ald. Stellner asked, “But I think also isn’t it important that we have
this fund available to keep our bond rating down considerably?”
Mayor Bialecki answered, “No, I think having a healthy cash reserve fund
is part of the equation, but it’s been past practice in terms of growth, tax
rates, in some cases litigation – where we’re at right now and where we’re
going in the future, that’s going to set the overall tone of the bond
rating. By withdrawing $50,000 from this
fund, I don’t think is going to have any impact on that whatsoever.”
Ald. Giese added, “And when you look at the $50,000 relative to the
principal – to the actual amount in the fund, it’s not terribly significant –
it costs a lot more than $50,000 to run the city for a week.”
Fred explained, “One thing I want to add because Rick Durst was here when
we first started with the Cities and Villages Mutual Insurance Commission – is
the city has in the past always budgeted yearly for self insured retention,
which is our first $17,500. The practice
that I’ve been here for the past five to seven years is I do not budget for
those with the understanding that we have some dollars set aside and whether or
not we need to start increasing once we start having more claims, the self
insured retention portion. So just keep
that in mind so that every time we have an occurrence of an issue, that we’re
unhooked for the first $17,500.”
Original motion withdrawn by Ald. Smith, second withdrawn by Ald. Muth.
Mayor Bialecki indicated that at this point this would negate the
amendment also and members could begin with a clean slate in terms of motions.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, to modify the budget to
designate that $50,000 is moved from the undesignated fund balance to meet
general revenue obligations.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Mayor Bialecki questioned Jerry Arndt in terms of LADCO possibly becoming
a public body similar to the LaCrosse Area Planning Commission that has posted
agendas and is open to the public.
Jerry responded.
Item 3 – Recommendation and possible action in regards to the 2008 City
Budget changes.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to accept the 2008 budget
changes that were made at the Finance & Personnel Meeting.
For clarification, Ald. Smith noted the following changes:
On roll call vote: Ald. Jim Olson
– aye, Ald. Mike Giese – no, Ald. Kim Smith – aye, Ald. Clarence Stellner – no,
Ald. Bob Muth – No, Ald. Tim Miller – no.
Motion failed.
Fred addressed a memo that he sent out dated 11-9 stating that with the
passage of the 2007- 2009 State Bi-annual Budget, the transportation aids in
the City of
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, to increase the
transportation revenues.
On voice vote, motion carried.
For clarification, Mayor Bialecki explained, “The state is giving us
$70,000 more in transportation than we thought we were going to get and,
therefore, to put that into the budget, we have to motion to include that as an
existing line item and then the end result is that will further reduce the levy.”
In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Mayor Bialecki indicated that
this has no expenditure impacts, but is similar to the earlier motion regarding
the undesignated fund balance.
Ald. Stellner suggested postponing the budget for another month to allow
time for members to have the opportunity for a more in-depth review. Ald. Stellner said, “We have a lot of
questions referring to one of the last items we got from you prior to the
budget meeting on salaries, and I think some of those have to be taken into
consideration.”
Mayor Bialecki asked, “Well what have we got right now because these have
been out here 3 or 4 weeks. Is there any
changes you would like to see made there?”
Ald. Stellner answered, “Well there are some that we discussed and some
questions basically.”
Ald. Smith said, “And I can say I can respect the fact that people didn’t
support my motion, but many of the changes that were made at F & P were
brought forward by the department heads; and to just dismiss them all out of
hand, I think is irresponsible.”
Ald. Stellner asked, “My biggest question is why are we raising the
people to mid range instead of when we proposed and we budgeted originally, we
were bringing them up to minimum, and all of a sudden now it’s a mid range?”
In terms of procedure, Sean reminded that they are still in the public
hearing and questioned if they are still open for public comment.
Item 4 – Public input on the new changes to the 2008 City Budget.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was anyone else that would like to address
the two changes addressed thus far – the transportation needs and the undesignated
fund transfer.
Mayor Bialecki closed that portion of the public hearing.
Ald. Stellner asked, “I basically wanted to ask why we raised from
minimum all of sudden up to the middle range?”
Mayor Bialecki noted that a couple of months ago there was a motion by
the council to proceed in that direction.
Ald. Miller agreed and indicated the date was Tuesday, June 12,
2007. Ald. Miller quoted, “But what
we’ve done then is to take these people and bring them up to the proposed
minimum of proposed range and that’s based on the ranges that were established
during the compensation study that was conducted by members of this council and
our staff.” Ald. Miller said, “All they
talk about is the memo – no mid points.”
Ald. Muth said, “I agree – there’s nothing that I can find that we’re
going to move to the middle – suddenly we’re jumping to the middle and
everything I’ve seen so far is that we’re going to get up to minimum and then
look at middle, and all of a sudden we’re jumping these salaries to middle, and
I do not agree with that at all.”
Ald. Miller added, “I do agree with Clarence and there’s a great deal of
– there’s a lot of research that needs to be done on this. There are people out there who are not at the
minimum – there are people out there that are over the minimum, and we got to
get them balanced. It’s got to be fair
and equitable for all folks and to put it off another 30 days, I think that
would be very responsible of us to do so that we can go into this with a clear
picture because, quite frankly, there’s a couple of us that are freshman
alderman that just really didn’t understand anything, and then when we started
questions, we found that the answers that were there we didn’t like, so another
30 days to look at everybody’s pay – yea, I think that’s a good move.”
Ald. Muth added, “And I’ve looked at previous minutes where Jim can hear
me that this has been going on for a couple of years now, with not an agreement
and all of a sudden we’re supposed to just accept this, and I can’t accept this
– and I don’t think another 30 days for us to look at this is unreasonable at
all.”
For clarification, Fred noted, “Are we looking at approving the budget
tonight, Clarence, with the understanding that there’s 3% in the budget and
then if, in fact, the council wished to spend how many months they wish to
review that entire situation. I think it
would be bad for the City of Onalaska to put a time out on this budget – again,
republish it, spend the dollars to do that, 15 days, have another public
hearing, and by state statute, Sean, I recall some part in the first part of
December it is required by municipalities to have the levy approved – and I
guess what I’m coming from is, in fact, something comes out of that discussion,
I think that the fund balance dollars can make that possible and using the
budget amendment process to make that happen rather than tying up – because, I
can tell you, if you put a hold on this, it can cause a major snowball affect.”
Ald. Smith added, “And when I referred to being irresponsible, that’s
what I was referring to – if you’re going to put the whole budget on hold and
not take any of the changes that were recommended at F & P from the
different departments or anything just because of this one issue – I think
that’s irresponsible.”
Ald. Miller asked, “So, can we take the budget without the wage increases?”
Fred answered, “The current budget as it stands, the executive budget
that is, shows a 3% across the board – it’s not again a given, like we had
talked earlier, it’s the fact that there is dollars there. If, in fact, that’s not enough or you want to
do something different, we do what they call a budget amendment to the budget,
but you don’t hold up – I wouldn’t want to hold up the entire levy –“
In response to a question from Ald. Stellner, Fred indicated that the
budget presently shows a 3% increase in the overall program.
Ald. Stellner asked, “Any of this stuff on these sheets that we got is
not included in there, is that correct?”
Fred said, “No, that’s not.”
Ald. Miller asked, “So we can take this executive budget that I have
right here in its purest form right now and accept that. If we want to make any salary changes, we can
do that by virtue of amendment, is that correct?”
Fred answered, “That’s correct, or you can also do like what the council
did last year is hypothetically give 2% to the individuals and then use
whatever dollars they have to do whatever.”
Rick said, “Again, I would refer back to the city attorney and his interpretation
that Section 65.05 of the statutes, that you cannot actually raise the salary
above what is in the budget.”
Sean answered, “The discussion as I understand it is whether or not the
budget can pass now and then after the council thoroughly studies the
compensation study, can they go back and amend the budget in order to raise
salaries beyond the 3%? The answer to
that would be yes, but there would have to be a public hearing and it would be
published – a public hearing and have to pass by ¾ vote as set forth in the
statute that you sited. Without amending
the budget itself, no increase beyond the 3% could occur, that’s correct.”
Mayor Bialecki encouraged supporting approval of the budget and referring
the compensation issue for 30 days.
For clarification, Sean explained, “And Ald. Miller, specifically, one of
the reasons why it would be very difficult to put off the budget is the tax
levy is due on December 8, and if the budget is not passed before then with
publishing for 15 days and having another public hearing, it would be very
difficult – you would likely be pushed up or miss that deadline.”
Ald. Miller thanked Sean for clarifying this.
Ald. Giese questioned if it would be possible to accelerate the process
through special meetings.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, to pass the budget with
the compensation program being deleted at this time.
Under discussion, Mayor Bialecki requested that if there are any
recommendations for changes that these be brought to the next Finance &
Personnel Meeting.
Cari asked, “What I was hearing from Sean and just for clarification to
make sure that I’m straight on it, from what you said, if we’re going to be
doing any amendments to these salaries, we have to republish, have the 15 days
before we can meet from the publication, correct?”
Sean said this is correct.
Cari said, “So we can’t just do a special meeting at any time – it has to
be very timed. It takes Fred
approximately a week in advance to publish because it’s only a weekly publication,
so now we’re talking about a week to get the publication in, 15 days until we
can meet, so we’re talking at least three weeks before we can have any meeting
when we would like to do this, correct?”
Fred added, “The way I understand it Clarence, is if the council passes
this budget tonight, we can move on, it goes to we set the tax bills, the tax
bills are printed – what Cari is talking about can happen any time between now
and a year from now.”
Mayor Bialecki said, “I would like to ask one thing though – if there are
any recommendations to change in any compensation plans on there that anybody
and everybody is copied at least a week in advance of the meeting and everyone
has an opportunity to digest them.”
Ald. Smith reminded that since the motion failed to pass the changes that
were brought forward by the department heads, she would be voting no to pass
the budget as presented unless the motion is withdrawn or amended.
Motion withdrawn by Ald. Stellner, second withdrawn by Ald. Miller.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, to accept the budget with
the changes that were made at F & P for the reductions and to exclude the
potential cost worksheet for the compensation program and have that exempt from
the budget passing.
For clarification Mayor Bialecki indicated that the motion intends to
include the changes stated earlier by Ald. Smith with the mayoral salary at
$60,000, but to exclude the compensation study.
Fred explained, “To go on then is the plus side, instead of being
$19,065, we’d be $14,845. The minus side
did not change, which is $21,533, showing a net difference instead of being
$2,468 less - it was at $4,220 that we talked about earlier. And so $4,220 added to the $7,215 is with the
changes that we just talked about now, comes to under the cap of
$11,435.00. To repeat it back – you can
see where it says prior to the meeting it was $4,747 under the cap – still
$11,435 under the cap because we added $4,220 more because of reduction in the
mayor’s salary.”
Ald. Smith asked, “And that’s not counting the $50,000 transfer which we
also approved?”
Fred answered, “Right, but what I meant to say under the cap of what you
submitted at F & P.”
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Fred explained, “But to answer
your question, Kim, is you brought up a good question there is you got to
remember that revenue does not – that $50,000 has absolutely nothing to do with
the expenditure side – okay that is using undesignated dollars – they’re taking
surplus dollars there from your fund balance to lower the levy – that has
nothing to do from the expenditure side.
So when I say you’re $11,435 under the cap on the expenditure side,
that’s a true statement.”
Mayor Bialecki requested, “Just so it’s clear and there’s a good
communication conduit – if there’s going to be some recommendations to change
anything or everything in the proposed compensation study plan, that whomever
would work directly with the HR director in that it is his privy, and that
whenever there’s a consensus that was to be brought forward that the balance of
the council, including myself, would have that in advance of the next meeting
that is to be discussed.”
Mayor Bialecki added, “Now the other question I’m going to have for the
council to ponder here too. We’re
$11,400 under cap – would you consider a potential LADCO membership with the
understanding that it becomes a public body and that the people that meet there
once a month would put out meeting notices, keep minutes, etc., just so that we
have a track of who is doing what in the area?
And the other thing I want to add - We’re $11,400 under cap – we just
raised, lowered our bar next year just a little bit, do you know what I
mean? Right now there’s a certain cap
there we can’t exceed, but now we just brought next year’s bar down just a
little bit.”
Ald. Giese asked, “Your comment on lowering the cap for next year is
relative to the spread we have between the actual expenditure limit this year
and what we’re using this year?”
Mayor Bialecki said yes.
Ald. Giese said, “Relative to the LADCO proposal, I certainly am heartened
to hear that there’s some movement here – I wonder – I guess I would prefer to
have a greater level of commitment than that, but I certainly at this point
will speak in favor of that if that’s the wish of the council.”
Discussion on the previous motion on the floor.
Ald. Muth questioned if the council elects to move the $7,500 to LADCO,
if these funds could rather be used to incorporate some changes to the wages of
city employees.
Mayor Bialecki said, “I believe so.”
Ald. Muth said, “For that reason I prefer the changes go to the employees
rather than LADCO.”
Mayor Bialecki said, “Now, we’ll go back to the initial motion that’s on
the floor that was proposed by Clarence.
Is there any further discussion on that motion?”
Ald. Giese said, “I just would like to endorse what you said about
working in an expeditious and also open manner, so any council – time is of the
essence here. Any council person or
persons who have some ideas, if we can get that through the HR director,
distributed to the fellow council members as soon as possible, hopefully when
we have something substantive to evaluate, I would advocate for a special
meeting so we can get this closed down sooner rather than later.”
On voice vote, motion carried.
In terms of the LADCO issue, Ald. Muth indicated that he has communicated
with them and received literature from them.
Ald. Muth said, “I think it’s an outstanding organization, which I
think, I agree, it’s to the whole region – we can’t just look at Onalaska. But right now, I have to answer to the
citizens, what benefit we’re doing for that money and with budget
restraints. I’m wide open for it in the
future, but not right now.”
Sean said, “Your Honor, the motion was just on an amendment. I think you need to reopen the meeting again
to the public comment and then vote on the budget.”
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was any comment from the public regarding
the motion that was just passed.
Rick indicated that it is difficult for the public to follow the
amendment without having the paperwork directly in front of them.
Ald. Smith noted this is why she read off the changes noted earlier in
the meeting.
Fred said, “To help Rick answer his question, I do know that I purposely
televised the Finance & Personnel meeting.”
Fred added that Jason Gilman is also televising these meetings again in
anticipation that all questions from citizens will be answered.
Ald. Giese said, “Hopefully to help Rick out, I think he might have some
concern about the added position in the inspection area – removal from the
contractual services – it’s my understanding that will not be going forward, so
there will not be an additional hire in that area.”
Rick asked, “That’s I guess my question is, are you changing positions or
what. The figures say one thing, but
what do the figures relate to?”
Mayor Bialecki answered, “I’m not sure that – would you verify that
because I think we still have that position in Planning, do we not?”
Fred explained, “I’ll go to the Finance & Personnel – when they met,
the executive budget that was turned over by the mayor showed the new position
in the Inspection Department starting 4-1.
The Finance & Personnel went on record instead of having that
position start on 4-1, they moved it to 6-1 with the understanding then that
they would have to bring in the contractual dollars to fill in those two months
which would be a void.”
Ald. Smith said, “I just want to comment that then we’re still $11,435
under, which is money that could be used for compensation of our valuable
employees. I think to use it at a later
date is going to be somewhat cumbersome.”
Mayor Bialecki asked if there were any further comments from the public.
Item 5 – Recommendation and possible action in regards to the 2008 City
Budget.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, to approve the 2008
budget with the amendments that have previously been approved.
On roll call vote: Ald. Tim Miller
– aye, Ald. Jim Olson – aye, Ald. Kim Smith – aye, Ald. Clarence Stellner –
aye, Ald. Bob Muth – aye, Ald. Mike Giese – aye. Motion passes.
Item 6 – Ordinance No. 1321-2007 –
to adopt the appropriation budget for 2008 (Suspend Rules to give the ordinance
its First, Second, Third, and Final
ORDINANCE
1321-2007
AN
ORDINANCE TO CREATE SEC. 3-1-3(f) and (g) and (h)
OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO
APPROPRIATION
OF THE NECESSARY FUNDS FOR THE
OPERATION
OF THE CITY FOR THE YEAR OF 2008.
The Common Council of the City of
SECTION 1. Section 3-1-3 (f), (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
2008, including monies received from the general property tax levy, the amounts
set forth in the budget as adopted by the Common Council on November 12, 2007.
(g)
The
following amounts are hereby levied on all the taxable property within the City
of
(1)
A tax of
$4,233,354. On all the taxable property
within the City of Onalaska as returned by the assessor in the year 2007 for
the uses and purposes set forth in the 2008 General Fund Budget.
(2)
A tax of
$881,573, on all the taxable property within the City of
(3)
A tax of
$129,179, on all the taxable property within the City of
(4)
A tax of
$159,887, on all the taxable property within the City of
(5)
A tax of
$37,909, on all the taxable property within the City of
(6)
A tax of
$2,896,783, on all the taxable property within the City of
(7)
A tax of
$230,862, on all the taxable property within the City of Onalaska as returned
by the assessor in the year 2007 for the uses and purposes set forth in the 2008
Community Development Authority (C.D.A.) Fund Budget – Parking Ramp Incremental
Levy.
(8)
A tax of
$226,205, on all the taxable property within the City of
(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
12th day of November, 2007.
CITY
OF
_____________________________________
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
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Muth, to suspend the rules and
give Ordinance 1321-2007 its first,
second, and third reading.
Fred reminded that some of the figures contained within this Ordinance
will need to be modified.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Mayor Bialecki entertained a motion to approve Ordinance 1321-2007 with the following changes:
Motion by Ald. Miller, second by Ald. Muth, to give Ordinance 1321-2007 its first, second, and third reading.
For information purposes, Fred noted that the mil rate last year was 6.4845
and what the council has passed brings the mil rate to 6.45633, which comes to
$2.82 reduction on a $100,000 home.
Members thanked Fred for comprising these numbers so quickly.
On roll call vote: Ald. Bob Muth –
aye, Ald. Clarence Stellner – aye, Ald. Jim Olson – aye, Ald. Kim Smith – aye,
Ald. Tim Miller – aye, Ald. Mike Giese – aye.
Ordinance passes.
Item 7 – Any other business that may come up subsequent to this notice.
Ald. Muth noted that Mr. Dick Mulder, the owner/operator of the Coulee
Golf Bowl has sent a message to the council regarding the new turn lane located
on
There being no further business to discuss, motion by Ald. Miller, second
by Ald. Stellner, to adjourn. On voice
vote, motion carried.
Recorded by: