The Meeting of the Special Common Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 13, 2006. It was noted that the meeting had been announced and a notice posted at City Hall. Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Mayor Jim Bialecki, Ald. Mike Giese, Ald. Diane Oldani Wulf, Ald. Gary Gonczy, Ald. Jim Olson, and Ald. Kim Smith. Also in attendance were Financial Services Director Fred Buehler, Deputy Financial Services Director Sara Stoner, and City Clerk Cari Burmaster. Consideration and possible action on the following items: Item 2 – Public Hearing: 7:00 p.m. (public input limited to 3 minutes per individual). – On the proposed 2007 Executive Budget including the Budgets for General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Enterprise Funds, Capital Project Funds, and Community Development Funds. Mayor Bialecki declared the public hearing as being open and asked for anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Police Chief Randy Williams presented a proposal to council members as follows: “Attached what I’ve given you is a plan to reorganize the Onalaska Police Department to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness in delivering quality public services while at the same time reducing our overall budget by a minimum of $20,000, and I’ve attached some financial reports and would ask Fred to take a look at those. But the actual cost savings from my figures put together approximately $27,083.28. What my plan does is it eliminates both of the current captains’ positions, the job descriptions and it replaces those two positions with one position, and it would be an Assistant Chief’s position. My plan further calls to create an Administrative Manager position to fulfill the administrative responsibilities currently being performed by a higher paid position. What I’ve attached to this material are two job descriptions – one is the Assistant Chief, the other one is the Administrative Manager position. I’ve also attached what that organizational chart would like with these changes, and then finally the financial reports showing the specific cost savings in looking at the total costs. As the Chief of Police I’m always looking for ways to improve public safety services in the community and as a department head, I’m always looking for opportunities where I can reduce costs. My plan accomplishes both of these things, and I’d like to ask for your consideration to approve this recommendation. If you look at the job descriptions, I had an opportunity to ask the city attorney to look at this, and I believe Sean has had an opportunity to look at those job descriptions, and I also asked Elsa Kulig as a Human Resource person to take a look at that. And part of the consideration were those job descriptions so we were prepared to do that. And, of course with the approval of the council and trying to answer any questions you might have this evening, I certainly would have to follow this up with approval through the Police and Fire Commission for the process that would take place to fill that position. But if you look at the first page in the back of that material – there should be a packet that says Departmental Budget Summary, and the first page highlights what those savings would be and the anticipation that I would be able to fill these two new positions by April 1 of 2007 with a cost savings in benefits of approximately $11,664, and a savings in wages of $15,419.28, for a total savings of $27,083.28. With that, I guess I’d ask if there are any questions, but I think in the long run it’s an opportunity to still get the job done, get it done efficiently and effectively, but saving the taxpayers ultimately in the end”. In response to a question from Mayor Bialecki, Chief Williams indicated the Captains positions would cease on 3-31-2007, with the new positions to being on 4-1-2007. Ald. Gonczy complimented Chief Williams in terms of efficiency and cost reduction. Chief Williams explained, “The Assistant Chief’s position, because it’s a new position, the Police and Fire Commission is ultimately responsible for the process that’s required to fill that position. I certainly have a recommendation for the Police and Fire Commission on how I’d like to see the process go, but that ultimately is their decision. My thinking is that with the plan, no one would lose their current job, they would still have a job, there would just be some reorganization and some shuffling, and so that’s the great news in this. What I hope that I can share my recommendation to the Police and Fire Commission is that they would consider filling that Assistant Chief’s position from inside with current supervisory staff that I have – I believe there would be six candidates from within – both the two captains that I currently have and the four sergeants, all who would be eligible for this, and I have confidence that there is someone within my current management staff that could fill that. The other position, that being the Administrative Manager position is a civilian position, a non-sworn position, and I would ask for the assistance of the Human Resource Specialist to help me in filling that position”. Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Giese, to approve the recommendation of Chief Williams as stated above with the understanding that it still has to go to the Police and Fire Commission. Ald. Giese added, “$20,000 in my metric is exactly what we need to be looking at when you take it as a percentage of the full city budget, it may not be a very high percentage, but it’s definitely moving in the right direction. I’d like to speak in favor of this because I think it changes the dynamic within the department as well. If you think about a sworn officer and the skill set and the experiences that they need to have, and then they move into the administrative position, they can do an excellent job, but they’re really not taking advantage of their licensure or their skill set and their characteristics that are most typical of a sworn public safety officer. On the positive side – for the Administrative Specialist to come and take over those responsibilities, I think the $20,000 can be leveraged because that person is going to be – I would hope and with careful selection of employment and management – they would have better expertise as to administrative procedures and process so we can have increase word flow, if you will, through the department. So I see this $20,000 growing over the course of the year to be even more than that, so I strongly encourage everyone to vote in favor of this”. On voice vote, motion carried. For clarification, Mayor Bialecki noted this would be a deduction of $27,083. Mayor Bialecki asked if anyone else had any comments regarding the budget. Mayor Bialecki declared the public hearing as being closed. Item 3 – Recommendation and possible action in regards to the 2007 City Budget. Ald. Olson noted, “Under the CDA budget, it was brought to my attention that when we financed the project for the Omni Center, we saved approximately $22,807, and it looks by accounting that those monies were - $12,000 of that money were put into Account 991-55450-154 and $10,000 was put into Account 991-55450-356, and to my knowledge and Mike is on the committee, we were not aware that the savings was applied to those accounts – I’m not aware of it”. Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Gonczy, to eliminate the $22,807 and return it to reduce the debt to the taxpayer. Under discussion, Ald. Giese indicated that he has not had the opportunity to review the minutes from that meeting and as he is reasonably confident of the above, he is not absolutely sure. For clarification, Fred explained, “The way I understand that it evolved, was we received a copy back in August of the proposed executive budget – then you had one – the CDA meeting had one meeting thereafter. In the meantime, we were out in the bond market reference to the new facility of which we had anticipated what the rates would be, which came in $22,807 lower. At the Common Council meeting in September then we had brought that and we accepted and awarded the bond issue then at the - later then the CDA Board had revised a budget that gave me which showed those modifications. So, whether you guys talked about it, I wasn’t there”. Ald. Gonczy asked, “But in reality, shouldn’t these dollars have not been applied to where they were”? Fred replied, “That’s up to the board when they met – I don’t know if it was discussed or if someone just kind of did it – I don’t know”. Mayor Bialecki agreed with Fred and stated, “I think if the board adopted a budget in August and forwarded that with all the other ones too, and then a month or two later the anticipated bond expense isn’t what it is. Well, that’s not in the budget – the reduction should come back here”. Ald. Gonczy and Mayor Bialecki agreed that it couldn’t have been discussed as the bond wasn’t sold yet at that time. Ald. Giese said, “And I agree with Mr. Olson on my recall that it was not – I don’t remember discussing that and making that change, but I did want to be fair and say that I haven’t actually reviewed all of the minutes of that meeting to confirm that. On that basis, I would encourage the council to make the modifications because I think it’s more likely than not”. On voice vote, motion carried. Ald. Gonczy questioned the revenue account of Cable TV Fees and the reason for the estimated lower number of $84,500 in respect to the revenue of last year being $98,000. Fred explained currently the revenue for cable TV at three quarters of the year is $65,000 versus the estimated amount of $84,000. This is taking into consideration the unexpected number between the two cable companies and the affect that may cause to drive the prices down. Fred indicated that this is based on 5% of the gross sales and income has been declining due to declining sales. Currently this account is at 78%, which is 3% higher than normal. Fred indicated that $84,000 was budgeted last year which was raised to $84,500 this year and in his opinion he does not consider it likely to collect $90,000. Ald. Gonczy questioned if this is a franchised fee or if the city could negotiate for a higher fee. Fred answered the city is currently locked in at 3% to the end of the cable contract but can be negotiated in the future for up to 5% which would inevitably be passed through to the purchaser of the cable service. Mayor Bialecki indicated this would be discussed in more length at tomorrow’s meeting as it was under the Mayor’s Report for discussion. In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Fred indicated that he was comfortable with the number for revenue to offset dog pound costs. Ald. Gonczy questioned Page 17 under General funds, Executive Summary, the amount of $11,100 budgeted for Police and Fire Commission, Miscellaneous Office Expenses versus $1,000 which has been spent in the past. Fred explained that is the account which is utilized for the costs of the attorney for the Police and Fire Commission. Ald. Giese complimented Fred and Sara with the hard work and expeditious manner that his questions have been answered in regard to the budget this year. Ald. Giese questioned Maintenance City Hall, Account 151-600, the amount of approximately $9,800 which is listed as Govern, (the software for accounting purposes) and questioned why this is assigned back to the City Hall Maintenance Account. Fred explained that if you look into the detail of that account and all the modules - the Govern software is a split between General Fund Water and Sewer. The detail sheet is called Govern Software Four Year Budget. We take the total of $19,650 wherein we set up a pro rata percentage of 25% utility, 25% each between the water and sewer, and then the general fund is 50%. The 50% is a combination of all the departments which is why the account of City Hall is used. Fred noted when it gets into the IMS aspect, the costs are broken down because of the number of computers. In that manner, the IT costs are determined within a percentage of each department. Ald. Giese indicated that the Govern Software is finance and, therefore, would be better attributed back to the Finance Office rather than to the City hall Account as a consideration for next year’s budget. Ald. Giese questioned Account Number 151-300, Item 319, Miscellaneous Office Supplies which is listed under City Attorney in the amount of $9,000. Fred explained these are the costs relating to paperwork and mailings expended by the attorneys, currently at $6,555 versus $4,750 which was budgeted last year. In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Fred explained there is itemization for these costs at over fifty pages for last month. Ald. Giese questioned pool expenses exceeding the pool revenue by $51,980. Dan Wick explained, “Thank you, Mike. Regarding that, I think with the old pool and then the current pool that we’ve had, we’ve always operated at about a $51,000 budget. I think if you look historically with pools in the State of Wisconsin with a short operating season, that you’re going to find many pools like that. We’ve had a few very good years, and we’ve reduced that – in reducing our staffing and generating more revenue, but that’s just a cost that we’ve had for many years here with the city”. In response to a question from Fred, Chief Williams explained, “Currently we have an open position with a recent resignation. And my thought was I’ll just have to come back to the council for approval of that but anticipate that I would be able to fill that position, so that would be the officer that recently resigned this past month. And that position has yet to be filled. In making this plan work, then, we would just use that position and someone currently on the staff would just fill that position and patrol so then it would be equal out”. Fred questioned if something else evolves such as if an individual were to resign or retire, would the dollars equate with what was budgeted in regard to sick leave monies, etc. Chief Williams indicated this was taken into account wherein the new positions would not be filled until April of 2007. If something were to happen in the interim, Chief Williams indicated he would work with Fred and the mayor to insure everything balances before the end of the year. Ald. Gonczy thanked all department heads and complimented all for compiling a very streamlined budget. Ald. Oldani Wulf noted the council authorized Hawkins, Ashe, Baptie & Company at the August 8, 2006 meeting to analyze the nonunion compensation study and questioned the status of the timeline regarding this. Mayor Bialecki noted that Barbara Davis will be bringing her proposal to the December F & P meeting. Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to endorse the following changes which were actually made at the Board of Public Works and then further endorsed at the last F & P meeting: The Storm Sewer Fund - Account 20257345 was adjusted for a net increase of $70,000 increase in expenditures. The Park Fund - Account 20351900810 were several adjustments resulting in a net increase in expenditures of $109,060. The Water Fund, the Fixed Asset Account, was adjusted for a net increase in $50,000. Under discussion, as a member of the Board of Public Works, Ald. Gonczy indicated those were adjustments that had come in to be capital projects but were instead moved over to Enterprise Funds which will not have any impact on the budget. Ald. Giese questioned, “But that’s already taken out of the budget then, is the question. The budget that we have in our packet here shows those removed”? Ald. Gonczy explained, “They’re capital projects – because we’ll meet next month to make the recommendations and we have to have a public hearing on the funding for the capital improvements for the money we borrow next year. So we eliminated those out, but they need to be put into the Enterprise Fund budgets that are within here”. Ald. Giese concurred with council members and thanked the departments on a job well done regarding the budget. Ald. Giese made some observations regarding the increase in population saying, “What I’m trying to get a handle on is the obligations of the city in terms of providing services are somehow affected by the growth of the city. Also the revenue of the city is affected by the growth and so how do we balance that out from year to year – are we getting more efficient or are we getting less efficient? The population increase to ’06 was 1%, the assessed value to ’06 was 4.56%, the seasonally adjusted annual cost of living increase, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of the end of September of this year, was 3% coming forward. So you can break it down a lot of ways, but if you look at the population increase and the CPI, there is a 4% increase in the growth of obligations for the city. And that’s the foundation of my compliment because we got a 4.61% increase in the tax base. So, for my value sim and value set, I would shoot for that .61% - try to get that out of there to keep in line. But that’s awful close so I think that warrants a compliment”. Mayor Bialecki agreed and added that the 3% that the Bureau of labor anticipates is questionable. On voice vote, motion carried. Item 4 – Ordinance No. 1292-2006 – to adopt the appropriation budget for 2007 (Suspend Rules to give the ordinance its First, Second, Third and Final Readings). Fred reported on the final numbers after the above changes: The General Fund - $4,198,153 Debt Service – No Change Recycling – No Change Shared Ride – No Change Equipment Replacement – No Change Joint Municipal Court – No Change Omni Center Budget - $280,193 Community Development Authority - $195,728 Fred indicated that the total of all levies is $8,543,480. The mil rate would be .0064845 and based on $100,000 loan, it would go up $14.15 from last year. Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Giese, to suspend the rules on Ordinance 1292-2006 and gives its first, second, and third reading. On voice vote, motion carried. Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Olson, to give Ordinance 1292-2006 it’s first, second, and third reading with the changes as noted by Fred. On roll call vote, Ald. Smith – aye, Ald. Gonczy – aye, Ald. Oldani Wulf – aye, Ald. Olson – aye, Ald. Giese – aye. Resolution passes. Item 5- Any other business that may come up subsequent to this notice. There being no further business, motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Smith, to adjourn at 7:42 p.m. Recorded by: Theresa Nau Special Common Council of the City of Onalaska Monday, November 13, 2006 Reviewed 11-17-06