The Meeting of the Common Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 14, 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. Jim Olson, Ald. Diane Oldani Wulf, Ald. Gary Gonczy, Ald. Clarence Stellner, and Ald. Kim Smith.  Also in attendance were Financial Services Director Fred Buehler, City Clerk Cari Burmaster, Land Use and Development Director Jason Gilman, City Engineer Jarrod Holter, and Human Resources Specialist Elsa Kulig.

Item 2 - Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance was declared.

Item 3 - Approval of minutes from previous meeting.

Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Smith, to approve the minutes from the previous meeting as printed and on file in the City Clerk’s Office.  On voice vote, motion carried.

Item 4 - PUBLIC INPUT:  (limited to 3 minutes/individual)

Mayor Bialecki turned the agenda item over to anyone wishing to provide input.

Susan Kroner
N5706 Abnet Road

“My husband is Officer Kroner, Badge No. 314.  He has been a police officer for the Onalaska Police Department for approximately 28 years.  I also was a reserve officer for approximately three years – two and a half of those years as a secretary.  Tonight to the Onalaska City Council, we are the concerned families of the Onalaska Police Department.  We stand together in our conviction that you can no longer fail to intervene on behalf of the health and safety of those who are sworn to serve and to protect this community.  The current administration threatens not only law enforcement effectiveness of the department, but also the safety of the officers and community at large.  Officers are at higher risk of illness and injury working under the stressful conditions created by the current administration.  Police work is unique.  It is a career that often requires split second judgments.  Virtually all of these decisions are subject to review.  We are alarmed by how often our spouses express the belief that whatever decisions they make will be used in a disciplinary action weeks or months down the road.  We fear that serious consequences will result if officers begin to second guess themselves.  You do not need us to tell you that there are serious problems facing this department.  We are here to tell you that we will not fail in our duty to protect our families.  Concerned families of the Onalaska Police Department unanimously resolve to continue our political action until a healthy, safe, and productive working environment has been restored at the Onalaska Police Department.  Further, because we unanimously agree that Randy Williams does not possess the leadership necessary to meet these working conditions, we ask that the Common Council immediately assign a mutually agreeable, neutral, outside arbitrator to address our urgent concerns.  We also ask that Chief Randy Williams be put on administrative leave until such time as his administration can be fully evaluated by the appropriate governing authority in conjunction with this arbitrator.  This group will deem any proposed solution to this situation that does not involve a completely independent arbitrator unacceptable.   Sincerely, The Concerned Families of the Onalaska Police Department.  Thank you for your time”.

Mayor Bialecki questioned if it would be appropriate to accept this report from Mrs. Kroner on behalf of the group present tonight.

A member from the group indicated that all present are requesting to speak tonight with some unable to attend this meeting.

Council members agreed to allow all present to speak.

In response to clarification from Ald. Gonczy, members wishing to speak indicated their number with a show of hands for an approximate number of 12.

Mayor Bialecki and council members agreed.

Connie Young
N1389 Winch Road, LaCrosse

“Good evening and thank you for allowing my voice to be heard.  My name is Connie, the proud wife of Shawn Young.  Shawn has a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice and is the department’s only certified Vehicle Dynamics Crash Re-constructionist.  Shawn has wanted to be a police officer since he was a little boy.  In April of ‘98 his dream came true when he was sworn in as an officer of the Onalaska Department.  He enjoyed going out into the community and making positive contact with citizens.  His personnel file is filled with letters of thanks from members of this community.  On October 27, Chief Williams and Captain Moan hand-delivered a letter to Shawn at our home advising him that he was on administrative leave pending a fitness-for-duty evaluation.  Over a third of the four-page letter sited that a large part of the administrative leave was due to being too detailed in reports.  How can you be too detailed on police reports?  I would also like to mention that one of the reasons that thousands of city dollars was spent on reconstruction school for Shawn was that he is so detail-oriented.  Why is it that by being detail-oriented was good in 2004 when he was completing school, but now it is suddenly a problem?  Another incident noted in the letter involved Shawn saving a man’s life.  When responding to a call, Shawn found a man bleeding to death from a self-inflicted neck wound.  He was able to get behind the man who was seated in a chair and firmly hold his head in place while applying pressure to the wound.  Chief Williams sited that Shawn did not properly secure a knife that was sitting on a table near the victim.  Shawn was aware that the knife was there, but was in complete control of the situation.  It is very obvious that the Chief did not verify his information because Shawn had handcuffed the person as soon as he approached him.  The paramedics that arrived stated that because of Shawn’s actions, he saved that man’s life.  He was told that he did a great job by those involved at the scene, including Sergeant Labinski of LaCrosse County.  In a letter received on October 27, the Chief mocked Shawn for applying for a life saving award.  Does this mean that he should have let the man continue to bleed until he was able to check the room for weapons?  Is this what the Chief would have done?  I stand behind my husband 100% on his decisions during that call.  These are just some of the ridiculous accusations found in the letter from Chief Williams for which he owes my husband an apology.  Due to deterioration of my husband’s health, weight loss, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, and other stress-related issues caused by the poor working conditions in this environment, he handed in his resignation to this department that he served so well for close to nine years.  The City of Onalaska has lost one outstanding officer because of the poor leadership skills of Chief Williams.  My husband has stated he would go back to work for the great City of Onalaska if positive changes would be made including Mr. William’s resigning.  In closing, these are some things that I know – I know Shawn was a dedicated and compassionate officer.  I know the City of Onalaska has lost an outstanding member of its police department, and I know that I will continue to speak out publicly to stop this from happening to another family in this department.  Thank you for your time”.

JoAnn Marcon
1312 Kingswood Lane

“My husband is Officer Chad Marcon who has been with the department ten years this month.  The first thing I need to establish is that I have a fairly significant fear of public speaking.  However, my fear of not speaking out tonight and not having my concerns heard is an even greater fear.  Our spouses no longer have what I thought was a basic constitutional right of freedom of speech and, therefore, we are forced to be their voices.  I cannot stress to you enough, how much my husband loves his job as police officer and takes great pride in what he does.  However, because of the unending intimidation from the administration within the department, I have seen his job go from what used to be a great source of pride to a source of constant stress and worry.  Worry for his co-workers that the Chief is trying to bully out of their jobs and worry for his own job, constantly living in fear of who will become the Chief’s next target.  Randy William’s attempts to force subordinate officers to uphold and conceal a political agenda contrary to their ethical, moral, and vocational responsibilities has resulted in many stressful hours for our city’s police force.  Our officers have been forced to constantly evaluate their words and actions against fly-by-night policies that violate everything they, as officers, believe in.  It is because members of this force refused to cooperate with the Chief’s immoral, personal, and political agenda, that we are here today.  I am also a citizen of Onalaska.  I used to be proud of that.  I don’t know that I can say that any longer.  How can I proudly say that I live in a city that condones sexual harassment.  As a woman, I am appalled, beyond words, that a cover-up that went on in City Hall, that a motion camera can be placed under a woman’s desk and isn’t considered sexual harassment is absolutely inconceivable to me.  I am asking each of you council members to try and imagine if that had happened to your wife or to your daughter, then honestly try and convince me that you wouldn’t feel outraged at the complete lack of discipline that resulted – except that is for the one person, Officer Kevin Johnson, who actually tried to do what was morally right and that is the one person who is facing termination.  Another impact of the actions of Randy Williams (besides wasted taxpayer dollars which should not go unmentioned) is the damage to the reputation of this department as a whole.  Having jeopardized the reputation of this department has, in fact, jeopardized the safety of our police officers.  Perception is everything and the perception of our department today is weak and unstable.  That is an impact to the safety of our officers who, quite frankly, experience enough threat and danger in their daily jobs without this added element.  Their effectiveness in the field has been jeopardized and as a direct result of the conduct of Randy Williams.  In my opinion, there is only one solution to this problem and that is removing Randy Williams from his position.  Our officers need and deserve a leader they can look up to and respect.  We, as citizens, are grateful that elected city officials will make it their personal responsibility to hold the chief accountable for his actions.  No one should be above the law despite their rank in the system.  Our officers need to be a primary concern to this council.  They have been wronged, and we look to you to make this right.  Your understanding of the significance of our concern is appreciated.  Thank you”.

Nicole Robinson
16610 South Main Street, Galesville

“My husband has been a police officer here for 11 years, and I’m sure many people are wondering right now why they are not voicing their concerns about the department; and the reason is because they can’t.  They fear retaliation and punishment by administration for speaking up as concerned citizens as well as law abiding police officers.  By voicing their concerns, they would also be violating many policies that Mr. Williams has implemented over the past few years.  Mr. Williams has made a policy stating that an officer must speak to their immediate supervisor about concerns first – they cannot go to a supervisor above them even if that reporting supervisor is one they have a problem with or a concern about.  The officers are also banned from going to City Hall for any reason without first asking permission from their supervisor.  So I ask you, how can they bring up concerns about administration to City Hall if they can’t even go into City Hall without a supervisor knowing.  The officers have filled out a questionnaire given to them by the Police and Fire Commission regarding morale and what changes they felt needed to be done to improve the department.  My question to the City Council is:  Whatever happened to that questionnaire and who is doing anything about what was suggested?  And oddly enough, if those officers were given the same questionnaire today, they would be violating the rules and regulations policy and could be reprimanded for filling it out.  Another issue is a policy that Mr. Williams has implemented forbidding the police officers to associate with anyone that is under criminal investigation.  Randy Williams was under criminal investigation for six weeks and continued to work and speak with the officers during this time.  Why did the City Council allow Williams to continue working (thus putting officers in violation of rules and regulations policy) as it is necessary to speak with him for fear of discipline if they do not.  What puzzles me most is how Mr. Williams can violate policy after policy and not get written up or put on administrative leave for his actions.  Did he notify his supervisor when he was under criminal investigation?  He continued to work.  If any patrol officer was in that situation, they would be put on administrative leave immediately.  He did not pursue an investigation into a sexual harassment case – which could be a felony crime, depending on what the investigation uncovered.  Why?  Because the Mayor handled the investigation himself.  Is he more trained in investigative work than the investigators and staff of the Onalaska Police Department?  As a woman, I am appalled that this type of conduct can go virtually unpunished in any business setting, much less a city office.  The administration of the OPD needs to be held to its highest standard as the officers, if not a higher standard, since they are the leaders of this department.  There is currently a captain that does not support Williams in his actions against the officers; and with his new reorganization plan, Williams will most likely be able to successfully remove him from a position of authority.  The writing seems to be on the wall – that if someone does not agree with Williams, they will likely be disciplined, demoted, or terminated.  Is this the type of environment the City of Onalaska promotes and fosters for its employees?  Department morale will never be the same until changes are made and the Chief is reprimanded or fired for his policy violations and actions.  The Onalaska Police Department Administration slogan should be, ‘Do as I say - Not as I do’.  I ask that you, the City Council, take a deeper look at the issues facing this department and ask yourself where the problem really lies  - with Williams or with almost every other officer in the department.  Thank you for your time”.

Tracey Proctor

“I am wife of Rick Proctor who has worked with Onalaska PD for six years.  We stand before you tonight as people trying to make a difference for a department in crisis.  We ask you to be open in hearing us as you are the people with the power to make the difference – the change.  You see, the right to speak on their own behalf was so conveniently taken away from the officers of this department by a chief who desires to be the only one heard.  I want to speak to you tonight as you are council members with families.  Families who would also be affected if you were to endure on a daily basis the sort of hostile work environment this Chief of Police has created.  I am a firm believer that morale starts at the top.  Randy Williams has held the power to remedy the situation and restore peace to his workplace as an effective leader would.  He has not done so.  In fact, he has so eloquently stated to his officers that morale is not his problem.  He has not only chosen not to address the morale issues within this department, but he has made it his personal goal to unnecessarily seek out ridiculous reasons to either discipline or terminate his own officers – good officers with good intentions – of protecting this community every day they come to work.  In turn, he has destroyed the department further.  This has nothing to do with these officers complaining about being critiqued in their work.  It has everything to do with them worrying on a daily basis whether or not today will be the day they are sent home in administrative leave and face termination.  It seems as though Mr. Williams has been so consumed with seeking out wrongful discipline with officers and so much time and money has been spent towards proceedings necessary for him to do so.  I have to wonder who is running the department.  I would like to speak to you as a professional in this community who also works with the public in a similar manner to these fine officers.  I can say with confidence that working in public service holds stressors of its own on many levels and I could not for one minute imagine doing it without the support of my supervisors and management staff.  I see the physical toll this is taking on our officers and the stress it has placed upon our families.  You see – we have the right to speak to each other and now we speak to you.  Please hear us when we ask for your help in resolving the crisis situation occurring at Onalaska Police Department.  I am in full support of an outside arbitrator assessing this out-of-control situation.  Thank you for your consideration”.

Geri Johnson

“My husband is Kevin Johnson.  My letter is not quite as well written as theirs because of the current situation that my husband is in.  At this time I would like to give you a little bit of a background.  Kevin joined the police department in 1987 as a clerk.  In 1988, he became a patrol officer.  In the following years Kevin has become very involved in the union, being the president for 13 of those years.  During these years he has sat down with the chief and helped in the modification of the rules and regulations of the department – many of which are still standing today.  He has been involved with many contract negotiations, arbitrations, and was union representative for the officers when there was a need.  Kevin is very intelligent, has excellent problem solving skills, job knowledge, and exceptional people skills – young and old.  These officers over the years have become accustomed to going to Kevin for guidance and advice concerning issues within.  They all know that Kevin is trustworthy, stands up for what he believes in, and has always stood side by side for his fellow officers and backed them, including some of the current administration.  You see these men and women of this department are family to us.  We enjoy having them come over to our home and 97% of these people on this department have been welcomed in our home.  Over the years, including members, also of the administration.  Whether it be new hire, an issue, or a friendly drop by to talk about hunting or fishing, we will always welcome them.  During these visits, I have listened to these officers.  I can tell you the issues that we are dealing with today have started a long time ago.  They could have all been dealt with when they occurred, but many of these officers were afraid to come forward because of fear of retaliation or discipline.  Being the wife of an officer, I feel that the information I (we) hold does not matter in the eyes of the Chief, City Attorney, or even the City Council.  I am here to tell you that the information I (we) hold as valuable and needs to be known.  I am sick and tired of hearing about the childish antics and whining you all claim these officers do.  These officers are professional and do their job.  Kevin, alone, has found a missing dog for out of town visitors who were frantic to find him, consoling families of suicide victims and accident victims, fire victims, domestic abuse victims, and being able to jump into a septic system to rescue a victim who was overcome by the fumes while he was trying to unclog a pipe and then performing CPR, only to later console that family.  Kevin has also been praised by some of you who now sit on the panel before us.  Some of you have thanked him, not once, twice, but three times, for the way he has handled situations that have occurred.  But you are the first ones to belittle, degrade, and drag their names through the mud.  Yes, I am a police officer’s wife.  I am a police officer’s wife – I will stand and fight for him to make a better workplace if that is what is in our future.  In closing, I want to read what a former supervisor of Kevin’s had to say about him.  This was sent into the LaCrosse Tribune to the editor.  I am only going to read one paragraph.  This is from Bob Muth who was a former investigator/sergeant:  I retired in 2002 from the Onalaska Police Department as I had 30 years credit.  I retired not because I was tired of the work or the love of serving my community, but tired of harassment, intimidation, and horrible working conditions.  Conditions these officers and their families suffer every day.  If we have so many bad officers, isn’t that the reflection of the administration?  I was the supervisor of many of these officers, including Officer Kevin Johnson, and found him to be the most outstanding, professional, police officer in my over 30 years of police work.  Kevin has ethics, morals, and values we, as citizens, want in every police officer.  These are the same values that are missing in the current supervisors.  Thank you”.

Kate Meredith
23951 8th Street, Trempealeau

“My husband is a police officer with the Onalaska Police Department.  His name is Chris Danou – he is Officer 319.  He served this police department for the last 7 years and for the last four of those years as Police School Liaison Officer.  Up until this year, his record was clean and spotless.  I think you’ve heard plenty this evening about how we as a group feel about what’s going on at the department and how deeply it is affecting us at home.  I want to ask, again, that you recognize that we – unlike has been printed in the papers as quotes – this is not trivial.  We are not childish and we are not vindictive.  We have serious concerns that need to be addressed.  We are deeply concerned about the working conditions that our husbands and wives are subjected to every day.  When my husband decided to become a police officer, I scratched my head because I thought I’d married a wildlife biologist.  And when I saw him go through the training and enjoy what he was doing and then got the job here at Onalaska, to see how satisfying it was for him to do good in the community – to do good in the schools – that’s what I take pride in.  I am proud of the job that he does, and he is proud of the job that he does.  That has changed and that is why I’m standing up today.  He no longer enjoys going to work.  He dreads the working conditions, and the administration has done its best to undermine these relationships at the school where he works.  I ask you to seriously consider just the facts – a few facts are all you need to assign an arbitrator or somebody to look into this.  The Chief of Police was under criminal investigation for 6 weeks – he was aware of that investigation – and in that time suddenly three of the four officers that filed that complaint, came under scrutiny from the department.  Three of the four officers had internal investigations started on them, complete with reading their rights.  Another captain was also written up and his job is currently in jeopardy and another officer, as you heard tonight, was forced to leave the department during that time because of the stresses of these working conditions at the department.  That’s six weeks.  Had the Chief of Police been on administrative leave as he does with every other officer that he is seriously investigating, those would have been at least the six weeks that we would have needed to step back and have a cooling off period and to look seriously at what’s going on in this department.  I, as a former teacher, had I sent half of my students down to the principal’s office, I don’t think it would have been very long before the principal was up taking a very good look at what was going on in my classroom and who, truly was at fault.  I wonder do we really have a bad barrel or do we just have one rotten apple.  I’m asking you to come and check it out – see what’s really going on.  I want to see an independent evaluation made of the administration of this department and I want to see things change so that our husbands and wives can return to doing the job that they enjoyed with the respect and honor due to them in this community.  Thank you for your time – thank you for looking at me”.

Kelly Winjum
N6138 Apple Valley Road

“I’m the wife of Investigator David Winjum, Officer No. 322.  David’s been a police officer in Onalaska for 12 years.  When we met I asked him why he chose Onalaska, and he talked about what a wonderful community it was, the camaraderie at the department – really it was his dream job.  And he’d had other jobs before as a police officer.  This is the one that he really wanted.  No matter how busy, he would always come home and talk about how great his job was, how fulfilling it was, how satisfying, how much he enjoyed working with the guys he worked with.  I’ve been with him since he was a Patrol Officer and then as he worked as a Police School Liaison, and now as an Investigator.  He used to come home so excited about the things that he did and the difference that he made in people’s lives.  Things are different now.  Over the past year, probably longer, he comes home and he’s tense, he’s frustrated, he’s not sleeping at night.  I see him laying there awake next to me and I ask him, ‘What are you thinking about’?  And he says, ‘Work’ -   It’s always work.  He’s having back pain and he’s on a muscle relaxant, which he did report as he’s supposed to.  There was no injury, there was no precipitating cause.  When he went to the doctor, he was told he was having muscle spasms, and I strongly believe that these are related to stress; and the major stress going on in his life right now is his working conditions.  He’s lost 20 pounds.  For the first time in 12 years, he doesn’t want to go to work.  When it gets to the end of the weekend, he doesn’t want to go to work.  And it’s not the job he does.  He loves doing the investigating, he loves working with the community.  It’s the working conditions that he has to deal with every day.  When he comes home from work, I ask him how his day was – I can’t remember the last time he said something other than, ‘Tense’.  He’s not one of the officers that’s been investigated or disciplined, but I can tell you that his working environment is having a negative effect on him.  We had to discuss whether or not I should come and speak out because we both fear that retaliation will happen and that he will start being investigated or disciplined for something.  Some people have laughed at me and said, ‘That won’t happen – he’s an Investigator’.  Well it’s happening to a captain now just for standing up and speaking.  Why should any employee in America have to deal with this kind of fear and not be able to stand up and say something about the changes that need to happen when they’re working in a negative environment?  I’m here to tell you that the changes I have seen in my husband, how he views work and how it has affected our home life, have finally prompted me to take a stand and say how I feel.  These negative working conditions can no longer be tolerated.  I want him to come home and feel thrilled for the work that he is doing and the cohesiveness of the team that he is working with.  I want him to feel like he is working in collaboration with his department, that he has a voice, and that he is being listened to.  Policy 124 is a gag order as far as I can tell.  How can my husband stand up for change if he is not allowed to say anything for fear of termination?  It is obvious from the lack of cooperation that we have experienced in attempting to discuss our concerns with management that further action must be taken.  I fully support bringing in an outside arbitrator. I will not be satisfied until my husband is working in a productive, positive, and unified environment.  I intend to stand along side these other fine citizens until a change is affected.  Thank you”.

Dale Gerbig

“I am a proud husband of Officer Lisa Gerbig.  I am joined here tonight by her father, Scott Frost, who drove three hours to support his daughter and her co-workers.  My wife, Lisa, has been an Onalaska officer for 6 ½ years, a job she is very proud of.  As a police officer myself, I know first hand the stress that comes from this work.  I also understand how important it is to work in a healthy environment with an administration that supports you.  I see day after day the toll that this stressful working environment is taking on my wife, her co-workers, and their families.  I would like to site one example of a thorough investigation conducted by Chief Williams.  Lisa recently received a written reprimand.  She was asked no questions prior to receiving the reprimand.  After Lisa disputed the facts, the Chief then investigated.  The Chief had no other choice but to rescind his reprimand two days later because the Chief knew the information in his reprimand was not factual.  The reprimand never should have been given.  My wife was targeted for reprimand because she has spoken out in support of fellow officers.  This is just one example of the pattern of behavior by the Chief and some of his administration.  What type of officers would we be on the street if we made our decisions and then conducted our investigations afterward.  Mr. Mayor, when you called my home this afternoon, you offered to mediate the situation.  However, I feel an outside source would more objectively provide a solution as you have made it very clear to the media recently that you fully support Chief Williams.  An outside arbitrator can assess the situation and make recommendations for positive change at the Onalaska Police Department.  We will not settle for anything less.  Thank you for your time”.

Donna Hauser

“I am wife of Captain Tim Hauser.  I’m sorry I don’t have anything prepared.  I hadn’t really planned to speak, but these women inspire me.  How did we get here?  This is my opinion.  Twelve years ago when Police and Fire Commission had a chance to hire a decent man by the name of Bill Caruthers.  They looked at him, knew his service to the community, and said we don’t want you.  They hired instead what I like to call, the Pageant Chief – He looks good, he can speak well – no substance.  It isn’t going to matter how many training sessions you send him to, how many seminars you send him to, he is not a leader.  My husband will have been an officer for 30 years in January with a spotless record.  Randy Williams and Jim Bialecki have made his life hell.  You’ve also hired a city attorney that, in my opinion, is going to cost this city hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The first staff meeting that Dawn Harris attended, I remember my husband coming home – I remember the time of day, I remember it was sunny, I remember we were in our dining room.  And he was livid – he said this woman who only a short time been hired – I think he said four months, this is my recollection – said we have bad employees at the City of Onalaska.  And my husband said, no we have very good employees at the City of Onalaska who sometimes make mistakes.  And Randy Williams said nothing.  And now it seems that this council has passed a budget.  For the past six years my husband has made that budget – Randy Williams has not made the budget – my husband.  Did any of you find it a little strange that my husband was not here last night.  He was told that he didn’t need to come.  And then we get up and we read the paper and it looks like my husband’s going to be demoted.  My husband is a good man.  If any of you would like to know what’s going on, you need to ask because he is under the gag order that these women have been talking about, he is under a threat of termination, the loss of his pension because of Randy Williams and Dawn Harris.  And Mr. Bialecki, why do you allow this to go on?  This council should be ashamed”.

Angela Lund

“Wife of Officer Terry Lund, No. 325.  Terry has 13 plus years of service with the City of Onalaska and let me just say I was not going to speak until Mrs. Hauser just stepped up to the plate, and I owe it to my husband.  To run a record loud and clear, to date my husband has not been written up, he has not been investigated, he has not been sent home.  I am here speaking as a deeply concerned wife.  And I speak to you for myself.  If any of you have questions about what I say or what I put in writing, you can direct them directly to me.  My husband and I share 19 years together and he never apologizes for my opinion.  Obviously I have no problem calling this mess exactly as I see it.  If you want to talk to the Police and Fire Commissioner and Mr. Mayor about the letter that I sent to them, you’ll see what I’m talking about.  I’m not here to beat around the bush and I will not even try to be politically correct because that is not who I am.  Never, in Terry’s employment at the Onalaska City Police, have I witnessed the pathetic state of affairs that they currently stand.  The absolute lack of true leadership on the part of Randy Williams is completely and totally unacceptable.  I have no confidence in Randy Williams as a leader.  I challenge you to find anyone currently working within the police department (and I’m talking everybody) that respects his leadership, honesty, or integrity.  He is not behaving like a man of honor in any way, which represents the City of Onalaska in a very poor light.  It is sad that due to his complete and total failure to execute any true leadership, his only remaining option is to control the department through fear, intimidation, and harassment on a daily basis.  My husband has been a D.A.R.E. officer here since my son was a baby.  He has the support of many parents.  He deals with staff and administration in every single school.  And you cannot imagine the comments that people are making to him about how ridiculous this is.  And they have been called childish!   Excuse me?  The only true respected leader in the city administration in the Police Department is Tim Hauser – I will go on record saying that.  You ask any of the guys – they will stand behind him.  He is a man of honor, integrity, he stands up for what is right.  Even if he disagrees with an officer, he will look them in the eye – face to face – he will not e-mail them.  He will not call them on the phone or send someone to do the job for him.  He’ll sit down and look them in the eye.  That’s what a true leader is.  He’s respected, and I’m here to tell you that he’s the only one that is going to be able to bring the Onalaska Police Department back to what it once was.  Because right now, we are in a downward spiral.  Randy Williams has taken the level to an all time low.  And I ask you all - Clarence Stellner, you were there for us as a family four years ago when we lost our house in the fire – I ask you all to step up to the plate and do the job that you were voted in to do.  Who does the chief answer to?  This I want to know.  Who writes him up?  Who sends him home?  We are all asking you to be held accountable for what you’re representing here and we’re not going to go away.  Thank you”.  

Angela Page
N5633 Oak Hills Drive

“I am the extremely proud wife of Officer Jim Page.  He is a field training officer for the city.  He is a drug recognition expert for the city, and he is an instructor certified by the state.  He’s been here for almost 11 years.  When Jim was first hired, we thought our dreams had come true.  We were able to support our family.  Jim took pride in his job, and at that time I believed what I now think is a charade that Randy Williams put on.  With all due respect, I don’t understand what’s happened.  What happened to Randy Williams?  What happened to some of the sergeants?  These people were decent.  We used to have cook outs, we could talk with each other, and now people are terrified to look at each other - Terrified.  It’s sad.  It’s really sad.  And the attorney representation is a joke.  Let me make some points in case you’ve missed them in the news, in case you’ve missed them in the letters and e-mails that we’ve been sending.  The officers have nowhere to go except through us.  Policies have been approved by the Council.  I don’t know – I’m not here to stand here and say you’re all in on some big political scandal.  I think perhaps you haven’t known the facts or known the motivations behind some of those things.  There was a questionnaire sent to the officers by a member of the Police and Fire Commission.  It was our understanding that the information compiled anonymously from that was then turned over to the mayor and handed to the chief and nothing has been done since.  Nothing - except for negative repercussions on our spouses.  Our Human Resources Representative - and I am not picking on anyone personally - how that person can be paid by the city to sit behind the chief and behind the attorney, yet she is the very person these officers are supposed to go to if they have a sexual harassment complaint, if they have a need for a medical leave.  How are they supposed to be able to trust anyone?  The city attorney, I think her actions speak louder than words and that’s been addressed by many people here.  I have a lot of questions and I don’t know who has the answers, but I am curious to know that you’re working forward to those answers.  You’ve heard a lot of us speak – some of us have been more polite – some of us have been not so polite, and I appreciate your willingness just to listen because you know what, our emotions are high.  The stakes are extremely high here.  So I think you are going to hear from some of us more than some polite dissatisfaction with the working conditions, and I do apologize if anyone is offended by that, but I also think it needs to be out there.  My husband is a decent, decent, man and when he first started, Randy Williams allowed these officers to volunteer for Special Olympics which is very near and dear to my heart.  We raised a 16-year-old who weighs 50 pounds and functions at about a 12-month level.  He is profoundly, profoundly disabled.  He just had his fourth open heart surgery this year.  We need support.  We need friends.  We need cohesiveness in this department.  My husband has intentionally not put in for sergeant when that opportunity has presented itself because he was terrified about the man he would become.  He was terrified that he would lose his integrity and his dignity and the honesty that he believes in.  I want to know why more than half of these officers should be made to feel that they are doing wrong, that they should be punished, that they should sit home, that they should lose their jobs when Randy Williams still sits at his desk.  Why all those officers with dozens of years of experience that they have.  The thousands and thousands of dollars invested in them by the city, the training that we’ve talked about, the years of service - I think it’s really just sad.  I don’t know how else to say it but you have to do something.  We are here not because we’re embittered, upset with some other spouses.  Just this spring Randy Williams stood by the meat department in Festival Foods and shook my hand, and you told me what a wonderful husband I had and what a proud man you were of him and the amazing job he was doing – is that not correct?  Shook my hand.  And when we picketed here a week and a half ago, I saw the chief look through the blinds and leave the building.  I would like to know what kind of leader leads by fleeing.  I would like to know why there was a press conference in response to some of our concerns held in a city attorney office in the City of LaCrosse.  Are you not representing the City of Onalaska?  Were you not hired or elected here?  Do we not have a voice?  Do we not have a right to ask these questions?  And, again, I ask you if you’re upset that we’ve come to the city council meeting, if you’re upset that we’ve gone to the media, look at the other options and see that they have all been played out.  The Police and Fire Commission has been involved.  Mary Anderson was contacted by a citizen and asked why the police chief remained at work when he was under criminal investigation.  She said she didn’t know that he was under criminal investigation.  Yet that fact was testified to at Officer Johnson’s hearings.  Mary Anderson sat right there and listened - or did she?  We don’t know what else to do.  My husband several years ago got a police star for bravery and I would much rather have him than an award because we lost him at that time or some kind of cash settlement then or now.  My kids - we raised five boys – they need someone they can believe in.  Not a coward.  Someone they can believe in.  And because my husband tries to most silently lead, he has also been brought under fire – he is one of the three that faced some kind of investigation or punishment during the six weeks that Randy Williams remained in his office while he was being criminally investigated – three of the four.  Can I directly prove that that was retribution?  No.  But, boy my kids sure figured it out.  My youngest is 7.  When my husband got that award, it was because he dragged a criminal out of the Mississippi River who had kidnapped and been systematically raping a woman in the back of a van as they drove across the country and videotaped it.  He got an award.  Do you know what he did?  He did break a policy.  I don’t know if it’s a policy or not, but basic police officer rules – he took off his gun belt.  He took off his gun belt and got in that water.  That’s brave.  And no time during that investigation or when he received the award (and Randy Williams shook our hand) was my husband called under the gun because he didn’t do things just exactly how someone else might have done them.  It’s called police officer discretion and it’s slowly and systematically being taken away from these officers.  My husband is a defense and arrest tactics instructor and he knew what he was doing.  Nobody got hurt, and in the end the bad guys went to jail.  I think that’s what we all want.  In closing, I am almost done – I would like to read a little bit of an e-mail that I got.  This is from the Viterbo University Servant Leadership web site.  A servant leader is someone who first serves and then leads.  Does not become a boss to boss people around or lead by intimidation, but truly serves, truly works at or even below the level of the person they lead.  And by that example, a change is affected.  This is Eland Miso and is a legal expert on the topic of leadership.  And I guess in closing, all we’re asking is for you to take a look at that leadership – is this management or is it leadership?  We just want a leader.  Not everyone can become a leader because it requires a heavy responsibility.  It requires justice, not a thirst for power, fame, or position.  Leadership is based on trust and focused on integrity, commitment, and compassion.  It is an unwritten contract between a leader and his or her followers to insure the best guidance, protection, and just and equal treatment of these followers.  Also, a true leader must make sure he or she behaves in such a way to deserve trust.  Following the righteous path, keeping promises, and bringing hope to the people.   The reason servant leader is one who is modest, humble, and aware of the needs of those he leads.  Today those two characteristics of modesty and humility are often absent from current leaders.  Human beings have a social window through which they see others and others see them.  If leaders have a high social window, then they will think themselves as superior and attempt to make themselves taller through their pride and vanity.  However, if this social window is set down low, then they may exhibit humility and reach out to help others and to let them see their outstretched hand.  Leaders are people’s masters but ironically the ones who serve the people, not becoming leaders to be served.  People can be led only by serving those in need of guidance.  Thank you”.

Barbara Campa

“I am Randy Williams’s mother-in-law.  To listen to this is difficult; however, Randy Williams is the least vindictive person I have ever known.  This has become somewhat of a soap opera.  It would seem to me that had these women been in – I have been to all of the hearings.  I heard both of these girls testify who had the cameras beneath their desks.  Both of them did not want to press charges.  They felt it was a joke.  I can understand a feminist’s viewpoint in that they felt this probably should not have happened.  And it should not have happened.  However, I think the attitude here tonight is much the inmates wanting to run the institution”.

(Outburst from the audience)

Mayor Bialecki stated, “Just a minute.  Barbara, if you want to continue on now.  People have things to say – not everyone is going to agree with that.  I got a few hits on the head tonight here.  I’m going to sit here and take it, but I’m going to listen.  I would hope we give everyone respect and let them speak.  Continue”.

Barbara continued, “And at any rate, this has been difficult I’m certain for everyone involved – the officers, for Randy, for you, for all of you – for the Police and Fire Commission - for everyone.  But I kind of think Randy would be remiss in his duty if he did not stand up and do what he thought was right.  I had no intention when I came here this evening – I have never stood before a microphone before in my life.  But I do feel that I have some input.  I am married to a man that was a police officer for 29 years – retired from the Madison Police Department as a detective supervisor.  I saw many, many, many things go awry in the Police Department and also the Madison Fire Department and they were union involved incidents.  There were things that often-times split the department right down the middle.  But the bottom line is, if you have a man as chief, he is the leader.  And whether they want to say that they don’t like the manner in which he leads, I’m here to tell you, I don’t know about that aspect of it – but for them to say Randy is out to get them, I can tell you right now is blatantly wrong.  That is not Randy’s style.  Randy loves Onalaska – he’s been very involved in his community.  He started this Polar Plunge, and yes, I am his advocate.  But I’m telling you Randy Williams is a nice, honorable, and honest man and whether they like hearing this or not, I’m sorry.  But it’s very hard to listen to this back stabbing, etc., etc., etc. and not stand up and have my point of view heard also even though I don’t live here in Onalaska.  Thank you for listening”.

Ron Espe

“I feel at a little disadvantage tonight.  Obviously I’m not as young or as pretty as the team that you have heard from for the last hour and so I’ll just have to try to make do with that.  Also, I have not had a secretary for 10 years now and so I didn’t have anybody to type up my comments to distribute them.  So, I’ll try to talk as clearly as I can and hopefully nobody will get lost in the process.  My name is Ron Espe.  I’m a property owner and a citizen, a resident, and a voter in the City of Onalaska.  As a little bit of background – I’m the old school, which is obvious I guess to everybody that’s here.  But when I was growing up in this town, we had a population of less than 2,000 people and we had one police officer.  His name was Art Walker.  He even provided his own automobile.  And I’m not sure if his title was chief or captain or patrolman or officer or what it was, but he was all we had – that’s what it was here.  Well then I left Onalaska and went out and tried to earn a living wandering around the country, and when I retired, we moved back here.  And my what a change.  We now have a very substantial police department and equipment and population, obviously – about 10 times what it was when I was growing up.  When I got back here, and I suppose it’s – I felt when I moved back here after I retired from my regular work that I had wandered around the country and lived in a lot of different states and worked for a number of different companies and I bragged about being from Onalaska in every place that I was.  And so anybody that worked with me over those years, know where my home town was and I said, it’s a great place - and my wife and I came back on purpose.  When we did I decided that I wanted to try to give something back to this town because I really did feel that it was a great place to grow up at that time.  And one of the first things that I did was when I saw a write up in the paper about the Citizens Police Academy in Onalaska, I called City Hall and I got on the list; and for the next available class that was held, I got to go to that, and it was an outstanding experience.  I was very impressed at the time about the quality of the officers that we have in our police department and with the training that they undergo and how thorough it was and how many things they had to be looking out for now that didn’t exist when I was growing up in this town originally.  I was very impressed with the quality of the people that were working here in our police department and with the organization that they had. One of the next things that came up and I was fortunate again, there was an article in the paper, and I was able to get my name in front of the mayor to belong to the Senior Coalition Committee – I’m one of the original people of which I’m still active with.  And that gives us the opportunity – us, I say is my generation – a chance to have some communications with the people at City Hall and find out what you’re doing and why you’re doing it and we then, also get the opportunity to provide some ideas as to some of the things you ought to think about.  Well last spring, and I don’t remember the exact date, but last spring there was what I would call a rash – there was I think only three occasions it happened where police officers in this general part of the state were subjected to attacks or violence and stuff by people in their duty – one was in Onalaska, one was in LaCrosse, and I think the third one was in either Sparta or Tomah.  I don’t remember exactly now.  But these are all cases where police officers in the normal course of their duty were required to defend themselves or take severe action.  After that happened, I contacted Police Chief Williams and asked him if he would come and give a talk to the Senior Coalition Group about what happened in these incidents, why did they happen, is there anything that we, as citizens, could do to assist in some way or anything that we could do to make sure that this didn’t become a kind of a standard that was going to be happening.  He came, gave us a good explanation, detailed explanations of all three of those situations, and told us about what they have in force here.  They have a use of force policy that the city has.  And it’s really very detailed – it’s quite long, it’s a number of pages that they have that they all are trained in and have to understand and be familiar with.  And one of the things that the chief pointed out was that the reason it is so involved and complex is because of the legal restrictions that affect us in a lot of ways now that we don’t like necessarily, but also he made a point, one of the things he said was you have to remember there are no rules for the bad guys.  The bad guys do whatever they please, but when we respond as law enforcement officers, we have to be sure that we stay within the guidelines and the limits.  And so it’s a complex situation and it requires action that is well thought out and planned and trained for in advance.  But the point that I want to make at this hearing is that when the chief was there talking to our group – to the Senior Coalition Committee - he went out of his way to tell us how he thought that his police department was well trained and well informed and were doing a very good job and that his primary concern in this area of response was about the officers’ safety when they’re going through.  Another thing I should bring up, and my notes are incomplete, so it’s a good thing you didn’t have copies.  I’m not here to rehash the details of everything that went on in this hearing that took place in this very room in the very near past.  That was done and I sat in on it for the better part of one day and listened to the testimony that went on and so on and that was all done in front of an impartial hearing officer.  And that person listened to – I don’t know how many days – three days or whatever it was of testimony – and reached a decision which is my understanding from what I read in the paper, was a favorable decision for police chief, and I don’t intend to go through any of those details again.  I just wanted to point out some things – the relationship that I have developed with Chief Williams since I got back here and point out to everybody that we are not neighbors, we don’t live in the same neighborhood or side by side, we are not related in any way.  We do go to the same church, but it’s that one across the street and that’s not hardly an intimate little social clique that’s over there.  We sometimes are at the same service, but there’s a few hundred other people in the same room so even if we’re at the same service, most of the time we really don’t even get a chance to shake hands and say hello afterwards, so we’re not connected there.  But in the years that I’ve been involved with some of the activities in the city and other things, I think that Randy and I have become friends.  He and Lori and I have seated ourselves in the same general area at some of the high school football games, but that’s about the limit of our social contacts.  But we have met and discussed a number of issues here and I think that we share many of the same ideas on what is best for the City of Onalaska.  One example, and it’s just one that comes to my mind, is Chief Williams and our former Fire Chief had expressed an interest in the idea of getting more of the automatic heart defibrillator machines to have available in the city.  And so I met with the two of them here in their offices in the city because I had an idea at least of one place that might be able to provide some additional financing for them if they were going to look at getting more on some of the fire equipment or in some of the police cars.  So that’s just an example of one of the things that we have discussed.  I guess the most important thing that I feel that I want to present to you folks before this train gets running down the wrong track too fast is that there is no room for anarchy in any strong organization.  Now I don’t care if you’re talking about a football team or a private company or a police department, or the United States Army, you cannot allow individual people to go off in their own direction and do their own things.  You cannot be efficient, you cannot be effective, and you will lose track of who is doing what and how it’s happening.  There is no room for anarchy – for individuals making individual decisions.  You can’t have them deciding what shift they want to work or what days they want to work or what uniform they want to wear, or what color they want to paint their squad cars – you can’t do that.  When Brett Favre goes into the huddle for the Packers, (most days anyway) he’s the guy that calls the play and calls the snap count and the individual members of the team can’t decide - I like three better than two or I’d like to go east instead of west or something.  You got to have one person whose leading any organization to make sure they stay effective.  And when people get the idea of anarchy which says I can make my own individual decisions whenever I want to , when that gets carried to an extreme, then you get the feeling that they don’t think that anybody has the right to look over their shoulder or to tell them when they have to get back in line.  And you cannot be an effective organization, no matter what it is, you have to have that leadership.  I got to know Chief Williams reasonably well in the few years that we’ve had contact with each other here, and in my personal opinion, there is no way that he would ever make any staff personnel decisions based on what political party the individual might belong to or support, what church affiliation that individual might have as to whether it’s friendly or unfriendly to the chief, or what the ethnic heredity of an individual might be.  Because I’ve talked to Randy a number of times about how he ought to give more credence to the Norwegians, and so far I haven’t had any luck at all in that area.  But I’m joking.  My point is, he would not take those into consideration at all or what skin color an individual might have or what their background might be.  The only consideration that he ever has used is what is the best for the City of Onalaska – what’s the best thing that he can do and his department can do for the City of Onalaska.  In closing, I wanted to use an old adage and I’ll beat you to the line that I wouldn’t know anything except old ones, obviously.  And it might be a little crude, but I think that it touches on the basic philosophy that might have triggered all of this to do which has been going on for some time.  So try to make some adjustments for my lack of speaking skills to you people and the way I can put it without antagonizing the whole world, but look at the basic idea of it and the old adage was:  You do not let the inmates run the asylum – the running of things has to come from the top and it has to be directed, and you have to have the authority to be able to do that.  You cannot allow everybody up and down the ranks to run their own show.  Thank you for your attention and for your time this evening”.

Ald. Oldani Wulf stated, “I’d just like to add that prior to Alderperson Kim Smith and I coming to council, she and I and also Mr. Espe along with about 20 plus other people spent 2 ½ years on the swimming pool advisory too.  So I just want to thank Mr. Espe for his time and commitment and many, many hours in meetings for those two and a half years”.

Megan McClusky

“I’m Dan McClusky’s wife.  I live in Galesville, Wisconsin.  I wasn’t going to speak tonight because I’m not feeling well but I just felt I needed to stand up and say a few things on behalf of my husband.  He’s been with the police department for I think 13 years, and before that he was with the New York City Police Department – went through their academy, which is probably one of the most rigorous thorough police academies in the world, so he knows what he’s doing.  He, last spring was in an incident where he captured a guy, he stopped a car, got a guy out who was a wanted sex offender, got in a little scuffle with him, has an 11 inch scar across his head now because of that.  The only supervisor that came to see him was Troy Miller who was off duty.  The others only – no one said anything to him.  Chief Williams called him the next day just to find out what happened.  He never said how are you doing.  I understand it was a difficult situation – nothing – just wanted to know what happened.  Then, to top things off, they took family leave time away from him when he was hurt on the job.  He was laying on the ground, bleeding profusely, and held on to that guy.  And if it’s Randy William’s idea to do what’s better for the City of Onalaska is to get rid of an officer like that whose going to risk his life and hang onto a wanted sex offender, then I really don’t know where he’s going with this.  This gentleman, I don’t know what his name is, he’s right, we need a leader - but he is not a leader.  And to call these people inmates and to thing that they’re running the thing – it’s absurd.  I just can’t believe the people that have come up to speak tonight and say that they’re calling them inmates and childish.  The whole thing is childish.  And I just wanted to clarify a couple points about the sexual harassment thing – the victim does not have to be a person harassed but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct and that’s because it sets a tone.  It sets a tone for the other women in the department to say, well, she had a camera under her desk.  You have to set precedence and say we will not stand for this.  It doesn’t matter if those women decided not to press charges.  I really wish somebody would sit down and say, all right, we need to hire somebody to come in and settle this situation with an outside arbitrator.  This is getting out of control, and I really don’t know why you people haven’t done anything to this point.  That’s all I have to say.  Thanks”.

Bob Muth
317 Spruce Street

“2002 I retired from the Onalaska Police Department because I had 30 years credit.  I could retire at age 53.  I did not want to retire.  I loved my job and I loved this community.  I retired because I couldn’t take it any longer and that’s why I left.  One thing you have to remember.  I didn’t prepare a speech – I just came to see what’s going on.  These wives are talking because when you become a police officer, there’s a policy that you cannot speak out about the department, so you lose your first amendment rights when you become a police officer.  They can’t be up here talking, so their wives have to do it for them.  I’ve been watching the stuff that’s been going on in the papers and I am utterly and totally ashamed of this community for allowing this activity to go on and I’m begging you to do something about it – stop this.  I’m a taxpayer here too and I’m paying – we’re going to be paying huge amounts of money that could have been used for a lot more benefits to this community – it’s out of control.  These officers can’t go to the newspapers and be quoted.  The Mayor can say something and it’s quoted – the chief can say something and it’s quoted along with their pictures in the paper.  These officers do not have that privilege.  The only power they have is their wives trying to stand up and try to shout what’s going on here and I’m begging you please listen.  Thank you”.  

Bob Millis
609 Ridgeview Drive

“Listening to all of the situations that has gone on, it becomes a very evident situation here that we have not only a problem internally with the interpretation of the police department but the interpretation of the policies that the police department enforces.  I believe that obviously we have a great, great police department, and I would hate to see it disintegrate to any extent of what they are indicating it has already.  The people that belong to the police force obviously put their lives at risk.  Fortunately, Onalaska we feel that we have a very safe community.  But the police department obviously helps make that happen.  Now these ladies, they are speaking on behalf of their husbands which is great – they bring out the different things and the issues of health, safety, effectiveness, possible injury to their husbands, and I appreciate that.  Like Bob Muth just said, he says one of the policies is that the police officers cannot speak for theirselves.  That everything has to come through either the Mayor or the Chief of Police.  Maybe that needs to be changed.  I don’t know who sets these policies.  Is it the Council, or is it the Fire and Police Commission?  Somebody asked the question earlier, who does the police chief report to?  Does he report to the Fire and Police Commission or does he report directly to the mayor?  A lot of the situations here and I’ve been writing down a few notes, and I appreciate the fact that the officers’ wives are standing behind them, however, I myself, feel I have to stand behind the chief of police.  He is the ultimate person who interprets the policies and runs the department.  Now these people signed on way back when, I don’t know.  But when they signed on, they appeared to be and join what they were going to get involved in - they knew what they were going to get involved in.  The question is, what has changed?  Has the policies changed?  Has the interpretation of the policies changed, or have the people changed?  Who runs the department?  There’s only one person in my opinion and that is the Chief of Police which today is Randy Williams, and I do support him.  Thank you”.

Chief Williams said, “I’ve sat through this hearing tonight, and I think it’s invaluable to sit through that.  I believe that all opinions are valued and are important, and it reminds me when I first came here 12 years ago.  There were complaints from numerous parents concerning some of the behavior of officers and some of the policies and the way that young adults and young children were treated in this community.  And I met with them and I met with them in a meeting room and there were dozens of parents.  And I will tell you I took a beating back then, but I did it because it’s important to hear the voices of all concerned.  And so I value what’s being said here on both sides of this.  But I’m going to share with you something that’s important and I think is being lost in all of this.  Discipline and discipline-related issues are difficult.  They are difficult for all of us.  They’re difficult, they’re unpleasant, and they’re uncomfortable.  They’re no fun to be involved in.  And I want to share with you the fact that over the course of the years, I have given recognition to police officers – to some of these officers that were mentioned tonight and to officers who have been disciplined by me, including the officer that was injured on duty.  I put him in and I wrote him up for a commendation because he took an injury as a result of his work.  And I’m more than happy to share that with you.  But I don’t want to get into all the details.  What I would like to share is this.  I would love to have a positive relationship with the union.  In fact, I’ve offered many opportunities over the course of the year, those opportunities to meet and engage and discuss.  But, however, I will not do that and have that type of relationship at the expense of my other duties and responsibilities as they relate to discipline within this department.  I don’t have a choice – I have a duty and I have a responsibility to investigate citizen complaints, to look into misconduct and misbehavior.  And I will not be bullied or intimidated from doing my job – that’s my responsibility and I believe it’s the expectations of the citizens that I serve here in Onalaska.  I will hold officers accountable, and I will also recognize them for good work done.  And as you heard from a wife tonight that I shook her hand and commended her husband in a grocery market because that’s what I do.  I do give recognition when it’s appropriate, but I also will address the negative aspects of my job.  Doing my job as chief sometimes requires me to make difficult decisions.  Decisions that are unpopular at times, but I believe are for the public good.  I will not be swayed from doing my job.  I’ve heard numerous comments tonight about bringing in a mediator to talk and discuss these things, and I am open to that.  I am not afraid to do that because I think it’s important.  And I think what will come out is not just half the story or half the truth or half the information – I think what’s going to come out is the truth – and I’m all for that and I support that.  And I’m willing to follow the direction of the mayor and the City Council in what they decide to do.  But I just let you know that I proudly serve this community, I proudly serve the citizens and the taxpayers of this community, and I am honored and proud to be able to do that”.  

Mayor Bialecki asked if there was anyone else wishing to address the council.

Mayor Bialecki requested members of the audience to remain to obtain a possible outcome to the issues addressed at tonight’s meeting.

Mayor Bialecki said, “At one point I had thought possibly about maybe discussing some of these issues in Closed Session with the Council as a whole.  Now the question is to do something about it, yes you will do it, you will evaluate it, but there’s a process in place for me, too.  I don’t have the authority to go here and do as I darn well please or anything like that.  I do not have the authority to run amok and fire people, hire people, and on and on and on and do as I darn well please.  I have to account to this board, too.  Nonetheless, in seeing a lot going on in the last couple of weeks, hearing people here tonight, both sides of the fence – different opinions too, as well as input from the streets.  What I’m asking for the council’s blessing on this evening and, of course, I did talk to Chief earlier this evening is that from this point forward, the chief will be running this department and setting his policies and interpreting them with his department under the guidance of the City Council.  Mrs. Harris will not become involved with it anymore unless she’s asked to be by the chief.  In addition, it will be the chief’s discretion if issues come up that involve the bargaining unit and that he would feel Mrs. Harris is not appropriate, then he is certainly more than welcome to use Jim Korum, that’s the attorney for the Wisconsin Chief’s Association.  Sometimes I think there might be a happy medium there because I think the representative from WPBA and Mr. Korum have a good understanding of a lot of issues throughout the state and might help find the right answers.  And so I’m saying that too in that if anyone would want a change to come down there, they need to go to my office first.  I’m talking about accountability here and there of significant nature, it’s my obligation along with the chief to bring them back to this body and start with the Finance and Personnel Committee.  Mr. Gerbig, Dale, made a comment back here before about a phone call I made to him, and indeed I did.  The chief and I talked about what I was going to mention here tonight - He’s comfortable with what I’m saying too and it’s very clear, correct Randy”?

Chief Williams answered, “Yes”.

Mayor Bialecki continued, “Thank you.  And the intention was – I wasn’t actually looking for Dale, but actually looking for Lisa because she is a representative to the bargaining unit, at least to make a contact with him then.  What I would like to ask to have done here tonight is for the HR Director to find the names of not arbitrators, but mediators.   And Dale my intent was not to mediate this thing myself – that would be horribly inappropriate, obviously, so the thought I have here is to come up with four people that have a reputation of being honest mediators to propose that back to the bargaining unit to consider that we would come to an agreement on who would be the right mediator to start to look into these.  Because on the one hand I think it was put out clearly to people too that there needs to be accountability in government, communication, etc. there too.  There has to be a happy medium in getting there.  Somehow these things just snowball away and I think that recently the district attorney also made a comment too where he had some frustrations there, too.  He even felt also a mediation process was appropriate.  So I will throw that out and what we’ll do is we’re clear on who will be running the department and who the attorneys may or may not be.  Unless there’s an objection, we’ll get some suggested names, again, of reputable people that have been mediators throughout the state in that we do have to give the bargaining unit an opportunity to discuss.  Using that method I would hope they would, but come to an agreement on an arbitrator and then bring that back to the city’s Finance and Personnel Committee at its regular December meeting.  It’s not the intent of the city to disgrace anybody here and make them feel bad whether you’re a sergeant, a captain, a chief, just a common citizen too.  I think everybody here has taken great pride in the city, in particularly in recent years, to grow and expand as we have and not just as a city but as a region as a whole and I think we’ve done a real good job of this. I do believe that for me sitting here as mayor, for these council members, for our department heads here as well as supporting the staff, all have an obligation to promote the city in a positive light.  And I don’t care if they’re union or not – you all have that obligation to continue to make us be the shining star of western Wisconsin, and we’re going to continue to do that.  Nonetheless, we’ve heard everything from both sides of the coin and to let this to continue on, the mediation process would probably be appropriate.  So thank you all for coming in and you’re welcome to stay for a few more hours if you like – you’re certainly welcome to”.  

For clarification, Mayor Bialecki noted the recommendation is for the HR Director to bring in four credible mediators for everyone to consider and to pick one of those in agreement with the bargaining unit that both sides accept to begin to look at different issues in anticipation of a way to work through the issues.

In response to a question from Ald. Oldani Wulf, Mayor Bialecki indicated this would come before the Finance and Personnel Committee at their December meeting and added, “Keep this in mind, too, that whoever this arbitrator is going to be to represent both sides, it must be approved by the Finance and Personnel Committee and the City Council just as the bargaining unit must approve of that person too - Both have a process to follow”.  

Ald. Gonczy stated, “Just as we go through that, just for the responsibility of the dollars then, some expectations of cost that would be involved.  And as we do have procedures already in place to handle these kind of problems, we have agreements and procedures within the contract, we have policies that deal with personnel issues.  So I’m not opposed to a mediator, I’m just saying there are avenues that have gone through and I’ve sat on this council a long time and I don’t recall that many grievances.  So, I know there’s a lot of animosity right now, but I just don’t want to have undue costs just because we’ve got some people that are upset.   I just want to hear all the facts, I want to hear what our plan is.  I don’t want anybody to have the false expectation that just because they’re asking for a mediator, that that’s going to happen.  Because I need to hear exactly what the steps are going to be, what the costs are going to be.  Because we do have procedures now that could be followed.  If there’s problems, there’s grievances that could be filed under contract, there’s personnel policies that could be followed.  And I’m not opposed to it – I just don’t want anyone to walk out of here expecting that’s what’s going to happen because I think it’s our responsibility as elected officials to sit down and say, listen is this really needed when we hear what the mediator steps are going to be and what the costs are going to be.  So, I’m not sarying I’m not going to be for it, I just don’t want anybody to have false expectations”.

Ald. Giese suggested, “And along the same spirit as hopefully a helpful suggestion that there be a dialogue.  We’ve heard a number of parties that are very interested in what’s going on and I believe they all have the best interests of the city at heart.  But to have that dialogue continue so we can come up with a charge document or a scope of the work so that when the HR Director goes out, there’s a statement of what the situation is, what we hope to accomplish and that way I think we’ll have a better outcome”.

Mayor Bialecki added, “There, too, there might be smaller things here, too, that might trouble people that I’d rather have a mediator to present both sides with.  I think there’s a few comments here tonight that might have been misaligned.  We’ll get into that in the mediation process.  But if a mediator can get us there quicker, rather than hiring two expensive attorneys and crossing swords in the newspaper, I think that method would be inappropriate”.

For the record, Ald. Gonczy said, “I’m not familiar with Policy 124 to the letter, but my door and my phone is always open to every single officer, and I have absolutely had not one officer ever call me.  And I did receive one e-mail from an anonymous officer – I did respond back and I wish that officer would have replied back with me because I asked to meet with that officer in private and I’d be welcome to sit down with any officer and talk about it.  Of course, I work full time too.  But please extend that to all your husbands – I will listen – I will gladly listen and what you say will stay within my brain because it helps me formulate my decisions.  I don’t think that’s in violation of Policy 124 – I think that more deals with going to the media.  And I think that’s any one of us on the Council – I think we’re all here.  So if any of your husbands or any of the officers that are present or wives would like to call me, please do, and we’ll arrange a time to sit down and do it over coffee instead of throwing names at each other”.  

Meeting convened for a short break and reconvened with the president of the council heading the meeting in the Mayor’s absence.

Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Stellner, to reconvene the meeting allowing the president to act as chair until the Mayor returns.  On voice vote, motion carried.

Item 5 - REPORT FROM THE MAYOR.

A. Extension of Cable Agreement – Century Telephone.

Mayor Bialecki reported the negotiation process is ongoing with Century Telephone and the City of LaCrosse in which the City of Onalaska is a joint partner.  Mayor Bialecki recommended extending the present agreement until February 14, 2007, indicating this would be appropriate as there is one more issue to be negotiated.  There are presently two providers of this service wherein one provider offers a listing in the telephone book and the other does not.

Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, to extend the agreement with Century Telephone and the City of LaCrosse.

Ald. Gonczy questioned Attorney O’Flaherty regarding his legal opinion on this issue.

Attorney O’Flaherty indicated that everything is fine as drafted.

On voice vote, motion carried.

B. Update on Cable Commission.

Mayor Bialecki noted this item has been addressed in Item A with regard to the telephone listing.

C. Consideration regarding the Issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds to refund outstanding General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds of the City.

Mayor Bialecki turned this item over to Brad from Baird.

Brad reported, “There was a handout put on your desks just before the meeting.  It looks like this and it’s  a two-page document that gives a summary of a refinancing opportunity of existing debt that the city has in place.  I’ll walk through this and then certainly answer any questions and go into some additional detail if you would like.  What we’re looking at under Point #1 here is a General Obligation Refunding Bond – the estimated issue size is $3,240,000 with maturities beginning October 1 of next year through October 1 of 2021.  The purpose of this obligation would be to refinance three outstanding bonds of the city – these are bonds that were issued back in 1999, 2001, and 2002.  It’s important that I point out that this refinancing does not extend the payments of these obligations or do any restructuring.  We’re keeping the same structure that was initially put in place and just reducing the total payments.  So, in essence, it would be similar to refinancing a home mortgage without extending the term – you’re exchanging a higher rate of interest with a lower rate of interest to reduce overall payments.  

In terms of the timeline before you this evening, you’re considering the plan of finance tonight.  I’ll go through it a little more detail on the second page – what the overall structure is anticipated to look like.  Then with your authorization, Baird will take the necessary steps to bring this to the market place.  We’ll prepare the offering documents, secure a Moody’s Rating, market the obligation, and then lead towards an underwriting of this bond issue.  And I would be back here on December 12 to present interest rates that are available in the final structures and final terms of the obligation at that meeting that evening.  And then it’s anticipated that this would close in 2007.  And it’s important – I just want to take a minute and explain the rationale on that.  The city has borrowed nearly $10 million this year and there is a $10 million cap that the city agreed to maintain for 2006.  And that cap is referred to as bank qualified status.  It does provide for more attractive interest rates as opposed to the city going out and borrowing greater than $10 million in any given year.  So that was part of the strategy that the city made the declaration at the beginning of ’06 that it would maintain bank qualified status.  We cannot issue over $10 million this year.  So by closing this and the key date is the closing date for which year counts towards the bank qualified status.  

So because we can’t issue more than $10 million this year, we’re looking at shifting this out into 2007.  It’s anticipated that the city’s issuance in 2007 is going to be non bank qualified because of an agreement that you’re in process of right now with Bethany Lutheran Homes where they would use the CDA as a conduit financier for projects that they’re working on.  Because of the magnitude of those projects, that would put the city above the $10 million limitation for bank qualified status.  Now I believe you’re going to be discussing an agreement where Bethany Lutheran Homes is going to be required to reimburse the city for any additional costs that the city incurs by causing it to issue non bank qualified, and that would apply, for example, not only to this issue, but to the city’s regular general obligation borrowings that we do each year for your projects like streets and other infrastructure improvement projects.  I put together a detailed calculation – I’ll go through that in a minute and then talk about procedurally how I see this playing out.  

In terms of the details, I do have that attached.  The estimated average annual savings between 2007 and 2021 is $6,300 so that would be the nominal impact on the city’s budget annually.  In present value dollars, we look at this in terms of the percentage looking at total present value dollar savings as a percentage of the total principal that’s refunded.  Any time we’re above a 2% threshold (That’s really the industry standard where it’s economical at that point to at least consider the refinancing).  So I certainly wouldn’t recommend proceeding if we can’t get to above a 2% threshold.  With current interest rates, we’re at 2.55% and I’m just going to go through briefly the schedule on the following page that gives more the related detailed analysis.

The left hand third of the page shows the existing debt that we’re talking about refinancing.  So right now if we do nothing, these payments for those three bond obligations are going to total $6,578,000 between 2007 and the final payment in 2021.  If you proceed with this refinancing, the remaining debt service shown in the center of the page takes a look at the three obligations after the refunding, so we’ve taken out almost all of the callable maturities.  We’ve taken out the efficient maturities that we can refinance and you’re left with certain payments that are not eligible to be called at this point.  Next to that you’ll see the long term bond issue estimated at $3,240,000, and I’m showing an issuance date of January 1, 2007.  Again, that plays into that bank qualified, non bank qualified requirement.  And you’ll see that the interest rates range from 3.5 to 3.94%.  Comparing the old payments to the new payments under this scenario, gives the debt service savings in the far right hand column on an annual basis.  

Following that down, I bring that back to present value dollars.  That is what’s the equivalent if the city had all of these dollars on Day One.  And that’s $76,884 and that percentage shown there, the 2.55.  I also compared and this assumes a bank qualified scale.  Now, again, the city is not eligible to issue bank qualified in ’07 if you proceed with your other financing plans.  So I did an analysis, current rates, for non bank qualified.  At those levels, the savings on present value dollars would be $52,573.  The difference between those numbers is $24,311, and it’s anticipated that would be an obligation of Bethany Lutheran to reimburse the city for really an opportunity lost that the city otherwise would have had.  Now I am going to look at different structuring techniques.  We’re going to compare possibly splitting this into two series, but I do want to talk and meet with your finance director about some of the specifics on that.  The bottom line, though, is we want to come up with the most economical solution for the city.  In overall gross dollars, these savings are not huge savings on any one annual year.  But that’s really because the city has such low interest rates on it’s existing debt.  It’s really in a way, it’s a good thing.  So we are able to take advantage of an opportunity, though, and actually reduce the overall debt burden to the city even further.  I can certainly go into more detail if you like or answer any  questions”.

Mayor Bialecki asked, “My question would be first of all for the City Attorney.  Am I to understand that we’re going to have to go on record and make a motion to support Item No. C-1 and then go back and approve C”?

Attorney O’Flaherty stated, “Yes, that’s correct”.

In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Brad noted that the savings are net of all fees.

Ald. Giese requested a report on any commission and fees which would be submitted to Baird.

Brad explained, “I can talk about that tonight if you’d like because it should weigh into your decision.  The total estimated fees are approximately $50,000.  Now that’s broken out for several different components.  A portion of that is Baird, which is estimated at 1% of the borrowing amount or right now $32,400.  And that’s a high estimate.  If anything, I would expect that to come in lower.  The other fees included is bond counsel fee – those are attorneys that give the legal opinion for the bond documents – that’s estimated at $9,000.  The rating agency fee is Moody’s Investor Service.  The expectation that they would rate the bond and release an updated rating report – I would expect them to affirm the city’s double A-3 rating, which was a recent upgrade that the city secured – that’s $4,000.  There’s an escrow agent fee and the bond proceeds are placed into escrow and used to pay the debt service on the bonds that are going to be refunded.  And then at the call date, that escrow pays off the remaining principal of those bonds – That estimate fee is $4,000.  CPA Verification is an outside agency that verifies that the math that Baird does is correct so that there are sufficient funds to fund the escrow – the fee for that is estimated at $3,000.  Printing and distribution of the Official Statement – Estimated at $1,200.

In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Brad stated that the fees become due and payable when the City of Onalaska makes the commitment to the financing and the fees go along with that.

Ald. Giese asked, “The difference between the non bank qualified and bank qualified, that would be conduited back to us from Bethany, those are paid in annual payments or is that a one time payment up front or how is that handled”?

Brad answered “I would foresee that made as a one time payment at or near closing in the present value dollar difference between the two because otherwise the city – you need those funds at closing to insure that the city is made whole”.  

Ald. Giese agreed and indicated there could be administrative costs incurred in trying to track that through time.

Ald. Gonczy asked, “And just for clarification on the $76,884 or the $52,573, if we exceed the $10 million because that’s after your fees are out”?

Brad replied, “Yes, both of those are after all issuance fees are taken out – that’s the savings the city realizes – the bottom line savings”.

Ald. Gonczy questioned, “Once we pass that $10 million threshold and we lose the bank equivalency rating, that would mean even the next few years we go out, we’re always going to be at a different bond rating”?

Brad explained, “No, I’ll just clarify a couple things on that.  It does not impact your bond rating directly so you have this Double A-3 rating that does not impact that.  The interest rate is different, but at the beginning of each year, you make a determination if you’re going to stay with $10 million of total borrowing or exceed that $10 million.  And once you make that determination, it can’t be changed.  So, for example, last year in the spring when we did your corporate purpose bonds, we determined, we elected to issue those as bank qualified because you get more attractive interest rates.  Because we did that and this bank qualification is for one calendar year – it’s not a 12-month rolling window.  It’s January 1 to December 31, so because we did that, we have to remain under $10 million through this year.  And that’s why – the key date is the closing date and that’s why I pointed out that we would close this issue in 2007.  So it’s not the date the council takes action in December, it’s the closing date.  And at that point, we would be non bank qualified if you do plan on proceeding with these other projects that are on your agenda this evening”.

Ald. Gonczy asked, “So does that debt amount continue to next year when we go again or are we again going to be looked at”?

Brad said, “Every year you take a fresh look and decide if you’re going to issue more than $10 million or less.  So in 2008, you would evaluate that again.  What we’re going under this – you’re saying for 2007, we’re going to exceed that $10 million threshold.  And I also want to make sure I understand, it’s from the first dollar forward.  It’s not 1 to 10 you get better rates and then 11 on you get higher rates - it’s every dollar borrowed is at a higher interest rate.  So I don’t want this to sound – I mean the difference is laid out.  It’s $24,311 under this scenario.  When we come back in the spring or in early summer and do your regular annual borrowing, we’ll have to do another calculation and compare where you would have been bank qualified to where you are non bank qualified so that the city is made whole”. 

In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Brad noted that this would not be a consideration in future years unless the city were to exceed the $10 million again.

Ald. Giese asked, “But we do in 2007, we’re going to have eight left because we’re still going to have the $10 million limit in 2007”.

Brad explained that in 2007, the city will be non bank qualified meaning they won’t be limited in any way because the city’s borrowing is such that they will exceed that anyway.  The city is insisting Bethany Lutheran make them whole because but for that financing, the city would be within the $10 million.

Ald. Giese asked, “Then that invites another  question.  For that additional interest rate then – that’s going to get paid as the delta for the whole terms of the loan up front in the first year or is that going to be paid on annual installments”?

Brad indicated that this is paid on annual installments.

Ald. Giese asked if Bethany would be required to transfer money back to the City of Onalaska each year.

Brad said, “No, the calculation can be done at closing because these are fixed rate financing so we can compare where the market is on the non bank qualified to bank qualified on that day”.

Ald. Giese asked if the City would receive a check at that time.

Brad answered, “Yes, and then that check I would recommend that check is invested in some sort of debt stabilization fund and then supplied to your debt service on an annual basis”.

In response to a question from Ald. Giese, Brad indicated that the check is at present value.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, to approve Item C-1.  

Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy questioned the consequences if Bethany did not pay the difference.

Brad indicated that those are policy decisions as if Bethany were not to pay, it would be the City’s decision if they still want to do the conduit financing on their behalf.

Ald. Gonczy said, “I think we probably need to let Bethany know at least this counts when an Alderperson would say no, I’m not going to absorb that extra costs.  So I think they need to know that”.  

On voice vote, motion carried.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Gonczy, to approve the refunding of the bonds as stated in the document.

On voice vote, motion carried.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION FROM THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/BOARDS:

Item 6 – FINANCE COMMITTEE:

A. Vouchers.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve Vouchers No. 2320 through No. 2556, expended since the last Common Council meeting of October 11, 2006 in the amount of $1,328,526.35.  On voice vote, motion carried.

B. Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc. – Request to consider and approve authorization for the City of Onalaska Community Development Authority to act as conduit bond issuer of Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $28,500,000.00 to finance the proposed Mason Street Project and refinance eligible debt of Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc. with five conditions (1-5).

1. Approval of the Issuance of the Conduit bonds from the City of LaCrosse for the purposes of Section 147 (f) of the IRS Code of 1986, as amended.

2. Approval of the Village of Holmen consenting to the issuance of the Conduit Bonds to refinance eligible debt of Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc. related to land improvements located within the Village of Holmen.

3. Approval of the Issuance of the conduit Bonds from the Village of Holmen for the purposes of Section 147(f) of the IRS Code of 1986, as amended.

4. Receipt of a written option from bond counsel that the refinancing of existing debt meets the following criteria:

a.  Each debt being refinanced relates to housing projects.
b.  Each debt being refinanced relates to projects which are eligible for tax-exempt financing under federal tax rules (including the reimbursement bond rules and weighted average maturity limitations).

5. Agreement as to a revised Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Onalaska and Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc., which includes payment of a mutually agreed upon issuance fee to the City of Onalaska.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to deny Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc. request to consider and approve authorization for the City of Onalaska Community Development Authority to act as conduit bond issuer of Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $28,500,000 to finance the proposed Mason Street Project and refinance eligible debt of Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc.

Ald. Giese suggested, “Assuming that this is entered into and approved, who benefits?  Where is the common good to this?  And I’m not picking on Bethany Lutheran and I’m not speaking for or against the motion here now, but just saying it's a tax dodge and it’s an administrative burden that’s placed on the CDA, placed on this council, it’s revenue opportunity for bond counsels and people to run all these numbers and crunch all the rest, but really it’s a burden that is an added tax on all of us and I really wish – and we can do nothing about it here, but we could amend the internal revenue code to get away from this garbage because it really doesn’t do the common people any good at all”.

On voice vote, motion carried.

C. Amendment to the Library Services Agreement between LaCrosse County Library and City of Onalaska.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to accept the amendment to the Library Services Agreement between LaCrosse County Library and City of Onalaska.

On voice vote, motion carried.

D. Modification to Information Management Systems Inc. contract related to maintenance on City computer equipment at the library.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to release IMS from the contract related to maintenance on city computer equipment at the library effective November 1, 2006.

On voice vote, motion carried.

E. Consider a State Grant regarding Digital Recording to Onalaska Police Department.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the consideration of a state grant regarding digital recording to Onalaska Police Department.

On voice vote, motion carried.

F. Replacement of the Variable Frequency Drive on City Hall HVAC System and funding for drive not to exceed $2,744.00.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the replacement of the Variable Frequency Drive on City Hall HVAC System and funding for drive not to exceed $2,744.00.

On voice vote, motion carried.

Item 7 – PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:

A. Utility Billing Administrator.

      1. Job Description.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the job description for Utility Billing Administrator.  On voice vote, motion carried.

2. Post and Advertise.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to proceed with posting and advertising the Utility Billing Administrator position.  On voice vote, motion carried.

3. Salary Range.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to approve a salary range of $36,000 to $39,000 annually for the Utility Billing Administrator.  On voice vote, motion carried – five yes votes , and Ald. Wulf voting no.

B. Local 150 – Letter of Understanding related to Utility Operator I and II.

Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the Letter of Understanding related to Utility Operator I and II.  On voice vote, motion carried.

Item 8 - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE:

A. Approval of Operator’s Licenses.

Zach G. Babcock		Stoney Creek Inn		New/Provisional
Arlene M. Benrud		American Legion		Renewal/Provisional
Justin P. Cornford		TGI Friday’s			New
Todd D. Hagel			Scoreboard			New/Provisional
Michael G. Meyer		Unwine’d			New/Provisional
Nicole G. Shafer		unemployed			New/Provisional
Anna K. Thill			TGI Fridays			New/Provisional
Goua Vue			Kwik Trip			New
Katherine J. Zibell		Stoney Creek Inn		New/Provisional


Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, upon recommendation of the Administrative Committee to approve the Operator’s Licenses.  On voice vote, motion carried.

B. Smoke-Free Campus for City of Onalaska owned properties.

Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Smith, upon recommendation of the Administrative Committee to approve the Library Campus as a smoke-free campus for the City of Onalaska.

Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy noted it would be necessary to amend the ordinance for certain areas but was brought before the Council tonight to get an idea of the general consensus.  

On voice vote, motion carried.

C. Request by Margaret Violette for interment of cremation in gravesites owned by Raymond L Violette.

Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, upon recommendation of the Administrative Committee to approve the request by Margaret Violette for interment of cremation in gravesites owned by Raymond L. Violette.  On voice vote, motion carried.

D. LaCrosse Area Family YMCA Run, December 9, 2006; January 6, 2007; February 10, 2007 – 8 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.

Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Administrative Committee to approve the LaCrosse Area Family YMCA Run dates of December 9, 2006; January 6, 2007; and February 10, 2007.

On voice vote, motion carried.

E. Request for live trapping of coyotes in City of Onalaska.

For information purposes Ald. Gonczy reported there was a request for live trapping of coyotes in the City of Onalaska which is covered by DNR Chapter 29.  The citizen requesting the information will receive a copy of Chapter 29.

Item 9 - BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS:

A. Proposed 2-hour parking on 10th Avenue South.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to approve the proposed 2-hour parking on 10th Avenue South.

Jarrod reminded committee members that it was agreed at the Board of Public Works to leave the proposed 2-hour parking  on 10th Avenue with no change.

Amendment to the motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to leave the proposed 2-hour parking on 10th Avenue South as it currently is.  On voice vote, motion carried.

B. “No Parking, Stopping or Standing” on Oak Forest Drive/Oak Avenue South.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to approve the directive of “No Parking, Stopping or Standing” on Oak Forest Drive/Oak Avenue South.  

On voice vote, motion carried.

C. Krause Road traffic/speed concerns.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to install two “Slow Children” signs at locations as designated by City Engineer Jarrod Holter regarding Krause Road traffic/speed concerns.

On voice vote, motion carried.

D. 2006 fall curb side leaf pick-up update/extension.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Oldani Wulf, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works regarding 2006 fall curb side leaf pick-up extension, to extend leaf pick up by one additional circuit of the city.

On voice vote, motion carried.

E. Street openings within 5 years of construction.

a. 209 Mason Street.
b. 1031/1033 Kristy Lane.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to allow the street openings within 5 years of construction for 209 Mason Street and 1031/1033 Kristy Lane with the extension of street opening guaranty.

For clarification, Ald. Gonczy noted that is with a three-year guaranty.

On voice vote, motion carried.

F. Authorized bidding of Well #10 well drilling.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to authorize bidding of Well #10 well drilling.  On voice vote, motion carried.

G. Inclusion of Asphalt Saw Seal into City Specifications and Requirements for new development.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Board of Public Works to recommend approval of the inclusion of asphalt saw seal into city specifications and requirements for new development.  On voice vote, motion carried.

Item 10 - PLAN COMMISSION:

A. Regarding a Conditional use Permit filed by Norm Alysworth, 404 Shady Lane, Holmen, and Gerald Alysworth, 5585 County Road MM, LaCrosse for the purpose of permitting automobile sales at 1103 Venture Place, Onalaska (Parcel #18-2403-5).

1. CUP Fee of $150.00.

2. All signs require separate permits.

3. Owner shall provide a diagram showing area where vehicles will be displayed.

4. Site Plan Permit required for any exterior structure or pavement alteration.

5. All lighting shall be shielded down 30’ maximum mounting height.

6. Owner/developer must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to obtaining a building permit.  Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.

7. Owner/developer must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.

8. All conditions run with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs, successors, and assigns.  The sale or transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other conditions.

9. Any omissions of any conditions not listed in Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code requirements.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve with 9 conditions a conditional use permit filed by Norm Alysworth, 404 Shady Lane, Holmen, and Gerald Alysworth, 5585 County Road MM, LaCrosse for the purpose of permitting automobile sales at 1103 Venture Place, Onalaska.

On voice vote, motion carried.

B. Regarding a City of Onalaska park impact Fee Ordinance, Section 13-1-178 of the Code of Ordinances.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve City of Onalaska Park Impact Fee Ordinance, Section 13-1-178 of the Code of Ordinances.

Under discussion, Ald. Smith questioned if Jason received a request to table this item.

Jason indicated that he did but this was just received earlier today.  Jason explained, I did review this letter and I understand.  I’ve done a couple things with the LaCrosse Area Builder’s Association to try to resolve a few of the questions or concerns that they’ve raised.  One is by meeting with them at one of their board meetings and going over the various issues that they raise.  I’ve also sent various e-mails and material related to our calculations.  As I review this letter, the only question that I see – there’s actually two I think that were raised that I have provided input on prior to tonight’s meeting.  And one was related to the commercial fee and I explained the rationale for the commercial fee at their board meeting when I met face to face with the members.  The second was related to our past practice of what we spent over the last eight years on park facilities and I was only able to respond to that this morning because I just received Ms. Markison’s calculations yesterday afternoon by e-mail and had to meet with Dan Wick, our park director, to get clarification on some of these things.  But I did respond by e-mail to Ms. Markison immediately after that meeting with Mr. Wick.  And the calculations that Ms. Markison indicates is that what she’s disputing is that based on her calculations of the acreage that was indicated in the city’s needs analysis , that we spent about $400,000 on parks in the last eight years when about $600,000 was collected when you look at building permits and impact fees.  But what’s missing are all the incidental improvements and spot improvements and large projects like the swimming pool that had I put those in the needs assessment, they would have greatly skewed the numbers.  So I did explain that in the e-mail to Ms. Markison. I don’t know that we’ll get a consensus with the Builder’s Association on a commercial fee.  I think that’s something that they dispute – we have data that supports it and I’m not sure that we’ll be able to reach a consensus on it.  But to my knowledge everything else in the fee is legal and I’ve reviewed it with the city attorney, Sean O’Flaherty, and I think that the rationale that we use is sound and it meets the rational nexus and rough proportionality tests that we’re required to meet”.  

On voice vote, motion carried.

C. Regarding a Rezoning request filed by the City of Onalaska to rezone the property at Lot 5, Eagle Business Park from M-1 Light Industrial to P-1 Public, semi-Public for the purpose of constructing the new public works facility (Parcel #18-5905-0).

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning request filed by the City of Onalaska to rezone the property at Lot 5, Eagle Business Park from M-1 Light Industrial to P-1 Public, semi-Public for the purpose of constructing the new public works facility.

On voice vote, motion carried.

D. Subdivision request filed by Mike Tooke, 960 Oak Avenue North, Onalaska, for the property located at 426 2nd Avenue South, for the purpose of constructing two commercial structures (Parcel #18-41-0).

1. CSM Fee of $40.00 + $10.00 per lot x 1 = $50.00.

2. Owner shall provide a public access easement along south walkway to alley on 2nd Avenue.

3. Site Plan Permit required for new building, parking area.

4. Waive parking lot setback due to shared parking area.

5. Parking on Fern – existing legal non-conforming use.

6. Owner/developer must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to obtaining a building permit.  Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.

7. Owner/developer must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.

8. All conditions run with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs, successors, and assigns.  The sale or transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other conditions.

9. Any omissions of any conditions not listed in Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code requirements.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve with 9 conditions the request filed by Mike Tooke, 960 Oak Avenue North, Onalaska, for the property located at 426 2nd Avenue South, for the purpose of constructing two commercial structures.  

On voice vote, motion carried.

E. Subdivision request filed by Thomas Krajewski, 453 2nd Avenue North, Onalaska, for the property located at 2218 Germann Court for the purpose of a 4-lot subdivision (Parcel #18-3570-53).

1. CSM Fee of $40.00 + $10.00 per lot x 4 = $80.00.

2. Park Fee of $1,156.00 per unit.  Green Fee of $254.00 + $34.00 per acre x 1.4 = $301.60 – to be negotiated with City and executed in a development agreement.

3. Storm Sewer Fee required per rezoning of Rockwood parcel + $3,249.00 per acre x 1.12 = $3,638.88 for residential lots.

4. Green Coulee Sanitary Sewer Fee of $263.00 per acre x 2.52 = $662.76.

5. Owner to be aware B-1 zoning does not match proposed property lines.  Owner shall amend zoning to match B-1 zoning.

6. Three lots along Germann Ct zoning R-1.

7. Owner/developer must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to obtaining a building permit.  Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.

8. Owner/developer must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.

9. All conditions run with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs, successors, and assigns.  The sale or transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other conditions.

10. Any omissions of any conditions not listed in Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code requirements.

11. Drainage easement shall be shown along Interstate 90.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve with 11 conditions the subdivision request filed by Thomas Krajewski, 453 2nd Avenue North, Onalaska, for the property located at 2218 Germann Court for the purpose of a 4-lot subdivision.  

On voice vote, motion carried.

F. Subdivision request filed by Richard Fraser, 2104 Kyle Lane, Onalaska, for the purpose of creating a new lot containing 11,421 square feet (Parcel #18-4276-0).

1. CSM Fee of $50.00.

2. Park Fee of $1,152.00 – to be negotiated with City and executed in development agreement.

3. Storm Sewer Fee of $3,249.00 per acre x .26 acres = $853.81.

4. Sanitary Sewer Fee of $927.00 per acre x .26 - $241.02.

5. Topo Fee of $10.00 per acre x .26 = $2.60.

6. Owner shall be aware of building setbacks for site.

7. Owner/developer must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to obtaining a building permit.  Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.

8. Owner/developer must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.

9. All conditions run with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs, successors, and assigns.  The sale or transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other condition.

10. Any omissions of any conditions not listed in Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code requirements.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve with 10 conditions the request filed by Richard Fraser, 2104 Kyle Lane, Onalaska, for the purpose of creating a new lot containing 11,421 square feet.

On voice vote, motion carried.

G. Final Plat request filed by Jon Sopher, 1860 Wood Run Place, Onalaska, for the Savannah Oaks Plat, Green Coulee, Onalaska.

1. Final Plat Fee of $20.00 + $20.00 per lot x 67 = $154.00.

2. Owner shall abide by all conditions of Preliminary Plat (listed below):

a. Preliminary Plat Fee of $40.00 + $10.00 per lot x 107 = $1,110.00.

b. Sanitary Sewer Fee of $263.00 x 150.226 = $39,509.44 – adjusted for actual area.

c. Storm Sewer Fee of $3,249.00 per acre x 150.226 = $488,084.27 or developer shall install storm sewer.  If cost exceeds fee, fee is waived.  If fee exceeds cost, developer shall pay City the difference.

d. Topo Fee of $10.00 per acre x 150.23 = $1,502.30.

e. Park Fee of $1,156.00 per unit or land dedication of 1 acre per 40 housing units + capital cost fee of $219.55 per unit (# of units shall be disclosed to Plan Commission) – fee shall be executed in development agreement.

f. Signage Fee of $75.00 per sign per approved plan submitted by developer, approved by City showing all street, stop, and other regulatory sign needs.

g. Plat approval contingent upon annexation approval.

h. Development agreement required for all infrastructure and cost commitments for Green Coulee Road and dedication, and/or sale of conservancy lands.

i. Master drainage and storm sewer plan required meeting State storm water requirements for approval by City.  Copy of permit to be submitted to City with documentation.  NR216 Permit required.

j. Thirty percent slope diagram required noting restricted development areas on each parcel.

k. Owner shall provide top of foundation elevation within 6 inches elevations and setbacks for each lot – to be approved and enforced by City.  Master Plan shall indicate all sites where a lower level walkout may be permitted.  Driveway grades shall not exceed 12%.

l. Pedestrian and bicycle system master plan required showing all proposed facilities.  Developer shall extend Green Coulee multi-model path from its end point at Clearwater Drive to northern extent of proposed plat.  All streets shall have sidewalks – both sides, except cul de sacs less than 300 feet in length (1 side sidewalk required).

m. Owner shall provide plan and commitment for maintenance of all common landscape areas (medians, islands, etc.).

n. Lots over 200 feet deep shall have interim side lot pins for reference by builders.

o. Owner shall provide complete street and utility plans for review and approved by City staff and Utility Committee.

p. Green Coulee Road shall be improved per Onalaska Transportation Study for Green Coulee Road and City Engineering approval.  Owner/developer shall provide details for traffic calming at future intersection at Humfeldt property.  Plans shall also indicate how project will preserve existing farm buildings at Clearwater/George Humfeldt property.

q. Archaeology Investigation required per code – copy to study to be placed on file with City.

r. Street light master plan required for review by City.

s. Project signage required approval as part of plat.

t. Development area east of Green Coulee Road shall minimize disturbance of perimeter tree lines/fence row remnants to provide visual buffer from adjacent community parkland.  Developer shall enforce this restriction through construction.

u. Developer shall provide trail to trailhead area for parking from existing trail entrance at Stonebridge Avenue.  Four car parking area next to walking path on Stonebridge Avenue.

v. All homes shall be sited below ridgelines and in such a way to minimize view sheds to bluff/tree lines areas.

w. Waive maximum 500-foot cul de sac requirement for each phase – waive double frontage lots.

x. Owner shall provide detailed erosion control plans for all disturbed areas.
y. High Service Water Zone Fee of $1,679.00 per acre x 96.7 acres = $162,359.30.

z. Street construction specification/cross sections shall be reviewed for approval by City.  Owner shall consult with City Engineer for requirements.

aa. Street grades shall not exceed 8% - 10% may be permitted in short sections (less than 100 feet).

bb. Owner/developer shall provide a street tree plan for project.  Owner/developer shall be responsible for cost of trees (2 – 2 ½” caliper canopy trees) per lot, payable to City at the time of final plat approval, or, as an option, developer shall require home owners to plant 2 trees per lot consistent with master plan for size and species in terrace area per covenants.

cc. Covenants shall restrict fences in wooded areas to prevent disturbance of wildlife movement and scenic disruption.

dd. Letter of Credit required per 5 year term equal to 25% of total cost of improvements for 3 years + $100.00 per manhole and catch basin for an additional 2 years.

ee. Due to signal lights not being installed in 2006 at Green Coulee Road and East Main Street, owner shall cost share for a designated right turn lane from Green Coulee Road to US 53 northbound on-ramp.

ff. All lots abutting drainage way shall include a flood protection elevation for use by prospective builders/buyers.

gg. Owner/developer shall leave vegetated buffer strips around disturbed areas adjacent to drainage ways.

hh. Cost sharing by the City shall not include Engineering/surveying costs.

ii. No parking along Green Coulee Road.  No driveways onto Green Coulee Road.

jj. Water main size to be verified by S E H (City Water Study Consultant) – paid for by developer.

kk. Developer to sign authorization for payment of inspectors.

ll. Owner/developer must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to obtaining a building permit.  Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.

mm. Owner/developer must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.

nn. All conditions run with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs, successors, and assigns.  The sale or transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other conditions.

oo. Any omissions of any conditions not listed in Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code requirements.

pp. Erosion control plan required.  Plan to be submitted to City 10 days prior to any land disturbance for City approval.

qq. Wetland Delineation map/report shall be submitted.

3. Owner shall provide City with schedule for completion of remaining area of plat (north section.

4. All fees must be paid and improvements installed and inspected by City prior to plat approval.  A letter of credit shall be provided for unfinished improvements as approved by City.

5. Owner shall submit plans for any and all alterations to existing plans for City approval.  As builts must be on file prior to plat approval.

6. All lot stakes, including interim stakes, shall be in and visible prior to plat approval.

7. Lot correction must be made for Lot 61 due to remnant.

8. Owner shall provide schedule for park trailhead improvements for Outlot 2.  Owner shall work with City on design.

9. Question easements on Lot 9 & 10, and Lots 11, 12, 13  - not labeled.

10. Final implementation plan for zoning required prior to building permit issuance.

11. Owner/developer must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to obtaining a building permit.  Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.

12. Owner/developer must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.

13. All conditions run with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs, successors, and assigns.  The sale or transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other conditions.

14. Any omissions of any conditions not listed in Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code requirements.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve with 14 conditions and 14 standards.

For clarification, Ald. Giese explained there are 14 conditions stated above and then an additional 14 standards stated below which were discussed by the development director that go to support the appropriateness of the policies and procedures.

1. All fees have to be paid, and I think most of them have with perhaps, the exception of signage, which follows the master signage plan. 
2. A master drainage plan has to be on file in the Inspection Office – I think they’ve submitted that, but usually what we get is a schematic showing arrows between lots so that the building inspector has a diagram he can use as they’re looking at the final.
3. The top of foundation elevation diagram required and on file – that’s so that we have some consistency between lots and we don’t have certain buildings being pushed onto a lot that are higher in elevation.
4. Commitment for maintenance of all landscape islands and medians.
5. All lot stakes, including interim stakes in and visible.
6. As built plans submitted and on file in the Engineering Office.
7. Street lights installed or a contract date for their installation.
8. Trail head and construction guaranty.  There was a condition in the preliminary plat to connect the trail to the outlot that had the trailhead.
9. Street tree plan on file in the City Planning Department.
10. A letter of credit on file – that’s for the guaranty and all costs reviewed and approved by the city engineer.
11. Cost share for signal lights at Greens Coulee Road and East Main Street per the Development Agreement.  
12. Flood protection elevation map on file in the Inspection Office.  That’s for the area along the drainage way.  We need to have flood protection elevations to make sure that each house is sited appropriately.
13. All improvements inspected and approved by the city.  This requires field work from our Engineering Department.
14. Lot correction for Lot 61 recorded and on file in the County Register of Deeds – there was a small land remnant that was discovered that needs to be corrected.  

During the Planning Commission meeting, Jason noted, “And Number 15 is probably the one that is going to require review by the Plan Commission and Council, which will require additional time, is the Final Implementation Plan submitted for zoning approval – that’s the last part of the PUD process.  So what I was going to suggest is just that the plat approval be contingent on these items being submitted and approved and that’s ordinarily what’s articulated in the conditions as well.  So, I just wanted to make sure that’s in the record that we don’t sign and release the plat until these items are finalized”.

On voice vote, motion carried.

H. Request by Collins Sign Company for reconsideration of Great River Road exemptions.

No action necessary as it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to leave the Great River Road exemptions as they presently are and deny the request by Collins Sign Company for reconsideration of Great River Road exemptions.

I. Unified Development Code:  Complete Streets – Cross Sections.

As this was an informational item, no action was necessary.

J. Audio/Web training from APA (American Planning Association).

Jason presented opportunities regarding this training at the Planning Commission meeting.

K. Certified Survey Map application filed by Mark Etrheim, Mastercraft homes, Inc., 2300 Oak Street, LaCrosse, for the parcel located at 1062 Oak Forest Drive (Parcel #18-3087-0).

1. CSM Fee of $40.00 + $10.00 per lot = $50.00.

2. Storm Sewer Fee of $5,602.00 per acre.

3. Green Fee of $254.00 + $34.00 per acre.

4. Owner/developer shall submit site plan permit for development.

5. Tree preservation plan required.

6. Owner/developer must pay all fees and have all plans reviewed and approved by the City prior to obtaining a building permit.  Owner/developer must have all conditions satisfied and improvements installed per approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permit.

7. Owner/developer must notify the City prior to any utility connection to public utilities.

8. All conditions run with the land and are binding upon the original developer and all heirs, successors, and assigns.  The sale or transfer of all or any portion of the property does not relieve the original developer from payment of any fees imposed or from meeting any other conditions.

9. Any omissions of any conditions not listed in Plan Commission Minutes shall not release the developer/property owner from abiding by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code requirements.

Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Smith, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve with 9 conditions the Certified Survey Map application filed by Mark Etrheim, Mastercraft Homes, Inc., 2300 Oak Street, LaCrosse, for the parcel located at 1062 Oak Forest Drive.	

On voice vote, motion carried.

Item 11 - JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:

A. Ordinance No. 1280-2006 – to rezone property located in Section 34, Township 17, Range 7 in the City of Onalaska, La Crosse County Wisconsin from Interim R-1 Single Family Residential District to Permanent R-1 Single Family Residential District (Intrust/Olson Property) (Third and Final Reading).

Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance No. 1280-2006 its third and final reading.

On voice vote, motion carried.

B. Ordinance No. 1281-2006 – to rezone property located in Section 4, Township 16, Range 7 in the City of Onalaska, LaCrosse County Wisconsin from R-2-3 Single Family and Duplex Residential District to P-1 Public and Semi-Public District (Rivers Harvest Church Property).

Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance No. 1281-2006 its third and final reading.

On voice vote, motion carried.

C. Ordinance No. 1282-2006 – to rezone property located in Section 4, Township 16, Range 7 in the City of Onalaska, LaCrosse County Wisconsin from R-1 Single Family Residential District to B-1 neighborhood Business District (Rockwood/Krajewski Property)(Third and Final Reading).

Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance No. 1282-2006 its third and final reading.
 
On voice vote, motion carried.

D. Ordinance No. 1283-2006 – to amend Article H of Title 14 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Onalaska relating to Park and Land Dedications (Third and Final Reading).

Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance No. 1283-2006 its third and final reading.
 
On voice vote, motion carried.

E. Ordinance No. 1285-2006 – to rezone property located in Section 32, Township 17 North, Range 7 West in the City of Onalaska, La Crosse County Wisconsin from M-1 Light Industrial district to P-1 Public and Semi-Public District (City Shop) (First and Second Reading).

Motion by Ald. Oldani Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance No. 1285-2006 its first and second reading. 

On voice vote, mot