Advisory — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2009-06-01
Time: 17:00

MINUTES
 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 Monday, June 1, 2009
 City Hall, Room 604
 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Council President Chris Wery, Council Vice-President Tom
DeWane, Ald. John VanderLeest, Ald. Celestine Jeffreys, Ald. Jerry Wiezbiskie

Members Excused: Ald. Andy Nicholson
Members Absent: Ald. Tom Weber

Others Present: Ald. Dan Piton, Ald. Guy Zima, Ald. Tony Theisen, Ald. Amy
Kocha, Atty. Kail Decker, Economic Development Director Derek Lord, Scott
Matejov, Rob Strong, Arthur Taylor and Renee Keehan (members of the Sex
Offender Residency Board) Members of the Media

1. Call to order.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Council President Chris Wery. At
the start of the meeting Chairman Wery indicated that Ald. Nicholson was
excused and he believed Ald. Jeffreys and Ald. Weber would be arriving soon.

2. Approval of the agenda.
Motion by Ald. De Wane, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to approve the agenda.
Motion carried.

3. Approval of the minutes of the April 6, 2009 Advisory Committee
 meeting.
Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. De Wane to approve the
minutes of the April 6, 2009 meeting of the Advisory Committee as submitted.
Motion carried.

4. Request by Ald. DeWane for an update from the Mayor and Derek Lord
 regarding bringing new businesses into the Green Bay area and
 retaining existing businesses.
Ald. DeWane stated that he brought this item forward at the request of area
businessmen who expressed concern that some of the promises and goals that
were made are not being met and said some small businesses are moving from
one part of town to another and said we’re not retaining some businesses and
not bringing new business in and said there has been a concern that we’re
concentrating on one area and that is downtown. He said to put them at ease he
requested to get some information from the Mayor and Derek Lord.

Derek Lord addressed the committee giving a background on what the Economic
Development Department does and how they do it. He stated that the field has
changed in the last 10-15 years and said it used to be about bringing jobs to your
community and said they are learning now with the younger generation quality of
life factors such as having good schools, having a good trail system, good retail
and creating culture are becoming more important. He said internally the debate
has always been between retention (includes expanding) versus recruitment and
said there’s pros and cons to both.

Derek gave a power point presentation with the mission statement of the
Economic Development Dept. as follows: to generate and facilitate business
development, retention and expansion that provides meaningful employment
opportunities, generates a healthy tax base, and offers a first-class quality of life
to all residents. Main points of his presentation:
  Retention versus Recruitment – stated that in recruitment, big
 businesses will put everyone on notice, broadcast to the state and nation
 that they are looking for a new facility, to get the best incentive package.
 He used IBM as an example with Dubuque, Iowa giving them a $52
 million incentive package to get them to locate in their city. He said to put
 this in perspective, the entire state of Wisconsin’s development fund
 budget is not a quarter of what it took for that project. He said with
 recruitment of new business you get a greater economic benefit in terms
 of regional growth, more demand for services, retail, more demand for
 housing. He said we do both at the city but said our recruitment strategy
 is much more strategic in nature.
  Strategic Recruitment – Derek identified Clusters, which are
 geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and
 explained the difference between Regional clusters, Local Clusters and
 Future Clusters. He used the maritime/shipbuilding industry which until
 last year we didn’t have in this region. Local clusters are already here
 and said it’s easier to recruit other businesses in similar clusters and said
 future clusters are what’s on the horizon and gave the example of the
 regional cluster of agriculture, the local cluster of food processing and the
 future cluster of organic produce production packaging, saying this would
 be a good future cluster to go after.
  Making the Business Case – which includes identifying opportunities for
 synergies and said we are currently working with the largest
 manufacturers in the city and the region to see who could benefit from
 being close and gave the example of a supplier for Georgia-Pacific
 shipping from Tennessee. He said getting the list of suppliers is an
 important first step.
  Marketing the City & Region – Derek stated they work with businesses
 one-on-one to get them to move to the city and also do general
 advertising in regional and national publications and said they narrow
 down their advertising to what they’re trying to do. He gave the example
 of the Business Expansion Journal who may be focusing on food
 processing or wind energy, saying we would want an ad in that journal.
  Target Marketing/Networking - Derek said we have a booth at the
 Business Expo, participate in trade and industry shows, Milwaukee
 networking events where we work with site selectors and work with
 different municipalities along the Hwy 41 corridor. He said we sent out
 over 100 employee recruitment packets in the last six months about why
 Green Bay is a great community to live and work, to encourage
 employees and business leaders to move to Green Bay, adding that there
 will soon be an announcement about a company that will be relocating to
 Green Bay from another state. He stated that specific target marketing
 includes an ad for University Heights and said Chilis and WS Packaging
 are examples of reading trade journals and watching the news and
 following up on leads.
  Research & Analysis – He stated that they review business news
 publications and websites to learn about mergers and acquisitions and
 start dialogue from there. They also tour neighboring communities and
 talk to businesses.
  Long Term Initiatives – These are general initiatives to make sure our
 economy is diverse and growing. He said we hold the annual
 Entrepreneur’s Connection Conference and may hold a Small Business
 Day. The goal is make sure we’re in a good position 5, 10 and 15 years
 from now to still have land available for the types of businesses we are
 trying to attract.
  Business Retention Program – He stated we have a formal business
 retention program which is coordinated by Advance. He distributed a
 survey that is used to help learn about businesses and to address their
 issues. This data is entered in a database and said they do about 120
 visits per year.
  Outreach & Education – We do outreach and education and offer
 incentives and assistance to business owners to grow and support local
 businesses by attracting visitors. He gave the example of a cruise ship
 line they have contacted to see if they would be willing to stop at Leicht
 dock for a day. Plant consolidation letters, quarterly I-43 Business Center
 meetings/events, encouraging people to Buy Local and promote
 sustainability are additional outreach & education incentives. The City
 participates in Better By the Bay for talent recruitment.
  Customer Service Role – Derek stated that the Economic Development
 Department serves as a resource through the entire development process
 from start to finish and are building relationships by providing unbiased
 information.
  Real Estate – The number one request for assistance involves real estate
 information. Derek stated that they work very closely with new and
 existing business owners and get involved with local/national site
 selectors.
  Future Initiatives – these include better strategic planning, evaluating
 existing programs and creating new programs, announcing successes,
 port opportunities study and expansion and capitalizing on alternative
 energy production.
Derek opened the floor for questions. Ald. DeWane inquired if the city tries not to
overload one area with similar businesses such as gas stations? Derek
responded that they provide information and help anyone and said it’s up to them
if they want to make the business/financial commitment, adding that this happens
frequently and said they don’t get involved in steering them one way or the other.
Ald. Zima inquired about keeping an inventory of empty properties available for
rent or sale? Derek responded they have an informal database where they pull
information from different websites and provide direct links to groups that have
that information, adding that it’s difficult to keep updated. In response to further
questions from Ald. Zima, Derek stated that his department receives 2-5 inquiries
a week for new businesses, many of these do not have a business plan or
financing set up. He reviewed the outreach and advertising methods the city
uses and said last year they began asking how the caller heard about the
property and said so far the response has not been through national ads and
said as a result, they may look at cutting back on the number of ads and said
they may not get a response five years in a row, but if they do get a business in
the sixth year, it was worth the cost of the ad for five years. Derek said it has
been a challenge to track this information. Ald. Zima suggested a 30-60 second
TV ad in parts of the country where there are corporate headquarters and where
we think there is potential for growth and see what we get out of it, adding that
we have much to sell in Green Bay, low utilities, good work ethic, recreation,
good schools, etc. Derek stated that the Branding initiative, Better By the Bay will
be running ads in Minneapolis and Chicago. Derek stated that television ads are
very costly.

Ald. Zima stated that most executives are very busy and don’t have time to read
publications and suggested giving presentations to larger companies like P&G,
with Derek responding that it is difficult to get in front of these people. Ald. Zima
said we have a list of things to sell here and asked that Derek prepare a list of
conglomerates and find out what they are planning and looking for so we can
pinpoint this in a presentation. Derek stated we have been doing this but could
probably be doing a better job of it and said it comes back to staff time and the
time it takes to coordinate meetings with high level execs. He said they are
having dialogue with a paper manufacturer which may turn into something. Ald.
Wery asked that Derek bring forward ideas for the next step to be more
proactive. Ald. Zima inquired what we do to evaluate if our zoning is effective,
i.e. how long we let vacant land sit before we rezone it. Derek responded that
there is no case rule and said every case is evaluated individually. Ald. Zima
would like to see a report to look at our past investments and what we have
received from it and to learn from our past investments. He stated that we
should be investing in Lombardi Ave. and Military Ave. and encouraging
corporate headquarters to locate their office with a view of Lambeau Field,
adding that this is a commodity we are not taking advantage of.

Ald. Wiezbiskie congratulated Derek on a job well done and said his district is
doing very well, University Heights and I-43 and various other developments and
he is enjoying being a part of the urban design committee and the upbeat attitude
of the people on this committee. Ald. Vander Leest also complimented Derek on
a good presentation and requested having a summary of things we can do better
from the retention calls which he feels would be helpful in the future in how we
handle discussions on development and expansion, etc. Mr. Lord stated he can
do this and would be happy to update the committee every six - nine months and
said an annual economic report is prepared and had distributed a copy to
committee members. Ald. De Wane stated that he talks often with Derek and is
kept informed; he appreciates his attendance and update to the committee and
said he is doing a good job with the industrial parks and bringing more business
to the inner city. Chairman Wery agreed that he would like to hear back on a
summary of the feedback and what he would need to be more aggressive and
does he have the resources he needs, also an example of the incentive versus
retention. Ald. Wiezbiskie agrees that it’s important to see where our efforts are
bearing fruit.
Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. Vander Leest to request that
Derek Lord provide a summary of the feedback of our retention efforts, bring
suggestions for being more aggressive in seeking new business, and an example
of incentive versus retention and report back to the Advisory Committee. Motion
carried.

5. Report on successes, failures and procedures of the Sex Offenders
 Residence Board.
Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that he originally asked for this information because he
was hearing some successes and some failures and said he attended some of
the Sex Offenders Residence Board meetings and commended the committee
members on doing a good job. He stated there was some problem with the state
saying one thing and the city saying something else and said a representative
from the state attended a meeting that he attended. He stated that he felt the
Council rushed into passing the Sex Offender Ordinance and there was some
concern that some sex offenders were driven underground and also that other
municipalities were also adopting an ordinance. He is happy to see Arthur Taylor
present. Ald. Vander Leest stated that the state was placing close to 90% of sex
offenders in Brown County in Green Bay and said that is the reason why the
ordinance was created. He said now Green Bay is not the only community who
is placing sex offenders and said he supports the ordinance and does not wish to
see any wholesale changes or removal of the ordinance. Ald. De Wane stated he
agrees that we need to keep this ordinance intact and the state and Dept. of
Corrections need to monitor these offenders better when they are released so
they don’t go underground. He added that the community needs to be safe and
maybe the state needs to set up a monitor program through bracelets if there is a
monitoring problem.

**Ald. Jeffreys arrived at this time.

Asst. City Atty. Kail Decker addressed the committee and reviewed the statistics
on a handout of the Sex Offender Residency Board since it’s inception in May,
2007. He stated that 139 appeals were filed and the approval rate is about 65-
70% including those people who do not show up and are denied. He reviewed
the benefits of the ordinance which include: Reducing the Effect on Victims,
Making exceptions when Equitable, providing an Enforcement Mechanism,
and addressing the issues particular to Sex Offenders. He reviewed the
difficulties with the ordinance which include: Confidentiality of medical
records, necessary exceptions, Confidentiality of Juvenile Victims, Access
to records, Effect on the Dept. of Corrections, Lack of Clear Guidelines,
Issues Affecting Offenders, Romeo & Juliet Situations. (See attached
document for details on the benefits and difficulties) Ald. Vander Leest said
there are ways we can make improvements to the guidelines with defining public
interest and concerns of the public as to where offenders can be placed and
giving offenders guidelines to prepare and would know what to expect at the
hearing, and instruct offenders not to place security deposits until they are
approved to live at a specific address. He agrees that the Romeo & Juliet cases
need to be handled as sexual assault and suggested putting together a
handbook for commission members with the assistance of the Dept. of
Corrections? Atty. Decker responded that define public interest, handle acts of
God and better outlines would all have to be adjustments to the ordinance and
would need Council approval. He stated that he would not feel comfortable
advising appellants how to handle their appeal without some sort of statutory
backing or some sort of resolution passed by the committee itself. He stated that
he has produced a handbook for commission members and it could maybe be
made more concise. Regarding the deposit, he said if they don’t put down a
deposit, the apartment may be gone by the time the hearing comes forward and
it would be difficult to time the deposit being placed since there is a 30-45 day
turn around time period for appearing before the board.

Motion made by Ald. Jeffreys, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to open the floor to
allow interested parties to speak. Motion carried.

Arthur Taylor, chairman of the Sex Offender Residency Board stated that when
he learned that the Law Dept. staff was spending 5 hours preparing the
documents and $7 per package to mail more than 100 pages, he offered to
research the background information and volunteered to send the information in
a PDF, which he stated that he spent 15-20 hours preparing for the meeting last
month. He questioned the statistic of a board member in stating that 44 children
in Brown County will become victims of sexual assault in the next 10 years. Mr.
Taylor said this committee is a big deal, adding that we are the only city in the
country doing this and said other cities are scared to do it. He stated that we
lost two members when the Police Officer representation was lost, adding that he
never felt vulnerable. Ald. Wiezbiskie said he would like to see the committee
become more valuable if it has to be and addressing the issues that the
committee has. He added that since they lost representation of a police officer
they are flying blind and are reviewing more and more cases. He feels we do not
need to rewrite the whole policy and procedure here tonight, adding that the Law
Dept. should do that and should touch base with the surrounding municipalities
and have a unified effort.

Motion made by Ald. Jeffreys, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to close the floor.
Motion carried.

Ald. Piton stated that the DOC alleged that the ordinance was driving the
offenders underground and inquired if Atty. Decker had any research on this.
Atty. Decker responded that the percentage of the drop in placement in the city is
exactly the same as the number of offenders who stopped reporting. Ald. De
Wane suggested that there should be stiffer penalties. Ald. Vander Leest
maintained that we have numbers that indicate that we are not placing as many
offenders in Green Bay as in previous years and other communities are also
taking some of the offenders. Atty. Decker responded that the state would have
to impose stiffer penalties for bail jumping or not reporting in the sex offender
registry and adjust the criminal prosecution. Ald. De Wane indicated that he
would speak with someone at the state level. Atty. Decker commented that it’s
very potential that the numbers have gone down and said it’s not necessarily
because of the ordinance. Ald. Vander Leest stated that his information was
presented by the Mayor’s Office last year with Scott Matejov not recalling this but
said he will locate the information for the Council members tomorrow.

Motion made by Ald. Vander Leest, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to refer to the Law
Dept. to study the board’s procedures and develop improvements, to include
members of the Sex Offender Residency Board in the discussion to give them
the tools they need, and to talk with other municipalities to get input from them
and to get a more unified effort and to include the numbers before the ordinance
went into effect, how many went underground, and to report back within sixty
days to the Advisory Committee.

Ald. Vander Leest thanked Mr. Taylor and Mrs. Keehan for their time serving on
this committee. Ald. Piton suggested inviting DOC representatives to the
meeting when Atty. Decker will be reporting, with Atty. Decker responding that he
can only repeat the numbers given to him. Ald. Zima inquired of Atty. Decker if an
offender is approved and moves in six months, do they need to come before the
board again? Mr. Taylor responded stating “yes” it’s address specific, which Atty.
Decker concurred if it’s address specific. Ald. Zima suggested having better
application instructions and said possibly more members need to be appointed to
this board and the board may need to meet more than once a month. He said if
the city isn’t going to supply the manpower to get the background information, we
shouldn’t even have the board adding that the board members shouldn’t have to
do that; the Police or Attorneys Office should do this. Ald. Piton said the issue
appears to be the board going by the law enforcement information versus the
information available to the private sector. Atty. Decker said the state limits the
availability of criminal background information unless it’s for law enforcement
purposes.

Motion by Ald. De Wane, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to open the floor. Motion
carried.

Mr. Taylor stated that the Police didn’t reveal any information, but only clarified if
the information was accurate that the offender was stating and said the board no
longer gets clarification. Atty. Decker stated that the officer was basing his
decision on publicly accessible information which is available on C-Cap, adding
that last month Mr. Taylor offered to get the background information.

Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. Jeffreys to return to regular
order of business. Motion carried.

Ald. Wiezbiskie said we are set up for failure if we don’t do the job right and again
said we should talk to our surrounding municipalities to see how they are
qualified to make decisions without such a committee. He suggested that the
Legal Dept. report back on how to proceed or should we proceed?

Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. Vander Leest to open the floor.
Motion carried.

Mr. Taylor stated that when the Board was formed they had two professionals
(psychologists) as members and they asked the right questions that he would not
have thought to ask. He indicated that he tried to recruit other such professionals
to replace them, with no success.

Motion made by Ald. Jeffreys, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to return to regular
order of business. Motion carried.
Ald. Jeffreys stated that she’s not certain we’re getting at the heart of the matter
with the motion on the table, asking if we are doing due diligence with this board
to make it effective? She inquired the reason why the police officer is no longer at
these meetings, besides the time it takes. She indicated that she has also asked
acquaintances if they would like to volunteer on the board with no success. Atty.
Decker said in effect it was a financial decision, adding that when Chief Arts was
told that the Triple-I checks were no longer available the only thing the officer
would be able to do was to be writing C-Cap reports which staff can do and was
providing until last month when Mr. Taylor offered to do it. Ald. Theisen stated
that not all committee chairs would be willing to do this background work and for
consistency said legal staff or the Police Dept. should be providing this
information as they do for Protection & Welfare.

Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. De Wane to open the floor and
to keep the floor open to allow Mr. Taylor to speak when he wishes. Motion
carried.

Mr. Taylor stated that a lawsuit was brought against the city for an officer
revealing information that he should not have revealed. Ald. Theisen inquired
what happens if Mr. Taylor makes a mistake and provides information that should
not be revealed and what is that liability. Atty. Decker responded that Mr. Taylor
is acting as a board member in the official capacity and the information is C-Cap
information and the risk would be the same and said Mr. Taylor could not be
sued personally. Ald. Vander Leest inquired if the legal staff are salaried or
hourly and said if a couple of people from the legal staff works together to pull the
background information it would be much quicker than Mr. Taylor spending many
hours. Ald. Wery feels that staff should be doing this and it has to be consistent.
He agrees that the handbook and application needs to be reviewed and
enhanced and said he also agrees with the board meeting more often. He feels
we have hit a few snags and should not abandon this but fix the things that are
not working. Ald. Wiezbiskie said the DOC went on record as stating that they
would be better off without the city having this ordinance or board and said they
have a handle on this and said he feels input from the DOC is valuable and we
should at least listen to them and said they’re not going to go away.

Mr. Taylor stated the reason he volunteered was to save staff time and the cost
of mailing the materials and said he offered to email the information to committee
members, but said he would be happy to step down. Ald. Wery stated that staff
can email the information as well. Ald. Vander Leest stated that the DOC has
been against this from the beginning and again said most of us are in favor of
this ordinance and we should keep it. Mr. Taylor said we should be aware of not
clustering sex offenders and placing them in one apartment building. Ald. Wery
said he agrees that the state never wanted this and we asked them several times
for their help and said this ordinance/board is forcing the issue and we should
stick to it. Ald. De Wane stated that he is in favor of keeping this ordinance. Ald.
Zima suggested contacting former professional board members (psychologists)
to get their input in revising the handbook for board members.

A vote was taken on the motion to refer to the Law Dept. to study the board’s
procedures and development improvements to the application and handbook, to
seek input from other municipalities. Motion carried.
6. Request of Ald. Nicholson to review guidelines for Council meeting
 presentations (referred back from April 8th City Council meeting).
Since Ald. Nicholson was not in attendance, motion was made by Ald. De Wane,
second by Ald. Vander Leest to hold this item until a future meeting. Motion
carried.

Ald. Theisen wished to comment on this item, with the committee agreeing that
this item is not being addressed and Ald. Theisen will email comments to the
committee.

Motion made by Ald. Vander Leest, second by Ald. Jeffreys to take item 8 out of
order. Motion carried.

8. Request by Ald. Jeffreys to consider a five minute time limit on
speaking to a motion (five minutes, two times per motion for a total of ten
minutes per motion).
 Ald. Jeffreys stated that this has been talked about so many times before and
she is bringing it for a vote. Currently there is a 10 minute time limit two times
per motion and she is recommending two five minute time limits. Ald. De Wane
stated that he agrees and we should take a vote on the item right away.

Motion made by Ald. Jeffreys to approve the request for a five minute time limit
on speaking to a motion, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie.

Atty. Decker said if this is to be effective on all boards and commissions they can
make a general rule with a majority council vote according to Robert’s Rules.
Ald. Vander Leest said he does not support this change and feels we should not
restrict thoughtful debate and said it’s the job of the chair to keep the meeting
moving. Atty. Decker clarified that whether it’s five or ten minutes, that time used
for points of information by the chair is not included in that time limit. Ald. Zima
said this is the third time in the past year that we’ve had this discussion and as
the longest standing Council member, we have never attempted to shorten
someone’s right to address a committee and agreed that it’s up to the chair to
pull the meeting in if people begin to repeat themselves or veer from the issue.
He stated that we have a very active council who are thinking a lot and if there’s
meaningful discussion, we shouldn’t try to stop it. He said he is opposed to the
present limits we have and realize we have to operate under Roberts Rules.
Atty. Decker stated that if a question is asked of a department head, their
response time is not counted in the time limit. Ald. Theisen said we have a few
repetitors who speak longer but the majority of the Council say what they need to
in 10 minutes. Wiezbiskie stated that a lot can be said in 10 minutes. Ald. Kocha
inquired if the Mayor is considered to be the Chair at Council meetings? Ald.
Wery said “yes”. She then stated that in some cases the chair is not given the
respect he should be given and said when the chair is told not to interrupt how
does that square with the chair being the person who is supposed to control the
meeting? Atty. Decker responded that in extreme cases the chair is the one who
should take the reins and if someone is refusing to listen to the chair, an officer of
the court should remove that person from the room. Ald. Wery stated that the
problem may arise when the chair begins to debate with a member and should
step down as the chair. Ald. Piton suggested making a rotating facilitator to run
the meeting. Ald. Theisen agrees that it’s up to the Mayor as Chair to control
what’s going on and said sometimes the Mayor backs down and sometimes he’s
more strict and recalled a time when someone from the audience was speaking
from the podium and wouldn’t listen after three warnings and was escorted out.

A vote was taken on the motion with the motion carried by a 3-2 vote. Ald. De
Wane and Ald. Vander Leest voted against the motion.

7. Request of Ald. Jeffreys for a report on the projects proposed for
 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) by the City of Green
 Bay.

Ald. Jeffreys said she wanted a general update where we are with the state.
Scott Matejov provided background stating that before November there was a lot
of talk about wish lists and stimulus projects and said that gave people across
the country hope that municipalities were going to have all this money coming in.
What transpired after that is the city and the County along with the Chamber took
a collective approach to demonstrate to the folks in Madison, who were going to
be the administrators of that money that we were working together and presented
ideas and a cost estimate of those large and small projects. He stated that with
the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Federal Gov.
funded existing programs, which is more money and said the only add on is the
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) which we
have been advocating through the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Scott distributed
a handout showing a breakdown for the money that the State of Wisconsin
received and what the City of Green Bay will be receiving. He reviewed the list
and said the allocation for Green Bay is $5,082,000 and take out $126,000 from
which is going to the Community Health Clinic and said the rest of the money is
what we can expect to receive. He said there’s a lot of talk about transportation
and don’t necessarily agree with how the state is handling the transportation
funding and said we’re still not sure what our funding amount will be for
transportation.

He reviewed the amounts for the Community Development Block Grant (which
Council is voting on tomorrow), and the Justice Assistance Grant Program. He
said the whole stimulus is rather cumbersome. Scott said we are working with
the Sustainable Task Force to put together a plan for the EECBG which will be
coming to Council. He said the handout gets more in depth as to what the funds
can be used for and said this was included in 2007 under the Energy
Independence and Security Act, it was authorized but never funded. He said if
you can show to the Dept. of Energy that you are engaged in energy saving
initiatives, you will get more funding and said we are very excited about this
program, which is $1 million coming to our city. He stated that everything has to
go through Council for approval. Rob Strong stated that there is also $431,000
for public housing which will go directly to the Green Bay Housing Authority and
he pledged those funds to Mason Manor for storage space and will not go before
Council. Ald. Wery said if you take out some of the things that are going directly
to Transit, the Housing Authority the Community Health Center, it leaves the
Energy Efficiency, the Justice Assistance Grant and the CDBG. Scott said the
US Conference of Mayors has a pretty good summary of the program that breaks
down piece by piece all the funding areas where it went. He said the funding
mechanisms went through the states, rather than going directly to the various
cities. He again said if there are existing programs, they probably got some sort
of boost and said we’ll get money for Transportation funding, probably a few
hundred thousand for roads. Rob Strong said we’ll be receiving $2.1 million in
NSP funds.

Motion made by Ald. Jeffreys, second by Ald.Wiezbiskie to receive and place on
file. Motion carried.

 9. Request by Ald. Theisen to consider supporting the WI Department
 of Transportation’s policy of using roundabouts at locations where
 their traffic and engineering studies indicate a roundabout will
 provide, in a cost effective manner, for more efficient traffic and
 pedestrian movement and will reduce injuries for people in vehicles,
 bicyclists and pedestrians.

Ald. Theisen stated that he did a lot of research on roundabouts and stated that
he was surprised to hear how roundabouts that replaced traffic lights reduced
injuries. He read from the DOT policy which stated that engineers for DOT have
to consider roundabouts, adding that this policy is sound and based on
engineering. He stated that fender benders may increase, which is much better
than serious injury accidents. He read statements from the Police Chief in De
Pere, Chamber of Commerce Director, Mayor Walsh of De Pere and other
community leaders which confirmed that their roundabouts are moving traffic and
reducing injuries. He stated that the only negative to roundabouts is that people
don’t like them. He suggested drafting a resolution to the state in support of the
design that the DOT has come up with.

Motion made by Ald. Jeffreys, second by Ald. Wery to refer to the Law Dept. to
draft a resolution in support of the DOT’s plan for roundabouts in conjunction with
the Hwy. 41 reconstruction. Motion carried.

There being no further business, motion made by Ald. Jeffreys, second by Ald.
De Wane to adjourn. Motion carried.