Advisory — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2009-11-05
Time: 17:00

MINUTES
 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 Thursday, November 5, 2009
 City Hall, Room 604
 6:00 p.m.
Members Present: Council President Chris Wery, Council Vice-President Tom
DeWane, Ald. John VanderLeest, Ald. Tom Weber, Ald. Jerry Wiezbiskie, Ald.
Andy Nicholson

Members Excused: Ald. Celestine Jeffreys

Others Present: Ald. Amy Kocha, Ald. Tony Theisen, Ald. Guy Zima, City
Attorney Allison Swanson, Chris Phelps, Derek Lord, Chad Weininger, John
Vetter, Scott Matejov, Paul Srubas (Green Bay Press-Gazette)

1. Call to order.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chairman, Ald. Chris Wery.
Attendance was taken as noted above.

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

3. Approval of the minutes of the August 31, 2009 Advisory Committee
 meeting.
Motion made by Ald. Nicholson, second by Ald. De Wane to approve the minutes
of the August 31, 2009 meeting of the Advisory Committee, as submitted. Motion
carried.

4. Request by Ald. Nicholson to review guidelines for Council meeting
 presentations (referred back from April 8th Council meeting)
Ald. Nicholson said he brought this forward because he feels there should be a
policy drafted for Council to follow and said Council should be professional and
show respect and professionalism even if they do not agree with what is being
presented. He indicated that he or staff could draft a simple policy as a guideline
for members of Council to follow when presentations are presented. Ald.
Wiezbiskie stated that he agrees and said he would like to propose a time limit
on presentations. He stated that it’s up to the Chair to chair the meeting more
rigidly.

Motion made by Ald. De Wane to have Ald. Nicholson to work with staff to write
guidelines he feels would fit this proposal, and to bring this back to Advisory.
Second by Ald. Nicholson.

Ald. Kocha expressed concern that we have Robert’s Rules and said if we follow
them, shouldn’t this take care of it? Ald. Wery commented that we do not want to
duplicate what we already are doing and will see what is brought back. Ald.
Wiezbiskie agrees that if we follow Robert’s Rules many of these things will be
taken care of.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

5. Report by Ald. Kocha regarding NEW Community Shelter and St. John’s
 Homeless Shelters collective efforts to fight homelessness.
Ald. Kocha stated that she had asked for an opportunity to meet with
representatives from these shelters to uncover possible communication gaps and
said during the summer she met individually with these organizations. In recent
weeks she met jointly with them and said they discovered communication gaps,
some assumptions being made by each other, unanswered emails due to
systems being down and some gaps regarding referrals. She indicated that they
cleared the air on these things and the two parties met jointly with their staff and
she is satisfied that any communication gaps that she thought might have existed
last spring have been cleared up.

Ald. De Wane expressed appreciation to Ald. Kocha to take the time to follow-up
on this issue and to report back on it. He motioned to receive and place on file.
Motion was seconded by Ald. Nicholson. Ald. Wery also thanked Ald. Kocha for
her report and said hopefully some of the items that appeared to be big have
fallen under the bridge and things will run smoother this year. A vote was taken
on the motion. Motion carried.

6. Request by Ald. Wery for report on cost of lawsuit the City Attorney’s
 Office lost vs the Green Bay Press-Gazette regarding open records
 documents.
Atty. Swanson stated that as was discussed earlier this week, she had initially
received an estimate from Ruder Ware that the amount to defend this would be
$5,000-$6,000. She indicated that their actual bill was almost $9,000 and the bill
from the Press-Gazette was $18,000. She said the attorneys for the Press-
Gazette are billing at $350 per hour, which is one of the highest in the state. In
reviewing that bill, she indicated that at least one entry is not related to this case
and said she is questioning two other entries as to how they are related to this
case. She indicated that she will discuss these items with them and said these
bills will be paid out of the City’s litigation expenses. Ald. Wery stated that a lot
of people feel this was a needless fight and an expensive one, adding that other
municipalities handed over the information. Atty. Swanson responded that she
didn’t agree that it was needless and said she was contacted by many attorneys
from throughout the state regarding any outcome and she feels it’s important.
She indicated that she spoke with Atty. Dennis Duffy from Ashwaubenon who
represents many municipalities in the area and he had concerns that the invoices
would be released and drafted his bills in accordance with that. She said De
Pere did significant redactions and indicated that if they wanted a different
breakdown they would be charged for the cost of all of the redactions in addition
to the cost for all of the copies. She stated that in the end she believed the PG
did not get all of the invoices because they didn’t want to pay for all of the
redactions, adding that she believed some of the articles to be skewed. She
stated that the bills contain a lot of information and said she spoke with outside
Counsel in terms of adjusting our bills in how they describe things so that they
can prevent disclosure of attorney-client privileged information. Atty. Swanson
said based on the volume of invoices, it took twenty hours to review the bills and
said we charged .25 per page for the copies.

**Ald. Vander Leest arrived at this time and inquired about the rationale behind
not releasing the information. Atty. Swanson responded that the bills contain
attorney-client privileged information that would reveal some of the city’s legal
strategies and said also communication and preparations before things go into
litigation. She stated that in terms of the general public reviewing the bills, it
wouldn’t mean a lot but said the attorneys on the other side would understand it.
Atty. Swanson said she provided the amounts of the invoices and they PG was
looking for detailed entries of each invoice. Ald. Vander Leest said he serves on
the Executive Committee at the County where they review details of bills and
expressed disappointment that the City was forced to pay $27,000 over a minor
issue. Atty. Swanson responded that she received no contact from Council
members if they felt it was a minor issue or were disappointed or had concerns
about the issue. Ald. Wery stated that the $18,000 invoice from the Press-
Gazette seems like a ridiculous amount for a one hour trial, adding that he didn’t
believe the City was in the right for what they did, but had no way to anticipate
the invoice from the PG being so huge. He feels the Press-Gazette should be
brought to task for that. Ald. Weber inquired if Atty. Swanson talked to the
Mayor’s Office regarding this request? She responded in the affirmative. Ald.
Weber inquired why this matter was brought to Advisory? He said the Council
gets on a witch hunt a lot and said when Department Heads make correct
decisions, they are not brought up for review. He said the actions were done in
what was felt to be in the best interest of the City and our Attorney probably does
not agree with that decision. He said they usually see Council bring up such
things around budget time and election time. Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that in Atty.
Swanson’s professional opinion, she made the decision based on the fact that
providing the information could have harmed the city’s case. She said that is
correct and said in some actions they are asked in litigation to produce those and
maintain that it is attorney-client privileged information and aren’t forced to. He
said he feels Council should not micro manage our directors’ decisions and
should let them do their job.

Ald. VanderLeest said maybe we should disband Council and let staff run
everything, adding that Council is in the right to ask. He said Council was
elected to perform oversight duties and said he is not one to bury his head in the
sand. He stated that we should learn from this, like the Younkers case. Ald.
Kocha inquired if those who are critical of the Law Dept. have looked at any of
the bills? Ald. Wery responded that he had reviewed them. Ald. Kocha
expressed concern that they are judging without understanding Atty. Swanson’s
concern and she feels this is unjustified. Ald. Theisen inquired if the adversary
requested to see the invoices in the Younkers case? Atty. Swanson responded
yes, but they didn’t pursue it or contest it. Ald. Theisen said based on that, he
can see the basis of the legal argument and also understands the concerns of
the public with the article in the paper. He added that we could have gotten a
Judge who would have agreed with our position. He said the public should be
told the dollar amounts but not necessarily the details. Ald. Weber commented
that just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it right to do it
and said he is not sticking his head in the sand because he doesn’t agree with
the process that has gone on and finds this comment insulting. He disagrees
that it’s right. Ald. Wery summed up by stating three things that he felt had to
happen 1) reminder that bad decisions can cost of a lot of money 2) the Press-
Gazette bills are exorbitant 3) we needed to have this discussion in a public
forum.

Motion made by Ald. Nicholson, second by Ald. VanderLeest to receive and
place on file. Motion carried.

7. Request by Ald. Wery for review of the Watermark Riverfront Project to
 include construction timelines and design specifics for the proposed
 structures.
Ald. Wery asked John Vetter to give the Committee an update on the Watermark
Riverfront project. Mr. Vetter thanked the Committee for inviting him and said
this project will go forward, adding that they are on the last two pieces of the
process and it involves Calumet County Bank and their final commitment and
said the Bank is still working through the final commitments with their
participants. He said once he has that commitment, he can initiate a six-eight
week process that involves Wheda, our Tax Credit Buyer, the City, and
ourselves. He said they will all come together with the various specific attorneys
who have been selected and will close the Tax Credit Finance Deal, which is
very specific. He indicated that this process takes 6-8 weeks. He said he has
commitment from Maltese Farshad of Wheda that this project is Wheda’s number
one priority and they have given to the Children’s Museum as well. He stated that
once we have the final commitment letter from Calumet Bank, the attorneys will
divide up the work and set closing dates and Ganther Construction will probably
mobilize the site ahead of closing. The construction period is aggressively stated
as an eight month schedule but he puts it at ten months from start to finish. Mr.
Vetter said about 2/3 of the way through that process, Hagemeister Park
Restaurant and the Children’s Museum will be able to clean their space and
begin their build out. He stated that Paul Meier from Calumet County Bank had
planned to attend tonight but had another meeting that he couldn’t excuse
himself from. Mr. Vetter relayed a message from Mr. Meier stating that Calumet
County Bank is totally committed to this project and he has no doubt that he will
be able to finalize his piece of the deal.

Ald. Wery inquired about a date for the financing to be finalized? Mr. Vetter said
he could only say that Mr. Meier is very committed and working as hard as he
can to finalize things as quickly as possible and said he is hopeful that in weeks,
rather than months it will be finalized. Mr. Vetter said next week they will be
meeting with a potential great local business who will hopefully rent some office
space and said every indication they have is that this business is interested in the
space. Ald. Wery inquired about the design and said one building was put up
and said many people are not overly impressed with the look and said Council
and the City want to be assured that the next building that is put up is going to be
nice and will be the center of the CityDeck. Mr. Vetter responded that this was a
major concern with RDA and said during the summer they moved through all the
different issues on the aesthetics and materials and said it was approved at the
Council level as well. He indicated that what was presented at the RDA and
shown to Council continues to be what they will go with. Ald. Weber said Dan
Dallich who is an architect, was part of the Task Force that was involved during
the summer and he understands materials and brought samples and the Task
Force were pleased with it. He did not see any reason to come back to the RDA
again. Ald. Weber inquired if the participants are the same participants that they
had some time ago, or did they have to go out and pursue new? Mr. Vetter said,
“both” Mr. Meier did have to pursue new ones as well as following up with his
initial participants. He indicated that Mr. Meier is looking at one participant doing
the whole thing and opening up for several participants to do smaller amounts;
he’s doing multiple things. Mr. said there is also a private equity group that Mr.
Meier is talking to and said all of the investors will have the same position on the
loan. He stated that Mr. Meier has heard that the banks that are passing up on
this isn’t because of the deal, it’s because of the economy. He stated that his
mother wanted him to write a letter to President Obama because he talks about
small business, with Ald. Weber saying that it wouldn’t hurt to write to our
congressman and senators. Ald. Weber inquired about Wheda having a buyer
for the credits and said other than timing, Wheda would need to look for another
buyer? Mr. Vetter stated that Wheda is not concerned about that and said their
accountant has everything all teed up and are just waiting for the commitment
letter from Calumet Bank. Mr. Vetter said this project will happen and any doubt
in the community that can be defused by Council would be great. Mr. Meier is
open for any suggestions from Council or any other committee of the City.

Ald. DeWane thanked Mr. Vetter for coming and inquired if Mr. Vetter has
something in hand that if they don’t get their full commitment amount from
Calumet Bank, are they committed to a portion? Mr. Vetter said they have a
lending limit and are lending the full amount and said he has their commitment
and their commitment letter. Ald. DeWane inquired what is the backup if
Calumet Bank doesn’t come through? Mr. Vetter said we need to round out that
loan and they are continuing to talk to more banks and more participants with
smaller increments and said no one is going to give up. He said the project not
happening is not an option they are looking at and said we have to deal with the
current environment. Ald. Nicholson inquired if the taxes are current? Mr. Vetter
said “yes” they are current.

Motion made by Ald. DeWane, second by Ald. Nicholson to receive and place on
file.

Ald. Wery thanked Mr. Vetter for coming and giving the update. A vote was
taken on the motion. Motion carried.

8. Report from the Economic Development Director on summary of the
 feedback of the city’s retention efforts, suggestions for being more
 aggressive in seeking new business and an example of incentive versus
 retention.
Derek Lord addressed the committee stating that this is a follow-up to a meeting
held June 1st and said he has 30 slides to review. He indicated that they visit 75
companies a year in the city (mostly manufacturing and financial services
companies) and go through a long survey with them and the company fills out a
scale and rates various city services, business climate and their expectations for
the future. He reviewed the various areas that were rated by the businesses
including: code enforcement, public water & sewer, building inspection &
permitting, zoning & land use, local road network/conditions, (Derek said if they
rate something poor, they ask why and identify problems before the business
decides to move somewhere else) airport, utility/gas & electric (rated very high),
phone, internet, broadband, Police & Fire Services both rated good to excellent,
public transportation, workforce quality (Ald. Weber said he would be curious to
see if those numbers declined over the years) workforce availability (37% said
“fair” so it’s clear businesses have trouble recruiting) local government, 58% said
good to excellent, local tax structure (gets better rating than the state tax
structure) workers comp rates, economic development (one business rated it
poor because they drive by a store that’s been vacant for a long time and there’s
a perception that we’re not doing enough) recreation/cultural amenities, housing
(strong) k-12 education and colleges and universities, both very strong, technical
training, very strong, local business climate, 70% said good to excellent, climate
today versus five years ago much worse is the general sentiment, but they are
optimistic that it will be better in five years. 82% have a positive attitude toward
this facility and the community it’s located in, and 89% favorable attitude toward
this community.

Retention/Incentive efforts – Derek said the only formal program we have is the
Revolving Loan Fund which has been in existence for 19 years and said we have
loaned just over $3.2 million to 32 companies and for every dollar we loaned we
have leveraged another $4.65. We created 550 jobs and said this number is only
jobs created when the loan was made. The average loan amount per job was
$5,943,which he said was very low. Six loans were written off; for a total of
$591,260 half manufacturing ($430,000) and half restaurant businesses
($130,000). He reviewed the use of funds industry sector and said two loans
were made this year. Ald. VanderLeest commented that the County is
attempting to have the Revolving Loan Fund run by Advance, with Mr. Lord
stating that this City is not looking at this. He said the County cannot use their
funds in the city and said the city is an entitlement community. Discussion
ensued on whether other communities are more or less aggressive with better
results and Derek discussing the Micro Loan Program which is a much more
risky loan to make. He said Advance is looking at creating a program like that for
the County. Ald. Weber inquired if we have any data as to how we compare with
other communities. Derek responded that we have data that compares how
each major community in Wisconsin is using TIF money and how those programs
are structured but no other data on how we compare. D. Lord said Wisconsin as
a state has a budget of $6 million budget for business recruitment, which is very
low and gave an example of Iowa who recently recruited a 1300 person IBM
office and the state and city and everyone kicked in $52 million.

Derek reviewed business recruitment strategies and provided the committee with
a list of things they are already doing as well as suggestions for some new
things. He said the two big things are 1) to select and hire either a regional or
national lead generation firm that will guarantee a minimum number of qualified
leads that the City can pursue and 2) to join an office and retail expansion
service that provides clients a list of businesses that are actively growing in our
state, regional and local market. He said the first option could cost $5,000-$7,000
a year but does provide information. He said the companies you are working
with are competing to find a site in the country and will go where they are paid
the most. Ald. DeWane said he liked the ideas Derek is presenting and inquired
about holding a convention in the former Port Plaza Mall. Derek responded that
an Entrepreneur’s Conference was held the past four years and had about 200
participants. This year they are holding a Small Business Conference on
November 19th at the Holiday Inn and is open to suggestions. Ald. VanderLeest
thanked Derek for his presentation and said Council would be interested in
exploring and doing some of these initiatives and he would be in favor of adding
$8,000-$10,000 to be allow the city to join an office & retail expansion service
and said if there are trade shows that Derek and the Mayor or ED Dept. could
attend, he would be open to talking about that. Derek said he has some cost
estimates and said their marketing budget is the same as it was in the past and
said if they restructure some of their expenses, they could cover the cost of these
new initiatives and wouldn’t need more money to do this. Ald. VanderLeest said
he believes Council is interested in doing more than they have done previously
and Mr. Lord could bring suggestions to the joint Personnel & Finance
Committee meeting. He said Mr. Lord was a good manager of money and
indicated that he would not be opposed to adding $10,000-$15,000 in the ED
budget to be more proactive.

Ald. DeWane commented that people have opinions when they drive around
Green Bay and said since Derek Lord has been on board, he has seen the
accomplishments that have been made, and he appreciates that and he feels
Derek can take us where we need to be. Ald. Wiezbiskie inquired if Derek was
working with Better By the Bay, with Derek responding “yes”. Derek reviewed
the Enzymatic Therapy project at the request of Ald. Wiezbiskie and said this
effort took over 6-9 months and they brought the State in early in the project. He
said over 100 packets of information were sent to the Utah headquarters to show
the employees of Enzymatic that Green Bay was a great place and it worked to
our benefit.

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

9. Update on Ordinance revisions to 27.620, the Sex Offender Residence
 Ordinance.
Atty. Swanson distributed a copy of the proposed ordinance revisions that were
discussed at the last meeting. She said they tried to look at some things in terms
of re-writing to make them more clear. Discussion on what changes were made
that would specifically change the ordinance with Atty. Swanson stating that the
definition didn’t cover all crimes against children and now includes all crimes
against children. Ald. Nicholson inquired what changes were made to make the
ordinance more lenient with Atty. Swanson stating that it exempts the person
who lives at the TLP directly rather than having people that go to the TLP come
to the committee (and they would only be allowed to live there for 120 days).
She said what they are seeing is that people end up being housed in the jail
because they cannot find another location are they are waiting to get on our
agenda. She stated that the Police Dept. feel it’s good to get people into the TLP
as they are closely monitored there. Also, people usually get out of Green Bay
after they have been at the TLP rather than going before the Board. She
reviewed the clarification to the portion of the ordinance that refers to people in
medical facilities like the Jackie Nitschke Center. Ald. Nicholson clarified that the
change to the item regarding the TLP would allow the sex offender to bypass the
Board and go directly to the TLP. Atty. Swanson said Atty. Decker had talked to
the Dept. of Corrections and it was their recommendation. Ald. Nicholson stated
that he does not like this change and it is not protecting the citizens of Green Bay
and said this change makes the job of the Parole Officer easier.

Motion made by Ald. Nicholson to delete item #3b5, second by Ald. VanderLeest.

Ald. DeWane inquired if there are any changes to the 2,000 foot radius? Allison
stated that as an alternative you could change it to 1500 feet. Ald. DeWane does
not support this change. Ald. Wery stated that it is not a change but a comment
that was put in that it could be 1500 feet. Ald. VanderLeest stated that he
supports the deletion of #3b5 and said we have done a good job of controlling
the placement and he wants to maintain that control.

A vote was taken on the motion to delete item #3b5. Motion carried.

Ald. Wiezbiskie referred to the distance question and inquired of Atty. Swanson
to explain the comment that the distance could be reduced alternatively to 1500
feet and make the ordinance unconstitutional. Atty. Swanson stated that she
believed at the time there was the question of eliminating the Sex Offender
Residence Board or not and looking at the parameters of what could those
distance requirements be at the same time of reducing those parameters and
allowing more places for the sex offenders to live. Ald. VanderLeest mentioned
the penalty portion with Atty. Swanson stating that on page 3 this section was
rewritten to bring more clarity, and was not deleted. Atty. Swanson said the
application form was revised to be more clear. Ald. VanderLeest questioned
about security deposits and said some people are losing those deposits if they
are denied by the Board or if the place was no longer available. Atty. Swanson
said the only way of getting around that would be to ask for a blanket approval
but said we usually require specific addresses.

Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, second by Ald. DeWane to adopt the
revisions to Ordinance 27.620 as amended. Motion carried.

10. Request by Ald. Zima, on behalf of the citizens of Green Bay, to have
 Congressman Kagen introduce legislation to redraw lines of the Green
 Bay Transit District into two distinct transit districts, one for Green Bay
 and one for Brown County, in an effort to maintain all State and Federal
 support for transit in Green Bay and Brown County.
Ald. Wery stated that the Committee received a copy of a letter from Cong.
Kagen and turned the floor over to Ald. Zima. Ald. Zima stated that Cong. Kagen
brought this idea up at committee but has no response yet. He indicated that
Cong. Kagen signed onto a bill which if it goes through, would allow us to keep
our funding with the “Under 100 bus limit”. He said his idea was to have one
transit district for Green Bay and one for the rest of it, and said that doesn’t mean
that the districts couldn’t contract and have the same person manage it. He
stated that Chad Weininger had the idea to pursue two separate transit districts.
He feels this is still worth pursuing and said he wants to avoid establishing
another taxing authority and said an RTA would be his last option. He wants us
to pursue all options for funding operation of our transit system and would like to
see our staff working on these.
Chris Phelps said the Bill that Cong. Kagen signed onto is 2746 and that limits
and gets us up to 50% of eligible funding for operating assistance and we need
100%. He said we’ll continue to work on this and said there are over 150 other
communities on this as well. He said the administration has asked for an 18
month extension and they’ll continue to meet with the Congressman’s staff as
well. Ald. VanderLeest said a group including Ald. Jeffreys and himself met with
the congressman’s staff and said he called the Congressman’s office today to let
them know the item was being discussed this evening and invited them to attend
if there were any updates. He would like to have this item remain with Advisory
as an item of interest and bring updates as they are received.

Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, second by Ald. Nicholson to refer to staff to
follow up with outreach to other communities on the transit issues and to follow
up with Congressman Kagen’s office to continue working on redrawing the lines
for two transit districts. Motion carried.

Ald. Kocha asked that even if the lines are redrawn, would we only get 50%? Mr.
Phelps responded “no” and said if we keep current law, we would be well under
the 100 bus limit and would then qualify for 50% funding.

11. Request by Ald. Kocha to consider and take action on a possible
 resolution showing Council support for the development of the East
 River Trail connection to the Fox River Trail.
Ald. Kocha said she is on the Advisory Board for the East River Trail and there
was some discussion among the group that they would appreciate seeing
support from Council, and with the change in Council every two years , they
would like to have a resolution stating that this Council supports this trail. She
indicated that the Olde Main District is very excited about this. Ald. Wery said he
recalls bits and pieces have been bought and approved all along and said it
makes sense to connect the trail. Ald. Wiezbiskie asked if a resolution would
insure that the trail would be done, and questioned the worthiness of the
resolution. He does support this connection but said it could be overturned in the
future. Ald. VanderLeest inquired where the resolution would be directed; to the
County, the State? He inquired who would bear the cost? Ald. Kocha said they
are looking at grants and donations and said the funding is separate, she is
asking the Committee to support the concept. Ald. VanderLeest said he would
not support city purchase of lands for this project. Ald. Kocha asked him if he
liked the idea in and of itself of connecting the trail? He responded he does
support that idea but said you cannot separate funding for the project, adding
that if a funding source was brought forward he would support a resolution. Ald.
Wery said funding would be a separate discussion.

Ald. DeWane inquired how large of a project this is? Baird Street to Monroe Ave.
was the response from Ald. Kocha. She said it’s a very challenging task and are
taking it one step at a time. Ald. DeWane would support this project. Ald. Weber
stated that he also likes the idea and can judge the other areas when they come
to it; he supports the resolution. Ald. Nicholson commented if a resolution is
even warranted to say that we are for the trails?. Ald. Wiezbiskie said we are
close to finishing this trail and supports the resolution if it strengthens heading in
the direction of completing this trail. Ald. VanderLeest again stated that they
need to define how they plan to fund it, i.e. grants or donations and he would
support the resolution and doesn’t want to use levy dollars and borrow to fund
this. He added that typically trails have been done with grants from the DNR.
Ald. Zima believes this should be referred to staff to come up with a cost estimate
and then bring forward a resolution, and if it’s a larger amount of money,
contingencies may want to be placed on it. Ald. Theisen reviewed past funding
of trails with donations from Cletus Vanderperren and Red Lewis. He stated that
the city has declined buying property for trails when the seller wanted an
exorbitant amount. He said there is a section in the East River Trail which will run
through a commercial section and will be more difficult and believes Bill
Landvatter could provide the amount that the city has paid on other trails.

Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest second by Ald. De Wane to refer to staff to
come back with cost estimates for development of the East River Trail
connection to the Fox River Trail and to bring this to the Parks Committee.

Ald. Weber said he is not in favor of the motion to come up with a cost estimate
where we will spend a lot of time and resources of staff time and said he would
support a resolution stating that we will connect that trail in the next year or
eighteen months and will acquire what we need to do it. He said trails are
developed piece by piece and a resolution in favor of a good project doesn’t
require a cost effort and said nothing in the resolution says you have to buy it or
spend it or where you get the land, the effort or anything else. He said if you
don’t like it when the item comes up in the budget, take it out of there and said he
is not in favor of the motion. Ald. Theisen said in the ‘70’s there was a vote to
purchase property which is now just behind the slide at Bay Beach, and said over
the years the city purchased all of the property there and there was never an
estimate as to how much that purchase would cost, it was done one step at a
time. Ald. Wiezbiskie said there has been discussion at the Parks Committee
regarding this trail and he feels it is almost impossible to put a budget to this
project. Ald. DeWane seconded the motion for discussion and asked Ald.
Wiezbiskie if this item could be sent to the Parks Committee and get some
questions answered? Ald. DeWane withdrew his second of the motion by Ald.
VanderLeest.

Motion made by Ald. Weber, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to refer this item to the
Parks Department to draft a resolution and to bring it back to the Park Committee
for further discussion on the details of completing the East River Trail. Motion
carried.

12. Request by Ald. Piton to consider allowing meetings of the Standing
 Committees to be scheduled by a petition signed by two members plus
 the vice-president of the respective committee.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, second by Ald. DeWane to receive and place
on file. Ald. Weber inquired if the wishes of the committee was to hold this item?
He stated that he is against this motion. Ald. Zima said the rule at the County is
that whenever a majority of a committee wants to have a special meeting, they
can call a meeting. He does not agree with taking the authority to schedule
meetings away from the committee chairman. He feels committee members
should have the power to hold a meeting by petition and would be in favor of
amending the ordinance. Atty. Swanson said the Advisory Committee can
schedule a meeting at the call of the Chairperson or by petition signed by 3
members of the committee, but said this does not apply to the other standing
committees and the ordinance would need to be amended to have that type of
rule apply. Ald. Zima said the Chairman of the committee should be the
determining factor of when meetings are scheduled. Ald. Theisen said his
understanding is that the chairman can call a meeting at any time and Advisory
call be called with a petition of three members and this rule has not been abused.
He would not be opposed to having a policy that in addition to the chair, they
would have the option of the majority of the committee being allowed to schedule
a meeting. Ald. Wiezbiskie said this was Ald. Piton’s agenda item and he should
be involved in this decision. Atty. Swanson said a motion could be made to table
this item until the next meeting and this motion would supersede the motion to
receive and place on file.

Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. Weber to hold this item until the
next Advisory Committee when Ald. Piton could be present. A vote was taken on
the motion. Ald. Wery said the motion passed by 3-2 vote. A roll call vote was
then requested which resulted in a 3 to 3 tie vote. Ald. Zima stated that there
should be a change to allow a majority of a committee to schedule a meeting.
Ald. Kocha stated that at any other time if an alderperson is not present the item
has been held over as a courtesy and questioned why this wouldn’t be approved.
Ald. DeWane stated that he thought they were voting on the motion to receive
and place on file and wished to reconsider his vote. Another vote was taken on
the motion to hold this item until the next Advisory Committee meeting. Motion
carried with a 4-2 vote. Ald. Nicholson and Vander Leest voted nay.

13. Request by Ald. Wiezbiskie to consider allowing only two 5-minute
 discussion periods per attendee at Committee meetings.
Ald. Wiezbiskie said this falls in line with similar circumstances at City Council
meetings and said he has attended many committee meetings when attendees
take up entirely too much time and was hoping this committee would consider
limiting to two 5-minute periods per attendee.

Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. Weber to allow two 5-minute
discussion periods per attendee at Committee meetings. Ald. Weber wished to
amend the motion to make an exemption for presenters who are asked to be
there and may need more time.

Ald. Theisen stated that he would prefer this be handled by each committee and
cited the example of Anna & Sidney Cohen who would speak for long periods of
time at the Plan Commission a number of years ago and the Chair decided to
have a limit on the amount of time. He inquired if each committee could establish
a rule for their committee? Atty. Swanson said they could establish a by-law.
Ald. VanderLeest said he would not support this and said Committee level is
when things get flushed out and prepared for Council. He said it’s up to the chair
to keep people on topic and feels this is the wrong direction to take. He said the
Joint Finance/Personnel Committee meeting has gotten shorter each year. Ald.
Kocha is questioning how this would relate to the kind of discussion they had last
week at the Plan Commission, which went back and forth for some time and cited
the event when presentations are given. She said she is not certain she is in
support of this. Ald. Wiezbiskie said if people come prepared they can
adequately cover their discussion in two 5-minute periods. Ald. Wery stated that
committees is where we do our work and may miss out on discussion if you only
have two 5-minute discussion periods. Ald. Theisen inquired if this time limit is for
both committee members and the public? Ald. Wiezbiskie responded “yes”. Ald.
Theisen said he chaired the Park Committee for many years and they often have
large groups of people who all want to speak and in these cases he would limit
each speaker to two minutes and said it’s up to the chair to control this.

A vote was taken on the motion to approve attendees at committee meetings
being allowed two 5-minute discussion periods, with the exception of people
presenting. The motion failed with a 3 to 1 vote. Since there should have been
six members voting, a roll call vote was taken. The motion failed by a 4 to 1 vote
with Ald. Weber abstaining.

Motion was made by Ald. VanderLeest, second by Ald. DeWane to receive and
place on file. Motion carried.

14. Request by Ald. Wiezbiskie to come up with a means of preventing
 disrespectful behavior or comments in light of an occurrence at a recent
 committee meeting. Also request to draft a resolution recommending
 keeping closed session information confidential.
Ald. Wery said it appears that there are two separate items in this agenda item,
which was confirmed by Ald. Wiezbiskie.

Ald. Wiezbiskie said he already knows what the answer is to the first part of this
item, which is having a strong chair to command respect at meetings. He
indicated that he is tired of seeing disrespectful behavior, name calling, texting,
people standing up, showing up late, leaving the room, etc. during meetings and
said the chairs of these meetings, including the Mayor need to call the
disrespectful person back to order. He inquired if we need an inservice to review
Robert’s Rules of Order, and said he has documented a half dozen incidents
where one individual has been completely out of order and not controlled
properly.

Motion was made by Ald. DeWane, second by Ald. VanderLeest to have Ald.
Wiezbiskie work with staff on bringing guidelines to improve respectfulness and
orderliness at meetings and to bring this back to the Advisory Committee.

Ald. Weber said he supports what Ald. Wiezbiskie is trying to achieve and said
we all need to support the Chair when they are trying to control a meeting. Ald.
Wiezbiskie said if we just practice respectfulness, this will all go away; he said
we’re looking ridiculous out there and people who watch the Council meetings
say it looks like a circus. Ald. Theisen said the two general issues here are that
we have Council members who don’t follow Robert’s Rules of Order and either
they don’t care or they don’t know what the rules are. He said you wait to speak
until you have the floor, there are certain things you can say without the floor like
Point of Order and said there’s a big difference between feeling strong about
your point of view and being forceful and said maybe we should review our
Ethics rule. Another issue is treatment of the public and should tell them what
our opinion is in a respectful manner. He reiterated what Ald. Wiezbiskie said in
that the chairman should keep control of the meeting. He said the public is smart
enough to see which member(s) are acting like a circus and which ones aren’t.
Ald. Weber said as with every body, there goes with it a reputation and that
reputation goes to the entire body and said we need to ask all of our members to
be respectful. He said the reputation of this Council goes far beyond the City and
County lines and the reputation isn’t favorable. He said we should respect
ourselves and others not to call names and be disrespectful to our citizens and to
staff. He said we can disagree politely and get the same thing accomplished. He
said our reputation harms us all.

Ald. Wiezbiskie inquired how we can enforce respectful behavior to ourselves, to
each other, to directors and staff and said we need to address this right now.
Ald. Nicholson inquired if we are going to hold the Mayor accountable as well,
and asked how we are going to hold him accountable. Ald. Wiezbiskie said this
goes for chairs of all meetings. Ald. Wery said we all have a tendency to assume
the floor rather that wait until we are given the floor. Atty. Swanson said there is
a process in terms of Robert’s Rules as to what should be done and distributed a
memo and reviewed the steps to be taken; first offense, lightly rap the gavel and
ask the member to confine his remarks or otherwise point out the fault; second
offense, the chair shall call the offending member to order; third offense, chair
shall “name” the offender and ask the clerk to note the offense in the minutes;
fourth offense, chair shall ask the body what penalty should be imposed. Ald.
Zima said disrespectful behavior is not an Ethics matter and said our Ethics code
is about conflicts of interest. He said from time to time respect breaks down and
said it’s up to the chair to control this. He said beyond that, we have no right to
become self-righteous and said the strength of the meeting is the strength of the
chair. He stated that trying to make rules beyond Robert’s Rules is self-righteous
poppycock. He said when meetings break down is when people feel the chair
isn’t being fair. He said we should go by Robert’s Rules of Order and review
them if we need to.

Ald. Weber referred to #4 in the memorandum where if the chair is asking what
penalty should be imposed, he should receive the support of the committee
members with a response. With respect to Ethics, he stated that he didn’t know if
our Ethics Code addresses what we are discussing here and said it’s time that
we make sure the chair and then the body take appropriate action when people
are out of order. He doesn’t feel it’s going to be one person’s opinion and said
what could be the problem to hold people to a certain standard? Ald. Wiezbiskie
said he’s happy to comply with Robert’s Rules and enforce them and not to make
new rules or change the rules.

Ald. DeWane said the memo distributed clearly defines what steps can be taken
and said we aren’t going to add anything more than following Robert’s Rules and
doesn’t see any need to go further with this. Ald. Theisen stated that he will
check Robert’s Rules again and said it’s not as simple as following these rules
because some members don’t follow these rules, and asked what we do then?

A vote was taken on the motion for Ald. Wiezbiskie to work with staff to draft
guidelines for improving respectfulness and orderliness at meetings and to bring
this back to the Advisory Committee. Motion carried with Ald. Nicholson voting
nay.
Ald. Wiezbiskie said he witnessed a possible breach of the basic rule of not
divulging information from a closed session to the opposing party, and at that
point in time it cost the city a lot of dollars. He said this is another infraction of a
rule and said we cannot have that happen. Ald. DeWane said the point is well
taken and we need to replace and file and people will read about Ald.
Wiezbiskie’s concern in the minutes. He said everybody knows that they cannot
discuss something that is in closed session.

Motion made by Ald. DeWane, second by Ald. Nicholson to receive and place on
file.

Ald. Weber inquired if there is any recourse for violation of divulging closed
session information? Atty. Swanson responded that the Ethics Ordinance
specifically states that no employee or official can disclose confidential
information regarding the property, government, or affairs of the City so you can
either go through the Ethics Committee and file a complaint which would
ultimately still end up going to the Council, or you could take it directly to Council
for censure or apology, etc. Ald. Weber inquired if there is any action that could
be taken here rather than receive and place on file? Ald. Wiezbiskie again said
he is looking to this committee to decide if this should go to the Ethics Board and
asked what the Ethics Board does? Investigate, prove it? Ald. Zima said you file
an allegation. Ald. Wery suggested rather than making a motion, to reaffirm to
Council and staff that closed session information remain confidential and to
reiterate that there are serious penalties for breaching such information.

Ald. DeWane withdrew his motion to receive and place on file and changed his
motion to refer to staff to reaffirm to Council and staff that closed session
information remain confidential and to reiterate that there are serious penalties
for breach of information. The motion was seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie. Motion
carried.

There being no further business, a motion was made by Ald. Weber, second by
Ald. Nicholson to adjourn. Motion carried.