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 8^th 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.