Council Minutes
17639
July 11, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
July 11, 2001
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in special session in the council chambers in City Hall on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun - 10; absent: Council Member Bakken, Martinson - 2.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.
The city auditor reviewed the process of how the budget was to move forward, that as brought forward from the last meeting and as it went through council, we were to discuss specific areas of the budget at one meeting, etc. with the intent of making adjustment at the following meeting, that we have a deadline to meet at the County of October 10, and it takes approx. 3 weeks once we have a final budget to enter that into the computer, get the documents changed, reformat and print it. He stated if they are able to work through this would still like to make preliminary and final adoption in August, with preliminary adoption at the August 6 meeting. He asked for initial discussion or continued discussion on the General Fund, and if there are any recommendations for changes at this time.
Council Member Christensen stated that these debates sometimes are rather tedious and rather controversial and gave ice cream blizzards to everybody on the council and staff.
COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK REPORTED PRESENT
(TELECONFERENCE SYSTEM)
There was some discussion by the council as to the process which had been stated, that after deliberation and adjustments by the city council, that is what will be introduced in the official preliminary budget introduction, and at that point there would be time for additional amendments at that session.
Mayor Brown asked for discussion or amendments on the General Fund.
Council Member Stevens moved an amendment to reinstate $100,000 to Human Service Needs from the undesignated sales tax. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion.
Council Member Gershman asked if $500,000 in use tax is dedicated to flood protection for bonds and asked if we were collecting more use tax this year or what fund balance would be; the city auditor stated that on the use tax our collections would end up around $493,000 and that’s projection for next year and no excess; that the one area of excess that you could use is that balance of excess sales tax that we have built up to $2.3 million and that’s where they would look to.
COUNCIL MEMBER LUNAK REPORTED PRESENT
(TELECONFERENCE SYSTEM)
Council Member Burke asked if there was an amendment on the floor. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that a motion to remove from the table is not required insofar as you have specifically set this as a special meeting of the city council to consider the General Fund and it is on your agenda.
Council Member Kreun stated that Human Needs are very critical and spent very wisely and leveraged within the community and bring back about five times the dollars that we spend, bring it into the community, and should take a look at these items and just because adding doesn’t mean that it is a bad decision.
Council Member Christensen stated that $100,000 can easily be taken care of with the CDBG monies rather than bricks and mortar and questioned why taking it from the General Fund. Joel Scheving, Urban Development Office, stated that in the past Human Needs is a program that was pre-flood, the $3,000 from the year 2000 was because that’s all that was carried over from pre-flood and nothing in 2001, the difference between public service CDBG and Human Needs General Fund is the LMI ramifications, if it didn’t have good LMI ramifications it went to Human Needs, if easily documented it went to public service out of CDBG.
Council Member Brooks stated we have to have expenses and revenues even, and if amendment for $100,000 and using excess sales tax, and if support the amendment, the motion should have a regular on-going revenue source and make the other part of the motion that the dollars will come from a mill; or to tie it to something that will be there every year; and if increase expenses then increase the revenue with it.
Council Member Kerian asked if we were to vote against the Human Needs, what would that mean in terms of reconsideration later. Mr. Swanson stated the motion to reconsider would apply to not a subsidiary motion such as a motion to amend, the motion to reconsider applies to final action and an amendment in itself would not be considered a final action - you have some concern that amendments cannot be identical to one previously defeated and is not subject to reconsideration - procedurally we can accomplish to get there at some point - but that regulations that apply here to the budget set forth the timeline that have to approve your budget and can approve budget either by ordinance or by resolution, that they have been approved by resolution and are eligible to be amended even post approval if you can identify alternative incomes or additional and unanticipated incomes, clearly not a reconsideration.
Council Member Glassheim stated that we have had the Human Needs allocation and been $100,000 since started under Mayor Wessman, was an annual amount in addition to the CDBG 15% funds, this was City money (taken out of sales tax) and went on for 10 years at same amount for same purpose; at the time of flood because in dire straits did not take it out of the City budget, but received additional federal money and made more than the $100,000 available to the Human Needs non-profits, never any intention to end the Human Needs $100,000, stopped for 2 years because there was additional funding that was made available from federal money - that we’re through with the federal money and was omitted from this year’s budget by oversight, no decision made not to do it; Mayor agreed. Mr. Glassheim stated it is new to the Mayor’s budget but not a new program, and asked that they consider it that way and if include it, will have discussion about how the funding package is set up.
Mayor Brown stated that Human Needs dollars are essential to the budget, and wouldn’t cut the budget, need an honest budget that says what it costs to live in the city, these are your services and these are your costs, and if leverage more dollars smart to spend them that way; that Human Needs as with UND recruitment as with other areas - there’s a cost to live here and people have to accept it or reject it.
Council Member Burke stated that when the City was spending $100,000 of local money was when CDBG funds were in the neighborhood of $300,000 to $400,000/year and 15% was $30,000 to $50,000, now CDBG funds that we get from the federal government plus the program income for this year was $1.5 million which means we could have if we knew what that number was going to be have spent $150,000 in public service funds out of the CDBG money, don’t know number for next year but imagine it’s going to be $1 million or more when look at program income, so we can allocate $150,000 in CDBG funds and program income to the public service needs and not do this - this is probably in the neighborhood of the money that was going into that area in 1997 and 1996, and given claim we have on the funds available in other areas, this is prudent thing to do - max out on the 15% of the public service funds, which we didn’t do this year, and leave it at that. Mr. Burke stated that CDBG funds are a separate item and not considered in the process of the budget and would happen in the course of the hearings on the CDBG funds and made it clear a month ago when he tried to include an amendment to public service funds when considering reallocating CDBG funds for the park project and would support full 15% authorization of CDBG public service funds.
Mr. Scheving stated that pre-flood there were both Human Needs money and the 15% CDBG money, that Mr. Burke is correct that next year in the budget is for approx. $150,000 of public service out of CDBG; and entities that are documented very well the LMI requirements can be funded out of the public service of CDBG, the entities that are less LMI in nature go to the Human Needs funded through the General Fund.
Pat Burger, United Way, stated that the total amount that used to be available prior to the flood was approx. $300,000 and $150,000 came from CDBG funds with a lot of restrictions on those dollars in relation to the income level that someone has or cannot have in order to access programs with those funds. She stated that these dollars bring in a great deal of dollars to the community; and hoped that they would look at the non-profit sector as important as bringing in dollars for the business community, the Enterprise fund, etc. this is an important part of the community. She commented on the amount of money that is brought in by these organizations as well as the number of people employed by these organizations, approx. 1,000 full-time people and another 1,000 part-time people; she asked that the council help the people who are helped by these programs and the agencies that work with them.
Council Member Stevens asked to withdraw his motion in lieu that the mayor can put this in his budget and then consider it again. Council Member Gershman would not withdraw his second, and Council Member Stevens left his motion as is.
The city auditor stated that the Mayor’s budget has been given to the council and that’s the budget that you moved to this meeting.
Council Members Glassheim and Bjerke called the question and upon voice vote the motion carried.
Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Glassheim, Gershman, Lunak, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Stevens - 7; voting “nay”: Council Members Christensen, Brooks, Bjerke, Hamerlik, Burke - 5.
Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
Council Member Burke asked to amend his vote to a yes vote. Mr. Swanson stated he believed the rules on a vote is that once a vote is announced, a member cannot change his vote without the consent of the entire body.
Council Member Christensen stated he would like to amend his vote as well as Council Member Hamerlik.
It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Christensen to take a count of the vote and change of votes. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Member Christensen, Hamerlik, Burke - 3; voting “nay”: Council Members Gershman, Lunak, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Glassheim - 9. Mayor Brown stated that the motion failed and votes are as recorded.
Council Member Bjerke stated he was not going to make any motions but wanted to present several items for council to consider to cut on the General Fund: 1) a report on how to spend the CDBG money and since now going to give Human Needs some money, maybe take CDBG money and spend it somewhere else; and several items to delete from the budget: assistant city clerk; 1 position from the Public Information Office; the door guard at City Hall and would hope to have our overtime policy figured out so can find out how much money we can save if all departments are doing overtime correctly, and have a discussion on how vote on cash carryover policy, and will bring up with motion in the future and asked the council to think about them.
The city auditor stated that was part of the attempt to have items placed here so we would know where the budget sits when it comes to you, whether balanced or not balanced, and if wait until August or a later meeting then we are still waiting to see if the $100,000 really adds to the budget and would hope if there are issues, put them on the table.
Council Member Bjerke moved to delete the position of assistant city clerk from the budget; Council Member Burke seconded the motion.
The city auditor stated that since that is in his department that if you are going to delete that position he would ask for some reinstatement of the overtime that they were trying to eliminate because with the assistant city clerk he can get more time using straight time pay than the overtime that we had, we are in the process of trying to establish an electronic filing system that makes our records usable by all departments which will save and create efficiencies in our system of research. He also stated that because of the work load and the filing required of the city clerk, and part of that helped develop during the flood, we ended up being behind on minutes and if willing to settle for some of those things. Council Member Bjerke stated assistant city clerk position’s pay is $30-38,000, how much overtime talking about. The city auditor stated we had reduced our overtime by $25,000. Council Member Lunak agreed with eliminating the position, it’s not the overtime, all the overtime for every department is going to be done by the 30th of this month - that overtime is a difficult thing but not to use as a threat because his office shouldn’t get any overtime. The city auditor stated he would agree if you are willing to accept the fact that some of the work will not get done in a timely manner. Council Member Lunak disagreed.
Council Member Glassheim asked what this position will do and what will not be done if we don’t have the position. The city auditor stated the position is to assist the city clerk in taking minutes of other meetings and working on filing, assisting on city licensing area, those are the prime duties, and one of the key elements in adding this position is that we were able to start an electronic imaging process that will suffer greatly by not having this position, that is something that would save record and storage space, make information more accessible and more quickly retrieved than going to storage areas; that it is their right to make that decision, but understand that some of those things that we were trying to do were somewhat pro-active may not be able to be accomplished.
Council Member Burke stated that we need to look at total number of employees, where the increases are and in which offices, etc. and deal with temporary issue; and moved to table the motion to delete the position of assistant city clerk and to gather a package and bring it to council so it will be a constructive type of thing where we present an alternative way of looking at revenue and where the spending is and where revenue comes from. Council Member Stevens seconded the motion to table the item. Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Gershman - 7; voting “nay”: Council Members Lunak, Kerian, Kreun, Bjerke, Glassheim - 5. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
Council Member Kerian questioned the purpose of additional meeting of several council members, what is different about that setting and if it can be done here, that these have been set up for discussion about the budget, that the public can see what we are doing. Council Member Burke stated that in additional meetings they heard what the departments functions were, etc. and dealt in minimal way with their budgets, now looking at numbers and asking questions about the numbers themselves. Council Member Brooks stated what he was trying to do, as he started the process, was to look at the budget work in progress as it was and knew he couldn’t support a budget where it wasn’t in balance - revenues equaling expenses.
Mayor Brown stated that by ordinance he brings his budget forward and council adjusts it. Mr. Swanson stated the budget is originated through the executive branch and presented to the council’s legislative branch for approval; once the mayor hands it over to the legislative branch, the mayor loses control over the budget and it lies within the purview of the council to determine in what manner it wishes to debate or act upon the budget, whether that includes amendments, increasing or decreasing the budget, upon final action of the council or legislative body the budget then goes back to the mayor for either signature or veto, but it does originate in the Mayor’s Office and do present it to council which he believes has occurred to this point.
It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Bjerke that the 2002 be a balanced budget with revenues and expenses being equal by accounting standards. Mr. Burke asked the city auditor if he would consider the budget being worked on to be a balanced budget. The city auditor stated that the budget presented by the Mayor does meet that definition, because you have the authority under various statute to transfer funds from other funds to help out the situation and would reach that definition.
After considerable discussion relative to transfer of funds and it was noted that the issue is not over spending down the General Fund, the issue is whether to transfer from Highway Users to the General Fund . The city auditor noted that the only rate increase that actually was approved was the waste water increase. Council Member Christensen stated if the goal is to deal with the General Fund this evening and that the issue is income and expenses out of the General Fund and transfer coming in for the Highway Users, these are on-going current operational expenses, can’t use seed capital to fund on-going expenses, will pass this year because don’t want to raise taxes but next year those funds used for some streets, repairs or we will go with special assessments, but have to focus on the general fund this evening and not on the special funds.
Council Member Brooks explained his motion, that the council will say they are going to pass a balanced budget, revenues equaling expenditures, and the motion is as he says, that we’re going to pass a 2002 budget that balanced revenues meet expenditures. Mayor Brown stated that by ordinance he brought council a budget, that he met with each department head and with the city auditor and asked what they need to run the city properly and make it best for the citizens and best for us, that they went through and eliminated over $500,000 in items from the budgets as presented; that he brought council the budget and has no problems with your resolution to pass a balanced budget because he has done his job, and agrees with his resolution.
Council Members Bjerke and Stevens moved the question; and upon voice vote the motion carried.
Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4; voting “nay”: Council Members Lunak, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman - 8. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.
Council Member Glassheim moved that we delete the door guard from next year’s budget. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion.
Mayor Brown stated that he feels very strongly that is an important position in city government as they have seen in recent events. Council Member Hamerlik asked other than duties that the guard has, which was instituted after the flood for various protections, etc. what other responsibilities he has in addition to enforcing parking regulations; Mr. Duquette reported that they have special deputized the guard to handle parking enforcement in municipal lots around City Hall, acts as greeter in City Hall. The city auditor stated there’s probably 2 to 5 incidents each year that could be considered fairly threatening and other instances where the guard can tell by simply walking into a department where there’s a high level of discussion and where situation does calm down. Mr. Duquette stated that the guard was hired shortly after the City Hall was reopened after recovery of the flood, those were tense moments and a lot of friction taking place in City Hall, and his opinion that overall those tense times have declined since the flood has passed, still recognizing the services he does provide. It was noted that this is not a personnel position, but is a contract with an organization to provide services (CSC Services). Council Member Burke reported he reviewed the incident report for the past year and a half and in past 12 months 3 incidents written up and very minor. It was also noted that we do not provide guard service at the Office of Urban Development. It was also suggested that if want a guard, then have a metal detector; and go on doing business in a friendly building.
After further discussion and upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 11 votes affirmative; Council Member Hamerlik voted against the motion.
There was considerable discussion relating to funding of 10 additional police officers, whether we have to maintain these police officers for another year or make a good faith effort to find the funds to do so; that the council has been provided the information from the police department regarding what type of good faith effort was going on re. finding funds once the police officers were off the budget, but it appears the only representation made by the police department or city council was that we would find the money in the General Fund, because if the representation is we have to fund them for one budget year or get in trouble with potential federal audit or didn’t work hard enough to find the money, then the question is do we fund them this year but make it clear that as we develop and move forward in the budgeting process in the year 2003, that we won’t be funding those officers.
Chief Packett stated there are 8 positions that have been requested in the 2002 budget, 7 related to community services, NRO’s, and one works on domestic violence cases along with the CVIC. It was noted that there are 2 SRO’s and both officers are currently assigned to the two high schools for the past school year and those individuals are physically in place. He stated they have to focus at this point, is that it is a policy decision on the part of the council as to whether they want to provide the services in the future, that staff has researched this a great deal to get an accurate reading for the mayor and council as to the retention requirements, what are the time lines, and cost of doing that and shifted to whether we are required to retain these people, and question is do we want to provide the services. He stated he feels they’ve indicated on several occasions that they feel they are adequately staffed with the 81 personnel that they have right now that are sworn personnel, that there’s been no intent on their part or staff on whether have to retain people or not, clearly on record that these are the criteria that the Justice Department has said, and that’s why have seen in the 2000 budget proposal the $340,000 for the 8 positions for those officers that would take us through the 2002 budget, and as set the 2003 budget the mayor and council can decide whether they want to continue that service or not. He thinks it’s a policy decision on the level of service, and feels retention requirements are quite clear.
There was some discussion relating to the retention claims and a portion of a letter dated March 5, 1999 was read which outlines in part our retention plan, “…we understand the retention requirements of the universal hiring program and while it is our intent to fulfill that commitment, the retention of the officers will be dependent on the successful redevelopment of Grand Forks in recovery of our tax base, and our plan at that time will be to cover the cost of retention through our normal budgetary process as the recovery of our community is completed.” and elsewhere it says that there may be mitigating circumstances which wouldn’t even require us to fulfill the retention requirements, and that meeting those requirements the bar might be very high. It was noted that the NRO’s provide a valuable service, the question is whether we can afford and where do NRO’s fall on our priority list, and make the policy decision about whether we want to spend that money, and not sure have a clear answer on the retention issue.
Chief Packett stated there is one important thing they need to be clear on, that as they drafted those documents for the Department of Justice a couple years ago, it was the intent to give us as much flexibility as possible as a city, and we were fortunate that they allowed us to use the wording that we did, that it was within the confines of the mayor and city council as to whether you authorized the funds, good faith efforts, waivers because of what the City went through, and were very careful as they drafted that language but it is feeling of staff that they will look at our ability to pay and if it comes down to a policy issue if you decide to cut these services which will affect the retention and have monies available in the budget for other items that the federal government feels are not priorities, may expose us to some jeopardy, and it would be their advice to follow the language of the grants, retain these positions through 2002, and then the council make a policy decision in 2003 as to whether they still want to provide these services in the future. He stated they will provide the research to you and will have all the information by the time they have to decide on this by April 6 and will make every effort to do that, but that’s their best estimate at this point to abide by the guidelines that the Department of Justice has set for them plus provide the services which they think they need to provide. Chief Packett stated there is no match per se involving the 8 officers.
Council Member Brooks stated it seems to focus in on whether we eliminate these or not, and we voted to put Human Needs dollars into the budget and hard to vote for that and against the basics of police protection, but he looks at it from a different standpoint, talking about the 10 positions, and questioned what they did in terms of the school district, that 2 of these positions are full-time in the School District, and no dollars in revenues coming from the School District for those positions. Chief Packett stated that the 2 school resource officers still have 2 full years to go on the federal funding and that’s a separate grant but have had some preliminary discussions with the School District, but initial meetings with Dr. Sanford are that he is very receptive to discussing some partnerships with us two years out as those grants expire and believes the Mayor and his staff have had some similar conversations with them; nothing firmed up but some positive movement in that direction.
Council Member Christensen stated the issue isn’t public safety, the issue is how much of our total resources do we allocate towards public safety, what are the hierarchy of basic government functions, what should we provide first, second, third, etc., that he is trying to get this body to discuss the policy of if we find ourselves in a situation where we have to fund these additional officers this year and have a level of readiness, 81, do we feel that’s important for this city going forward, if it is, then as we proceed in January as we start this process again, will have to take that into consideration.
Chief Packett stated that the discussions they are having right now should be held about 12 months from now, you’re holding him accountable as he comes in to where these positions are definitely off the table; now as far as the federal funding, that they’ve met their retention requirements and he has 32 functional things that he says these 8 people do, that as staff and policy makers sit down a year from now and decide if still want to do these 32 things and provide this level, it’s their judgment to abide by the language of the grant, which benefits them, and gives them another year to convince the council that these positions are needed.
Council Member Hamerlik asked the Chief if there was discussion as to other federal funding to keep that staff for year or two after, and if there might be some other money coming in. Chief Packett stated there’s been some preliminary discussions within the Bush administration and the Department of Justice and COPs Office, lot of concern nationally from other municipalities and counties just like us as to retention requirements, etc. lot of cities with lot less flexibility that are being hurt by this and doesn’t think they will see the COP’s Office continuing in the same vein that it was before, thinks the emphasis in the next few months seems to be from the technology side but some ongoing discussions between the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, Police Exec. Research Form, ICMA, League of Cities, etc. and those agencies hopeful there would be some pool of money there that if can show hardship maybe some wiggle room for us in the future.
Council Member Kreun stated Chief is talking about the 2002 budget. Council Member Christensen said that if we feel this is a basic need, then proceed along those lines. Council Member Kreun stated we’re talking about long range planning which he agrees with but at this time discussing the 2002 budget and if reduce that staff in his department, we would not add that deduction to the savings and to keep 8 police officers which we asked them to do and they came through.
DISCUSSION OF ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Council Member Bjerke stated that everything he brings forward tonight will be a motion next week, and presented the following items re. public works, and that some of these items aren’t listed in the budget as far as a breakdown:
1) policy of picking up grass during the summer.
2) policy of leaf pickup
3) recycling
4) tipping fee
5) night bus service
6) bus trippers
7) dial-a-ride
8) to restrict sanitation surplus funds for new landfill
9) to restrict waterworks surplus for new water plant (restrict these funds for 2 up-coming large expensive capital projects)
There was some discussion with each of the issues with Todd Feland, public works director, answering questions as to the function of the item and savings if deleted. .
Council Member Bjerke stated we spend approx. $90,000/year for grass pickup and if there was a potential to go to drop-off sites and save a portion of that. Mr. Feland stated we do for alley side or alley pickup, and savings is a potential and have a hard time maintaining drop-off sites. Council Member Bjerke stated that if didn’t have the pickup, they could use the $90,000 for maintenance; and that in survey by the street department, half the population doesn’t use this service. Mr. Feland stated we have provided the extra service of grass pickup which has been a very popular service among residents and when did survey in August of last year, curb side and alley pickup was used by 41% of those responding to that survey.
2) policy of leaf pickup - that the plans for this year is to spend approx. $100,000 to pick up leaves in 2 weeks. Mr. Feland stated in the range of $80 to $90,000 and estimate will allocate resources to do that service. Council Member Bjerke stated there is a potential for additional overtime if we have a normal fall. Mr. Feland stated they could use their existing sites but may have to expand them, that during non-school months add bins to school sites, during the school year School doesn’t like to have too much out there during the week. He also noted that half of this money comes from General Fund (Street Department) and half from Sanitation which is an Enterprise Fund. Council Member Bjerke stated if we put it all into Sanitation then could shift savings to the General Fund. Mr. Feland stated we have 12 to 14 people working on leaf collection and 7 to 7 between the two departments
3) Recycling. Council Member Bjerke stated we spend $460,000/year in recycling and asked for landfill costs and it was noted that it cost $20.74 to landfill 1 ton of municipal solid waste, and cost approx. $219.00 to get rid of 1 ton of recycled material. Mr. Feland stated we pay Waste Management to pick up and market the material and keep all the revenue for that service; we are billed for multi-family curbside $2.10 per residential customer; per multi-family we are billed $1.05 per residential unit; and in 2000 we paid Waste Management $333,000 for both of those and we collected 1427 tons of recyclable materials and mostly cardboard and paper and about $234.00 ton and in addition we have newspaper sites and pay $13,520 for those 6 sites, and picked up 612 tons and about $22.09/ton. Council Member Bjerke stated we are paying over 10 times as much per ton to get rid of it or it has to be our municipal solid waste. Council Member Bjerke stated that our new landfill, assuming it’s a 50-year landfill, and all recycling ended and all recycling went to the landfill it’s now a 49-year landfill and no effect if everyone quit recycling - that this is not cost effective and doing nothing for our landfill, loss of money and no real savings - no logical reason to keep this.
4) Tipping fee.
Council Member Bjerke asked if tipping fee would increase next year; Mr. Feland stated it will. Council Member Glassheim asked if there were any federal requirements that we have recycling. Mr. Feland stated he didn’t believe requirements but goals among EPA and in ND the Health Department enforced the EPA guidelines and Health Department would tell you they are proponents of recycling and would like to see diversion as much as possible. Council Member Glassheim asked if he would double check on that for next week. Council Member Brooks suggested use of bags for clippings which would be purchased at cost of service, maintain services we have but those wishing for leaf and grass pickup would pay for cost through sale of bags; Mr. Feland stated they could look at that, and that it’s easy to pick up people’s grass without hassling bags and goes back to what define as basic service. Council Member Brooks asked if we contract out; Mr. Feland stated we are in the final year of that contract and that we have a time for change and at time of budget presentation focused on several options they could do; they left recycling as it was because they knew it was going to be discussed and have provided City with the highest cost alternative, and anything they do will be less cost, doesn’t want the perception that the City is going to dump as much as they can, abandon recycling and send as much garbage to the new landfill as possible; they can do recycling in a more cost effective manner - but it’s all about choices. Council Member Bjerke noted that the tipping fee is $20.74; Mr. Feland stated proposed fee to be $23.25 and is reflected in the budget. Council Member Bjerke stated they went to the side-load trash cans and purpose was efficiency and asked if the City still has a truck that drives around to pick up municipal solid waste; Mr. Feland stated they have a truck that picks up inert material that doesn’t go into the container, that they have a baling system and certain articles they want to keep out of that system because machine very high maintenance and decided they would provide inert building materials, small parts, etc. things you can’t get into your container and provide that service every other week on your recycling day, so truck would go around half route one week , etc. and are only to pick up inert materials, no additional charge, part of the basic fee. He noted that if not picked up by truck - most people would put in their garbage container and don’t want that to happen; they set up systems for the public that does not defeat their purpose at the landfill. Mr. Feland stated they spend between $100,000 and $110,000 per year for that service.
5) Budget for Public Transportation System is $1.9 million; that night bus service, which is approx. $70,000/year and that ridership is low on the night bus. Mr. Feland stated $69,000 projection going into next year for the service and in order to reduce costs that they went to one contractor for Dial-a-Ride services, which Mr. Foster projects will reduce by $15,000 to $17,000, and will give a $50-55,000 figure for night bus; that ridership on night bus 4762 riders in FY2000 and if wanted to cut the service, would have to call a public hearing and discuss with people using the service whether for work or entertainment, etc. It is not a basic service, have tried to build up service.
6) Bus trippers. Council Member Bjerke stated that we could save at least $25,000/year if eliminated this service, plus we have extra buses because we provide a tripper service. Mr. Feland stated that tripper expense is $89,000 and out of that amount $39,000 relates to H1, H2 routes which are disabled or handicapped routes that provide service to Agassiz Enterprises and back home at the end of the day and that this is year round service whereas tripper service follows school year; and about $27,000 related to the trippers. He stated their fleet is not ADA accessible because part of their fixed route system is the tripper service; that he has asked Mr. Foster to have conversation with the School District related to the question about whether the School District is willing to pay for the portion that is not currently being funded, that they are not interested in paying any more and see it as the parents responsibility and any increase would be the parents responsibility and that he has been in meetings with the School District and their opinion is whether it’s paid by the School District or we do, it’s all one mill, and that the City is doing it and probably garnering federal and state monies, leveraging those monies that they couldn’t do, and perhaps the City should do it. It was noted that the School District doesn’t tripper out school buses, parents pay Dietrich. Council Member Bjerke stated that if we quit doing ours, the parents would pay those directly too. Mr. Feland stated that the argument would be if there is a market at the three schools they provide (Valley, Schroeder and Kelly Schools) and if City got out of the market, would assume Dietrich may come into the market place and serve those schools, doesn’t know for sure but if enough demand and money to make a profit, that they may enter that market.
7) Dial-a-Ride Program.
Council Member Bjerke asked if they were going to bid out dial-a-ride or using senior bus to try to reduce the cost of dial-a-ride for the next year; Mr. Feland reported they have discussed this at committee and currently have a system where they have two providers, Grand Forks Taxi and Nodak Radio Cab Co., and have a system that is set up on a per ride basis; we audit the ticket and if either taxi company can give as many rides in a hour as possible, they will do that as drivers paid on commission, and have a system that is set up and City is paying the bill, system benefits taxi company and riders because City of Grand Forks does not refuse any riders. He stated that Fargo has multiple loading situation where they have 5 multiple load vans in which you schedule in and make an appointment (like our senior rider system), and it’s a matter of what kind of service level you want to provide people, and if changed to a contract basis where want one provider, put it into the budget and know what we’re going to spend this year - today we’re on an on-demand system, can estimate cost but by narrowing down to one provider, probably reduce a little bit of the service. He stated now we have one provider at night, saved money.
8) Restricting sanitation surplus fund so money can be used for a new landfill.
9) Restrict waterworks surplus for new water plant. Both these items coming up in the near future and would disagree with taking money from Enterprise Funds to fund the General Fund because that is false taxation; taking a user fee and using for taxes. Restrict those funds for 2 up-coming large expensive capital projects.
Council Member Bjerke asked if there were any increases in water, wastewater, stormwater or sanitation funds for next year. Mr. Feland stated there is a wastewater increase which is 7.4% on the basic rate. 12.5% on the flow and BOD TSS surcharges which industry pays (primarily Simplot) and those in the 20%; increase to the average consumer (8,000/gal/month) would be about $1.39 more each month starting January 1, 2002, assuming we’re not going to increase the other utilities.
Council Member Kerian asked questions relating to grass and leaf pickup, for any downsize in terms of public policy there might be in removing those services. Mr. Feland stated if street department employees not doing this work would have them perform other functions and unless transferred everything to sanitation and cutting staff in street department. He stated that residents like the leaf and grass pickup and would have to re-train citizens, people have had this service since 1960’s, there are some downsides - people are used to service, additional maintenance at compost sites for grass - service for pickup of inert material - could have service with charge for it. He stated that most residents in Grand Forks were very satisfied with the sanitation services that were provided. Council Member Kerian stated if we were to do this there would need to be a transition time, some savings but alternatives need to be developed and explained to residents.