Council Minutes
17675
July 25, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
July 25, 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 25, 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, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 10; absent: Council Member Lunak, Klave, Bakken, Martinson - 4.
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.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Mayor Brown asked for any motions relative to the Special Revenue Funds that were discussed last week.
It was moved by Council Member Christensen that we reaffirm the $200,000 as seed money to the University of North Dakota per our discussion last week as grant money, that according to Dr. Sheridan if they have any money left over they would allocate that to the $200,000; and that we also reaffirm the $100,000 to the University for the student recruitment program. Council Member Kerian seconded the motion.
Council Member Burke moved an amendment to the motion on the floor in the form of a substitute motion, that we allocate up to $125,000 at a three to one match based on matching funds provided by University of North Dakota from other sources, provided that money is appropriated prior to October 31, 2001; money that is unmatched by appropriations from the University by that time would be reduced from our budget; unexpended money from the City’s UND research seed grant match at the end of 2002 would be de-obligated at that time and returned to the original fund. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion.
Council Member Hamerlik stated that the original motion indicated two sources of funding (one was the allocation for recruitment and the other was the $200,000 for seed money), the substitute motion only had one, that the date could be debatable but could be very good to have that, however, we mandate that before any money is paid out, we have verification that it is matched three to one. The city auditor reported that the original action when this was set up is that we require a three to one match and when we receive a request for reimbursement we then ask for confirmation from UND or the Foundation or whoever is the match, that they have set aside that money and then bring it to council for approval. of release of the funds.
Council Member Burke stated the point of having the deadline on October 31, 2001 for the University of North Dakota to have that money available for the following year so that we can budget, we’re asked to put $200,000 on the table and under the original motion that money would have to be there until the end of the year, and it would be nice to know that if we’re being asked to obligate money for the University’s research that the University of North Dakota make a similar commitment with their funds, and if they can’t do it in a timely fashion then we will have the money there to match up to what they are able to budget as opposed to what we have done in the past, which is simply to have the money there when they were able to find it; and then we can be more responsible with our funds and have that money available to do economic development.
Council Member Gershman stated that when we pass a budget for items in 2002 and not requiring departments or anyone else that they have money by a date certain and to be in good faith, to leave it for 2002 and let them go through their normal process, that Dr. Sheridan’s offer is that they leave money on the table, it’s on the table, and to say that we’re using all our economic development money is not true, that we saw some figures last week and we have about $4.5 million that we could access immediately, that there is a carryover and other funds in program, not correct to say that we’re using all of the economic development money, that this is economic development and if not see the Economic Development Corporation here telling us not to do that and they understand that money is for a good purpose for economic development. Mayor Brown stated that the money is on the table for the year.
Council Member Burke stated that with regard to all the economic development funds it would obligate all the economic development funds in the fund from which we are taking this, the other funds are essentially program income funds from various sources, revolving loans, rents from buildings, etc. and not that much carryover money in that fund, but that money is not free to be used in any way, the EDA revolving loan funds, and program funds from rents are very restricted in how we use it, the money we have very little restrictions on is the money in Acct. #2163 and is a matter of concern, that if we do this we’re putting all of our economic development funds in that respect into one basket.
Council Member Gershman stated that the single most important engine in the city of Grand Forks and one of the most important in North Dakota is the University of North Dakota, we’re trying to attract people here and if you have a University in your city that has an infrastructure capable of handling 1,000 more students without hardly any expenditure and it costs the City nothing for another 1,000 people to move here, to be educated and to live, that to spend $100,000 for recruitment and retention and $200,000 to bring GTA’s and graduate students here for the faculty is an incredibly good way to spend the money for economic development.
The city auditor reported that the funding sources since first starting in 1999, the $100,000 was actually from excess sales tax of the General Fund, the 2000 appropriation was the General Fund Loan & Stabilization Fund, and for 2001 just carried over $160,000 into this year.
Council Member Kerian called the question. Mayor Brown stated we’ve called to the question and it’s his prerogative that we vote on it, and asked for vote on the substitute motion. Council Member Burke stated that the call is a motion and requires a vote. Council Member Kreun seconded the motion. Upon roll call on calling to the question the following voted “aye”: Council Member Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - voting “nay”: Council Members Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens. Council Member Hamerlik asked to change his vote to a yes vote. The motion was declared by the Mayor as 5 to 5, and Mayor Brown voted in calling for the question. Council Member Bjerke asked for a point of order, that according to the Roberts Rules of Order, to call for the question requires a 2/3rds majority. Mayor Brown agreed, that to vote immediately on the question, requires a second yes and that is calling for the question versus moving to the question. Mayor Brown stated that we do not have a 2/3rds majority so will continue to discuss this, and asked for further comments.
Council Member Burke stated he was not sure that the substitute motion he offered is clear, if the original motion survives he would ask that the question be divided between the research seed grant money and the retention money, that his amendment deals only with the research seed grant money, does not address the retention money and would make a separate amendment on that point; but with regard to the $200,000 for the research seed grant money, his motion is to reduce that number to $125,000, and would refer you to the June 6 version of the University of North Dakota strategic plan which is still in development and an item states that one of their goals is to raise research support seed money funds to $500,000 annually by 2005, but if we pass the money that we have in the budget right now $200,000 and they match it 3 to 1 we’re talking about $800,000, but the $125,000 that he proposes would at a 3 to 1 match if they were able to match it would yield $500,000 of research seeds grant money in 2002, and with regard to the October 31 date, the point is that we’re making a budget and they are asking us to obligate our money for their research and we should have a clear indication from them that they have the money to do it, otherwise we’re being asked to hold our money unsure of whether it will be expended and we certainly have other calls for that money, and it’s only reasonable that if we obligate money they obligate money and we know that up front. He stated he wasn’t talking about funding for 2001, that we budget in 2001 for 2002, the University budgets the same, and they need to have a line item in their budget from whatever source that they will have matching money there, and not unreasonable that if they ask us to budget, they also budget, but that hasn’t been the case so far that he is aware of.
Council Member Christensen addressed the issue of economic development sources of funding, that these funds were slated from the sales tax revenue and if Council Member Burke is concerned about that we could easily slate these moneys and take them from the JDA because we have lots of revenue income there and that the money that is paid in rental income from Noah’s Ark has no restrictions; and there’s money that’s unrestricted in the rental income from those buildings in the Industrial Park. Joel Scheving, Urban Development, stated that the program income off the Noah’s Ark building because it was built with 25% CDBG and 75% EDA funds, and the CDBG portion is program income and goes back to the entitlement world, the EDA funds can do like type of transactions with the program funds. He also stated we have program income off the Growth Fund loans that could be used for this type of transaction. Council Member Christensen stated this is for economic development; and stated it was not fair if they don’t have the match to take away the funds that they might have someone that puts together a grant which is awarded in November or December. Council Member Burke stated that the same way that they match money now we would match money in the future and that’s not the money that’s given out, that’s the money whether it comes from the UND Foundation or from the University, wherever President Kupchella might find it, that the pot is fully funded; that when we allocate for our own departments we’re the funding source.
The city auditor stated that after the preliminary budget is adopted you cannot increase the expenses unless there is additional revenue that was not anticipated.
Upon roll call on the substitute motion the following voted “aye”: Council Members Burke, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens - 4; voting “nay”: Council Member Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Hamerlik - 6. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.
Mayor Brown declared that council members may speak twice to an issue and then vote on the issue, and that no one can speak twice until every person has had a chance to speak once.
It was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Bjerke to divide the question.
Upon voice vote the motion was defeated.
Council Member Burke asked when the retention money was first made available to the University, in which budget year, and if there was an indication that the University was asking for it over a 5-year period. The city auditor reported that the original appropriation was in the 1999 year and that the presentation at that time talked about a 5-year program. Council Member Hamerlik stated this originally came before the finance committee, that there was discussion but was on a year by year basis and no commitment for 5 years. The city auditor stated he was not sure if the request was for 5 years, but there was discussion that they wanted to implement a 5-year program between the committee and the representatives from the University, and that it would be reviewed and looked at on an annual basis.
Upon roll call on the original motion, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Brooks, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke - 9; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
Council Member Gershman moved to reaffirm the inclusion of the money in the Mayor’s budget for the Special Events and the Arts, $100,000 each. Council Member Kreun seconded the motion.
Council Member Burke moved an amendment in the form of a substitute motion that we reduce the $200,000 on those two line items to $138,000 which is the amount that we obligated this year for those types of activities and that we also direct to place on the city ballot in June of next year a question creating a city arts and events fund, along the lines but not under the auspices of the Century Code, which provides for a municipal arts fund, and the council would between now and then draw the language for that ballot measure to ask whether or not the people of Grand Forks wish to fund by allocation of mills the arts and events line items. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion.
Council Member Glassheim stated it seems we’re doing the budget tonight but that Council Member Burke should draft the language that we’re to vote on when he presents it to us and it should not be part of this budget motion. - and would ask for a ruling from the chair that the motion is out of order as it has not been discussed, not a budget motion, and should be brought forward in the language which we would put on the ballot, whether it’s an advisory vote or a binding vote, and all those questions should be dealt with in advance and should be brought back to council through the committee of the whole process and then come forward for city council vote.
Mayor Brown stated that the second half of the motion is invalid and vote on the budget item. Council Member Burke stated that in voting on the motion regarding the reduction to $138,000 that it will be his intention to raise the issue of creating a special arts and events fund and that he would bring this to the council sometime in the future to have it on the June ballot and the rationale is that they would then get an up or down from the people of the community whether or not they think it’s appropriate to spend city dollars, that we continue going to the same fund for all these items and need to find specific sources for specific activities, having a vote on this would provide a specific mill levy for it and would not be going into the economic development fund to fund special events.
Upon roll call on the amendment the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4; voting “nay”: Council Members Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Hamerlik, Glassheim - 6. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.
Upon roll call on the original motion the following voted “aye”: Council Members Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Hamerlik, Glassheim - 6; voting “nay”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
There were some questions re. parliamentary procedure and Council Member Hamerlik stated that the chair at any time is in charge of the meeting and can make a ruling almost at any time and if someone wishes to make a motion to overrule the chair’s interpretation then that is how it is changed. Council Member Brooks moved that any questions of parliamentary procedure be ruled on by the chair; Council Member Christensen seconded the motion. Upon voice vote the motion carried.
COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK EXCUSED
Council Member Burke asked for an explanation on the $160,000 for Special Services and how that will be used. The city auditor reported the reason that was included was because we are going to have some concerns in the area of overtime or other expenses related with off-site control of such events as may be held at the Alerus Center, the Engelstad Center, perhaps in downtown Town Square or the Greenway and there is money allocated to help fund those types of events that will draw people into the community and may create concerns for the police department, fire department in Engelstad and Alerus because they have to have fire marshals in there when there are those types of crowds, etc. He stated that concerning the Alerus Center and the Engelstad, the police department had anticipated approx. $70,000 of potential costs there and that we are allocating other amounts for fire department and other activities, that this is just an estimate until they get a handle on it from an actual year. Council Member Burke stated that Fire Chief O’Neill presented them with a packet of information about their fee schedule for charging for services related to gatherings, etc. and that the fire department expects to recover it’s costs. Chief O’Neill stated it is their intention to recover the vast majority of their costs, and hope to use on-duty people where possible in trying to maintain a minimal manning of their trucks so they could recoup some of their general fund budget. It was also noted that the police department budget had been reduced because of this.
Council Member Burke asked if in the past they have charged event organizers and promoters for city services needed for crowd control, etc. The city auditor reported there are special police service fees that are charged for individuals within the building and haven’t had the kind of control on the external streets. Chief Packett stated that past events at the Alerus Center there’s been a division of the costs and a majority of costs inside the building have been recouped from the promoters and that’s part of their contract, the property line outward towards the street area the City has absorbed that cost to date and those discussions have been ongoing, that they have transferred $70,000 out of the police department overtime line item account to the Special Account to give council and City more control over those expenditures, and of the $70,000 doesn’t have an estimate of how much they will spend but do try to recoup at least half to two-thirds of their costs at these events from the promoters.
Council Member Burke moved to reduce the $160,000 to $60,000. Council Member Bjerke seconded the motion.
Council Member Bjerke asked if the UND police department had offered any help or if Ralph Engelstad Arena had offered any help for those events. Chief Packett stated there have been several meetings with Engelstad staff and the University committee that has been set up and they have not committed any resources as far as policing their events entirely, doesn’t know the reason for that except they are limited in staff, and that as of this date there has been no commitment on their part to handle the entire cost of their events. Chief Packett stated discussions to date primarily center around October for the first major event and that will be a partnership between the police department and the University police, the event will be fully staffed and their entire department will be working so there is a good partnership there but the ongoing discussions have not been decided.
There was considerable discussion as to responsibility of traffic safety and crowd control. Council Member Bjerke stated that many cities have event fees, and that all he is asking for is a little partnership, and asking for their police officers to help ours. Council Member Burke stated that if we need to provide funds for overtime or additional police or public safety personnel, then let’s put it in their general fund budget and pay for it with the property tax but to say that directing traffic is an economic development function is a stretch, and if went back to when people voted on this council to dedicate a portion of the sales tax for economic development, they were not considering paying overtime for police to direct traffic. He stated if it’s needed and not suggesting that we not provide that service, to provide it and fund it if we think it’s a civic duty and responsibility, fund it in the line item of the department that’s providing that service. Council Member Christensen stated we’re elected by the citizens of this community to provide for the public safety and have to make sure that the people who frequent these venues have easy access in and out, this is for the budget year 2002, that we have to fund for this contingency this year, and if we use the $160,000 then as move forward the balance of this year into 2002, the conversations will continue with the University, this partnering is a slow process, we have asked for the partnering and is sure it will be reciprocated,
Council Member Christensen moved the question, seconded by Council Member Kerian. Carried 10 votes affirmative.
The motion is to reduce the $160,000 for Special Event Services to $60,000. Upon voice vote, the motion failed.
Council Member Glassheim asked how City will keep control over the expenditure or report. The city auditor stated their intention will be to track this expenditure, line item and in particular because there is some interest in the cost of the Alerus facility, will attach a sheet showing what the costs were for those police services with the monthly report, and if council wishes his department will track it by the other type of events and provide a quarterly report on those items. Council Member Glassheim agreed to that.
Council Member Brooks presented a number of questions to the city auditor relating to other Special Revenue Funds - that PSAP and E-911 were set up with their own board, and would be more of a trust or agency fund, and funding. The city auditor stated they could, but it’s a difference of interpretation and could be agency fund where we just hold the money; and City transfers in funds that are collected. It was noted that the Emergency levy is for the flood fight, and the city auditor stated they are trying to build that up, that we can have 5% of the market value of the homes in the city and want to rebuild that and will get some money because we have $7 million in accounts receivable from FEMA and also have accounts payable to us. The city auditor stated that the operating transfer out is that we have set up a dollar amount to transfer into the General Fund anticipating at least one major snow storm each year and expenditures come out of the street department and move money there to help cover those costs. Council Member Brooks stated when he looks at revenues and expenses, but would expect them to balance. The city auditor stated he will review that; that in budget presentation he made comments that a couple were out of balance (Municipal Band, etc.) and need to make some minor adjustments to balance them. Council Member Brooks also noted that Pension, Social Security, Special Revenues, and the city auditor stated that under State Statue there are specific mill levies that are allowed for those funds for pensions, for General Fund employees and also the portion of the City’s share of Social Security for General Fund employees. There was some discussion re. cash carryover in Highway Tax Distribution Fund, is where transfer comes into General Fund - the city auditor stated that for one year they recommended and stressed that’s not an on-going transfer; and noted that in Planning and Zoning, that is overspending and are planning by August 6 and will bring back an item on that, will review all revenue streams and all of the budgets funded by mill levies to see if can reduce the mill levies in enough of those funds to gather enough mill levy to fund Planning & Zoning in its entirety. It was noted there is a designated mill levy for Public Building Fund and have budgeted anticipated purchase of land for an additional fire station, and in 2002 budget requests for $300,000 for a fire training tower, $100,000 for the HVAC at the police building and $65,000 for re-doing some parking at the police building, and reduced the requested expenditure amount to $100,000 anticipating that if going to do those projects we would have to bond for them because wouldn’t have enough money to pay cash for them. It was noted that Bikeway Development Fund comes from the sales tax infrastructure money, an annual appropriation for bikeway development and that’s a transfer in. Insurance Reserve - a mill levy fund to pay the general liability fleet insurance and for claims or judgments against us. Housing Authority: we process their payroll for them and they cut check to make their payroll.
Council Member Burke stated we have $77,000 budgeted in Beautification Funds for 2002, and that the fence on 7th Avenue South which City is obligated to maintain for the neighbors across the street, fence is in poor condition and needs to be removed because of the water pipeline project which will go through there, and the motion is to obligate up to amount of cost for that fence replacement and maintenance and that any funds remaining are available for the normal beautification granting process. The motion was seconded by Council Member Bjerke.
Council Member Kreun stated they had a meeting last night re. the fence, and had put together a Citizens Group to help design that fence so aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood, and funding of fence along with the complete project will come out of the project cost, and part of project cost will be paid by the Corps money and State Revolving Loan Water Fund, etc. and at this time appreciates your gesture, but believes the money would be well spent elsewhere because getting other fund that will not cost us as much. Council Member Burke asked if there was any local share of that cost and if there was he would change his motion that the Beautification Fund pay for the local share of the fence. Council Member Bjerke agreed to the change in the motion.
Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated the Beautification Fund was originated approx. 8 years ago and equivalent to approx. 1 mill and is used to fund certain projects that will beautify the city, been used for “adopt an area” and funds used to put in initial plantings, landscaping of berms and medians on University Avenue paving stones, planters, and are meant for specific projects that add beautification projects to the city and policy not to be used for maintenance. He also noted that the 7th Avenue fence actually was on the beautification project one year, some additions for it and to beautify by landscaping the outside of the fence, trees, etc. but lot smaller dollar amount than discussing now to replace the entire fence; that if the fence proposal was presented to this council or if made application for the fence, that it is a legitimate beautification project and could be considered to be funded with beautification funds, but believes there are other funding sources for it and should be used.
Mr. Feland stated it’s a mixture of EPA grant money, State Revolving Loan Fund monies, dike money and mix of utility money because two different projects - transmission clearwell project and interim residual management project. He stated they did get a grant of $13,000 two years ago for landscaping from the Beautification Fund, and the location of the fence wasn’t enough right of way to the south to put in plantings, but had fibre optics and gas main where plantings were to be placed and didn’t proceed with the project and sent the money back; then this project came up to need removal of the fence and was an opportunity to put it in the project cost, and opportunity for the City to do project right. It was noted that the length of the fence is approx. 5 or 6 blocks and estimated cost of $60,000 in the project cost and would include a good wood fence and also provided estimates for chain-link fence with slatting at $35-45,000 but felt should replace the fence with good fence (local share approx. 25% or less).
Council Member Christensen moved the question with second by Council Member Kerian. Carried 8 votes affirmative, Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.
Upon roll call on the motion by Council Member Burke, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4: and the following voted “nay”: Council Members Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Glassheim, Gershman - 5. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.
Council Member Bjerke stated if the Alerus capital budget is not here on August 6, won’t be voting on this budget, the city auditor stated unless there would be additional revenue that came up that we haven’t been able to anticipate because that would still give you the opportunity to amend the budget.
Council Member Bjerke moved a motion to take $50,000 of the CDBG budget and put it towards the ADA curb cuts so that spend $100,000 year on that project rather than $50,000, as the sooner they get the project finished the sooner the $50,000 out of Highway Users can go to something else. Council Member Burke seconded the motion.
Mr. Hanson, Urban Development, stated they have discussed this with Council Member Bjerke and to put in curb cuts is an ADA function and is an eligible expense for LMI benefit, provided they are not replacing the City funds that have gone into it over the years, in which case the proposal by Council Member Bjerke is just adding to it and thinks it’s an eligible expense, and would be reducing over the next 5 to 10 years 5% of the budget that go to other projects; that in 2002 they are estimating that the revenue for program income will be lower, but for 2003 estimating that annual budget for CDBG will be approx. $1 million per year because of program income; entitlement money is approx. $560,000/year.
Mr. Grasser stated the creation of the ADA legislation, the City was required to come into compliance or to have a plan to come into compliance with ADA as far as it references street crossings (curb cuts) and was hundreds of thousands of dollars to go back and address all of the corners in the city of Grand Forks, couldn’t afford that at the time so plan was put together to address it over a longer period and City elected to put in $50,000 from Highway Users at one time and some mill money, this will be a multi-year task even at $100,000/year and probably 5 to 10 years at increased level. Council Member Christensen stated that the motion is moving money from Highway Users (money we receive from the State as our share of the gas tax) and not improving the lot of the taxpayer in the community as far as property taxes, just moving one source to another, and we generally use the Highway User Fund money to fund roads in lieu of special assessments, the issue we’ll have is to subtract this from the CDBG and projects will be shorted $50,000 but if we want to change it can have a budget amendment going forward, doesn’t like setting policy with line items.
Council Member Brooks stated these dollars would come out of the 85% brick and mortar versus services, there are lot more restrictions on the CDBG funds than there are on the Highway Users tax monies, and lot of difference between those two funds. Mr. Hanson stated that we have a demand for the bricks and mortar projects also that far exceeds the funds available. Council Member Brooks stated that those sitting on the committee that dealt with those applications had a hard time finding worthy projects to spend that money and also bound by ratios off LMI to slum and blight, and bound by restrictions and that anyone could look at the projects that we funded for this year and if they were an excellent use of the money, and no one knows the projects will be in the application pool for next year and doesn’t think $50,000 for something we have to do that meets the requirements of the money is wrong.
Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 4; voting “nay”: Council Members Kerian, Kreun, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen - 5. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, CAPITAL PROJECTS,
INTERNAL SERVICE AND TRUST & AGENCY FUNDS
There were no comments by the city council.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun to move the budget to the August 6, 2001 council member for preliminary approval. Upon voice vote the motion carried on a vote of 5 affirmative to 4 negative votes.
MARKET ANALYSIS
Mayor Brown stated that his office had a question because the market analysis was to take money divided upon classified employees and move forward as quickly as possible to distribute that money among the employees, and then Council Member Burke suggested including the benefited employees in that arrangement, and need clarification from the council if they want additional monies added to that amount they had agreed upon previously to the employees or do they want to take that total package and divide it among the employees at a lower value; that his office needs clarification to proceed.
Council Member Kreun stated he was under the impression that we were going to add additional monies to keep the same funding level available for all the employees, whether they were benefited part-time employees or not, and would like to amend the market analysis motion to add benefited part-time employees to the level equal to the classified positions. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.
Council Member Kreun stated it would be the benefited people which are full or part-time (that they receive the benefits). It was noted that there are 84 benefited part-time positions, some benefits are 56%, 75%, etc. and have pro-rated the amount of money to the time that they worked for us.
The city auditor reported that the total dollar amount based if you’re adding these people in would total be $44,490.00 - $14,760 roughly from the General Fund, Grant and Project funded $18,246, and Enterprise and other Special Revenue Funds, about $11,484.
Mr. Duquette stated that the current process that they used to establish benefits and everyone would have worked at least 1040 to draw benefits, and have people who have worked at least a minimum of 6 months that could be eligible for these dollars, and would recommend on August 6 to begin to develop some preliminary information with the city council about the part-time issue, and would recommend that you separate out this issue that has to do with the market analysis of positions from the part-time issue.
Council Member Burke stated that when he made this suggestion at the last council meeting it was to have the eligible temporary employees meet the same requirements as the classified employees and that was that they be employed as of January 1 of this year, and meet aside from their classification that they meet the other requirements, it was not his intention to increases the general fund spending for this and based on the number that we had previously which was $500+, the impact on the general fund would be approx. $15,000, that we budgeted $200,000 for the market analysis and some thought the $200,000 was to cover all the city employees, not just the general fund, but the council chose not to go that way, and thinks that if we include the general fund temporary employees in that lot it will not reduce it very much, but keep us in line with our budget for the general fund and it will increase the demand on the Enterprise Funds because proportionately there are more temporary employees in those funds than the general funds, but his intent was not to increase the amount of $200,000 out of the general fund and based on the numbers we have here, if we held to the $200,000 it doesn’t seem it would reduce the per person payments a great deal. The city auditor reported that the difference would be from $556.13 per employee payment to $480.72. It was noted that the “at risk” employees were dealt with separately.
Upon roll call the following voted “aye”: Council Members Brooks, Stevens, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 8; voting “nay”: Council Member Bjerke - 1. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
ADJOURN
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we adjourn. Carried 5 to 4 votes affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Schmisek
City Auditor
Approved:
__________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor
.