SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUDGET WORK SESSION
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000, AT 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Bill Strom was absent, excused.
Staff members present were: Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Finance Director Jim Baker, Personnel Director Pat Thomas, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Sanitation Superintendent Harv Howard, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
1a. Working Papers from the Classification and Pay Study Consultant and from the Personnel Director.
Town Manager Cal Horton explained that the consultant was unable to attend due to a previously scheduled engagement. Mr. Horton said that Personnel Director Pat Thomas give the presentation, with the consultant presenting a more in-depth report on May 17th.
Personnel Director Pat Thomas reviewed the studies that had led to revision of the pay system. She listed the Town’s objectives—to reduce compression, compete at a higher point within the labor market, and create an affordable merit system—and explained that the first phase of the Pay Plan had been implemented on November 1, 1999.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Council had authorized the Personnel Department to hire a consultant to help develop classification and labor market reviews. She described the two main objectives of the study:
· To correct inequities and recognize relative duties and responsibilities of positions.
· To review the current labor market and make recommendations for competitive salaries at the 75th percentile.
Ms. Thomas outlined some recommended changes:
· Further simplify the salary schedule so employees in the lower grades do not have compressed salary grades and ranges.
· Change titles and ranking of positions based on duties and responsibilities of those positions.
· Assign positions to salary grades and ranges based on a Council-adopted policy of paying wages competitive at the 75 percentile of the local market.
Ms. Thomas noted that 85% of Town employees would have their salaries increased and the other 15% who are above the job rate would have a merit increase. She stressed that implementing Phase 2 was important for recruitment and retention of employees. She noted that being competitive within the market was a good reason to implement, and pointed out that the Town had made a commitment to its employees to institute the Pay Plan. Ms. Thomas noted that only 20% of the Town’s workforce lives in Chapel Hill, and pointed out that raising salaries is important in order to attract employees to the workforce.
Council Member Brown asked how the new Pay Plan would address existing compression. Ms. Thomas explained that some of the existing compression is due to employees being newly promoted or recently changing jobs. She noted that even though steps taken last year had helped move people up within the salary range, there still were people with eight or more years of service who remain compressed with others with five years of service because there was only enough funding for partial implementation. Ms. Thomas referred to a chart on page 21 of her handout that showed distribution of the current range and what it would be after the program had been implemented.
Council Member Brown noted that in the 0-15 year range the salaries were within the $25,000 range. Ms. Thomas replied that the consultant had made recommendations that would spread salaries out for those with more service. But since doing that would cost more than $600,000, she said, the consultant had not recommended it for this year. Ms. Thomas pointed out that relieving all compression would be expensive.
Council Member Brown asked Ms. Thomas to explain one more time why this was a simpler plan. Ms. Thomas replied that she had not described it as simpler this year but thought it would be next year because the Town would have done two things: implemented a salary schedule with steps and put people onto steps within the new schedule. Next year, Ms. Thomas explained, there would be a simple system whereby people move up on steps or get a merit increase.
Council Member Brown asked for a fuller explanation of how appeals would be heard. Ms. Thomas explained that some people had wondered why they had been classified as they were. She said that most people have been satisfied with the explanations given but seven to ten may not be satisfied and may appeal to the Town Manager, who will then make a determination.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Manager was interested in hearing these concerns because they had resulted from the consultant’s recommendations, not the Manager’s. Mr. Horton said that he had heard from a few department heads but also wanted to hear from employees because there may be some changes that he would recommend.
Council Member Brown asked for a fuller explanation of the average change in the hiring rates. Ms. Thomas replied that they had compared rankings of each job within various occupations and had collected benchmark salary data last fall. She said that they then added 3% in order to be consistent next October. Ms. Thomas explained that the hiring rates for some people were competitive within the market but that others needed to be increased, so hiring rates went up on average 10.5%.
Council Member Brown asked why the Department had changed grade numbers, and what difference it made if someone were classified as a grade 11 or grade 25, for example. Ms. Thomas explained that someone going from grade twelve to grade one might object to that, so the Department had changed to a system where everyone got a grade higher. She added that it was simply a numbering system and it made no difference what number was used, just that the system was consistent throughout the grades.
Council Member Bateman ascertained that the average 4.5% merit raise was discretionary and that it varied depending on performance. She commented that she disagreed personally with giving one who needs improvement a “merit raise.” Mr. Horton pointed out that some people need improvement in some areas but do well in others. He added that someone whose work is unacceptable would not get a raise and probably would not have his/her job for long.
Council Member Bateman asked what the maximum percentage increase was that a previously compressed but now upgraded employee could get under the plan this year, and how many employees fell in that range. Ms. Thomas replied that some of the newer employees have to be brought up to the new hiring rates. She said that the average increase is 6.5%. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Horton agreed to provide the Council with a distribution chart. Council Member Bateman asked if the steps would be equidistant from each other. Ms. Thomas said that they would be.
Council Member Foy asked what the increase had been last year. Ms. Thomas replied that those over the job rate had received a 4.75% average increase and the average increase Town-wide had been 5.7 %. Council Member Foy wondered why the Council had thought it was 4.75% when it ended up being 5.7%. Ms. Thomas explained that people over the mid-point had received 4.75% and those under the mid-point had received more in order to relieve compression. Council Member Foy asked what the figure for this year was that was comparable to 5.7%. Ms. Thomas replied that it was 6.5%.
Council Member Foy asked what would happen after an employee reached the maximum rate. Ms. Thomas replied that that would be as high as that person’s base salary could go. She said that such an individual would have to be promoted to get a higher salary. Ms. Thomas added that the employee would also get a merit increase, if eligible, as a one time flat payment, not as part of base pay.
Council Member Foy commented that pay was not the only recruitment issue. He asked how the Town marketed its positions and what the average additional benefit was worth. Mr. Horton replied that when they studied this in the past they found that the Town was about in the middle of the market as far as benefits offered. Council Member Foy asked what the actual monetary value of a $30,000 job would be. Staff members determined that it would average out to about 7%, or $8,000.
Council Member Ward noted that the 4.5% was in line with local and national trends. He pointed out, though, that comparisons to Carrboro and UNC would be more appropriate. Ms. Thomas replied that those budgets had not come out yet. Council Member Ward said that Carrboro’s was 2.5%. Mr. Horton added that there also was an additional 2.5% merit in Carrboro, for a total of 5%. Mayor Waldorf remarked that in the past the Town had just informally surveyed its neighbors on this point. Ms. Thomas agreed to try and get that information before June 1, 2000. Council Member Ward also requested a breakdown of the number of employees who need improvement.
Council Member Evans said that UNC had been discussing a 3% raise and that Triangle J would be raising salaries 3%-3.5%. She asked what happens to the money that becomes available due to top level vacancies, such as presently exist at the Town’s Police and Transportation Departments. Mr. Horton explained that the Town depends on lapsed salaries to make up a large portion of the $800,000 in rollover funds that the Town saves each year in order to hit its budget targets. Council Member Evans commented that she would rather reduce taxes. Mr. Horton replied that the Town does reduce taxes by nearly three cents by rolling those funds forward.
Council Member Evans asked if the amount could ever be higher than $800,000. Mr. Horton replied that it could be but would not be this year because costly weather conditions had caused a bad year.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that these questions be kept for the Finance Department discussion and that Council members stay focused on Pay Plan issues.
Council Member Wiggins pointed out that each year the University gives employees a statement showing a breakdown of their total compensation with benefits, including benefits that do not have a dollar value. Ms. Thomas noted that the Town does that every other year, as well as during orientation. She said it is also listed in the handbook. Mr. Horton asked if Council Member Wiggins was suggesting doing this every year. Council Member Wiggins acknowledged that doing so would be time-consuming and said that every other year probably was sufficient.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the Council had started this two-year process a year ago. She asked if now, after seeing the costs, there still was a sense among Council members that the Town should support the Pay Plan.
Council Member Foy stated that the Council might have to look at a way not to spend that much money during this fiscal year, perhaps by delaying implementation as they did last year.
Council Member Ward added that it seems more than the Town could take on this year, adding that it appeared to be a greater projected salary increase than competitors such as Carrboro, UNC and Orange County would be giving. Council Member Ward remarked that he was more interested in solving the problem of compression at the lower end, such as for bus drivers in particular.
Council Member Wiggins argued that there was nothing more important that the Town could do than to pay its employees well. She said that in a tight labor market the Council should do everything it can to develop employee commitment, since 80% of employees do not live in Town. She pointed out that compensating employees would help retain them, which would cut down on the amount of retraining and recruitment the Town would have to do. Council Member Wiggins said that the Pay Plan seemed like a bargain.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo agreed, and pointed out that Council members had made a commitment to Town employees that they would put an effective Pay Plan into the process. He added that the Council had known when it approved the plan that it would eventually cost money. He argued that they should not break the commitment now in an attempt to save a few hundred thousand dollars. Mayor pro tem Pavăo urged Council members to stand by the Pay Plan and to save money some other way.
Council Member Brown asked if employees had been invited to the public hearing on May 10th regarding the Pay Plan and existing compression. She asked that each Department send notices inviting employees to participate at the public hearing. Mr. Horton agreed to have them do so. Ms. Thomas stated that the Personnel Department had sent two different communications to each employee telling them what their title and recommended range would be and how their salary would be affected if the Plan were implemented on October 1st. She said that not everybody was happy, but that most seemed to be generally pleased. Ms. Thomas commented that the Department had been surprised by the positive comments they had received.
Council Member Bateman agreed that the Council had made a commitment to employees, but pointed out that they also have a commitment to taxpayers to try and keep the tax rate down. She asked what the proposed tax increase was. Mr. Horton replied that if the Council approved curbside collection it would be a bit less than 2.9%. Council Member Bateman asked the staff to come back with figures for savings under two scenarios: 1) no increase in department budgets next year; and 2) if each department head cut their departments’ proposed budgets by 2%. She explained that she did not want to eliminate salary increases but wanted to know what else departments could cut in order to afford the Pay Plan. Mr. Horton asked if Council Member Bateman would also like to see a statement of the impact of that, and she replied that she would.
Council Member Wiggins noted that the cuts would be programs. Mr. Horton stated that the departments would try to identify cuts that would have the least impact.
Council Member Brown inquired about the status of a petition the Council had referred to the staff regarding asking for cost-saving ideas from employees. Mr. Horton replied that he was preparing a response that would not recommend that the Town attempt to do it this year because it might create an atmosphere in which employees would withhold ideas unless they get paid for them. Mr. Horton explained that the staff had received a variety of suggestions from employees and had implemented many of them. He noted that there had been Town-wide brainstorming sessions through which the Town had adopted many recommendations from employees.
Mayor Waldorf explained that she had wanted the previous discussion so that employees would have a sense of where Council members stood before the public hearing on May 10th. She said that she had thought about the subject a lot and leaned toward agreeing with Council Members Wiggins and Pavăo. Mayor Waldorf added that she would also be interested in budget-trimming approaches—such as Council Member Bateman had suggested—as long as they did not compromise the principles and objectives of the Pay Plan.
Council Member Foy requested a range of cost figures on starting the plan in November, December, and so on, but Mayor Waldorf commented that that may not be the best way to trim costs because it just carries costs forward. She asked if the staff had a better idea about how to cut costs, and both Ms. Thomas and Mr. Horton agreed to look into it.
Council Member Wiggins clarified that no employees would receive cuts in salary and that the complaints had been because employees had not felt they were getting enough money or as much as someone else.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Town Council really needed the consultant to come and speak. Mr. Horton replied that there might be things the consultant could address better than the staff had.
Council Member Bateman asked if it would save money if the consultant did not come. Mr. Horton explained that the Town had already paid for the consultant. Ms. Thomas said that the total cost was a bit under $50,000.
Council Member Ward stated that the Pay Plan costs more than he could support. He asked the staff to find ways to compromise or to help him understand why the numbers had to be so high. He added that he did not agree that the Town had to be competitive in the 75th percentile during lean times. Ms. Thomas explained that this was a more expensive year because the Town was adding the classification study into it the cost. She pointed out that the costs this year were for bringing positions that were below the market up to the market.
Item 2 - Report on Curbside Collection
Public Works Director Bruce Heflin gave a follow-up report to the April 12th work session. He brought a display of trash collection carts in various sizes and costs, and explained that most participants of the pilot program preferred the 90-gallon cart. Mr. Heflin referred the Council to information regarding on-the-job injuries over the last several years, and pointed out that the Sanitation Division leads the Department in numbers of accidents, injuries, and lost time.
Mr. Heflin stated that most injuries were due to the Town’s collection method. He said it was the consensus of experts that increasing automation and decreasing walking minimize such risk. He noted that the marginal gains in efficiency were slight with twice weekly curbside service, and said that the best way to achieve productivity gains is to reduce the frequency of collection.
Mr. Heflin explained that exempted houses would not be identified in an obvious manner, but that trained staff would know which houses were exempted. He noted that in most communities (such as Carrboro) exemptions require a doctor’s certification. Some communities (such as Durham), he said, use voluntary exemptions followed by a home visit from a Sanitation employee. Mr. Heflin added that the Department would initially propose the latter kind of system. He pointed out that the majority of exemptions would be obvious and would not require follow-up.
Mr. Heflin proposed implementing curbside collection over a two-year period, beginning in the seventh month of each year. He explained that this would allow the Department to purchase carts at some savings and to provide orientation to neighborhoods and employees. He referred to an FGI survey, which found that 74% were in favor of curbside collection.
Mr. Heflin listed options for how collection services could be provided to Southern Village, if annexed:
· Provide twice weekly curbside service, which would require adding personnel at the end of this fiscal year and the following fiscal year for a full year. The Town would be required by NC law to pay the present collector $85,000 (equivalent to 12 months revenue) or to contract with him for two years to provide the same service he now provides, which is once weekly service using specialized equipment.
· Provide curbside service whereby the Town would absorb Southern Village into its routing structure at no extra cost. The Town would be required by NC law to pay the present contractor $85,000 (equivalent to 12 months revenue) or to contract with him for two years to provide the same service he now provides, which is once weekly service using specialized equipment.
Mr. Heflin responded to questions that his Department had been asked subsequent to the prior Council meeting on this subject:
· The scooter route was serving about 1,100 homes.
· The estimated cost of carts is $548,000, and it would cost about $3,000 annually to replace carts that would be lost to turnover and breakage.
· Between 5%-10% of Town residents are presently using curbside.
· Containers placed at the curb are on a public right-of-way, not on private property, and are not subject to lease restrictions against containers. Most communities would accept curbside collection as an exception to the way their covenants are written.
Mr. Heflin stated that the Town Council would decide how the Department would determine exemptions. He added that he hoped the Council would not accept the notion of voluntary exemptions only because a voluntary program probably would not be different from what the Town has. Mr. Heflin proposed placing carts at residences regardless of the nature of the occupancy, stating that the cart should go with the residence rather than the resident.
Mr. Heflin explained that most collection companies would not want to contract with the Town for the service it now provides, but that all of them would bid on curbside weekly service with carts. He stated that the current annual cost of residential collection of recyclables in Chapel Hill is about $373,000. He said that the contractor was proposing an increase to about $404,000 next year.
Mr. Heflin stated that the present residential system costs about $1.3 million in the current year’s budget. He noted that this was for collection only, not disposal. He said that there were 21 positions for the 6-1/2 routes, that they use seven trucks, that fuel and maintenance costs about $60,000 a year, that replacement costs about $116,000 per year, and that the purchase price of a new rear-loading garbage truck is about $83,000.
Mr. Heflin suggested cutting nine positions and eliminating about 2-1/2 routes worth of trucks, for a capital reduction of $44,650. He said that the projected savings relates to 1.2% of the Town’s budget after full implementation. Mr. Heflin pointed out that the estimated $55 per container might be reduced due to competition in the trash cart industry.
Council Member Evans asked if moving to curbside collection would reduce the number of workers’ injuries. She also asked if the Sanitation Division would continue to use a “task system.” Mr. Heflin replied that they would propose retaining the task system, which he said is more efficient and gives the employee an opportunity to be paid for a full day’s work while working less than a full day. He added that every accident and injury had been monitored very carefully and that they had not seen evidence that the task system was causing additional accidents or injuries. Mr. Heflin pointed out that the workday would be longer and eventually would be an eight-hour workday. He stated that there has been more opportunity for accidents with backyard collection.
Council Member Evans pointed out that the cost figure for picking up trash at Southern Village includes the cost of recycling.
Council Member Ward asked how quickly the Department would get back on schedule after inclement days. He also inquired about the difference in cost between lease/purchase and outright purchase, and asked if the idea of picking up curbside garbage along with curbside recycling was being explored. Mr. Heflin replied that duel collection had not been considered.
Finance Director Jim Baker explained that the interest paid to the bank for a lease/purchase arrangement is generally offset by the Town earning a higher interest rate on its own funds.
Regarding inclement weather, Mr. Heflin explained that the Department would either modify service schedules for the week or not collect that week. He said that the goal would be to get back on schedule as quickly as they could, perhaps by collecting on Saturdays, for example.
Council Member Ward asked if the carts themselves were made from recyclable plastic. Sanitation Superintendent Harv Howard explained that manufacturers have different measures of how much is recyclable, but “by and large” they are. Mr. Ward added that this would be important to him personally if the Council decides to approve curbside collection.
Council Member Wiggins mentioned that citizens had called her who were ambivalent about a new system, but would support it if the Town would put yard waste pick-up on a definite schedule. Mr. Heflin replied that with the exception of a few weeks this year the Town had maintained a two-week schedule. He pointed out that the Sanitation Division was currently down seven positions in residential crews, which is why they were running behind. Mr. Heflin said that they collect on a two-week schedule when fully staffed. He noted that changing to a fully scheduled system would require additional resources.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Town had made a service level increase in this year’s budget. Mr. Heflin replied that it had added a knuckle-boom truck and operator, and that this had made a significant increase in capability. He pointed out, though, that this has been a record brush year.
Council Member Wiggins asked if citizens could put a bag rather than a cart on the curb. Mr. Heflin replied that this would be a Council policy decision, but cautioned that unsecured bags invite problems from raccoons and stray dogs, for example. He noted that waste would be in the street longer with longer collection days. Mr. Heflin expressed concern about appearance and about disputes over who should clean up the mess.
Council Member Wiggins requested more specifics on what staff members would do when they visit to confirm disability. Mr. Heflin replied that the details are yet to be worked out, but there would be obvious disabilities as well as others which would require more exploration. He added that the tradition had always been to be as helpful and accommodating as possible and that he saw no reason to be confrontational or difficult with people. Mr. Heflin pointed out that most communities require that there be a genuine physical disability, or a severe topography problem, rather than granting exemptions for age alone.
Council Member Wiggins asked if offering backyard pickup to citizens for an extra fee had been discussed. Mr. Heflin replied that it had not been considered. He pointed out that productivity gains are accomplished by reducing the amount of time spent on routes, which means moving the trash out to the curb. Council Member Wiggins pointed out that those who had inquired about this would be able to afford backyard collection.
Council Member Wiggins said that some had suggested that elected officials who support curbside collection care more about injuries to workers than they do about injuries to citizens who will have to push carts to the curb. She noted that Mr. Heflin had responded to that earlier when he explained that the likelihood of injury is less for an individual doing it once a week than for one doing it 300 times a day. Council Member Wiggins also pointed out that the cart is not heavy when recyclables are not in it. She conveyed comments from a citizen who urged the Town pay attention to the number of households that are not recycling
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Baker to repeat what he had said about cost, and to relate that to the $496,100 total cost that had been quoted for curbside. Mr. Baker reiterated his statement regarding the Town earning more interest on its cash than it pays in interest on money borrowed for lease/purchase. He added that the $496,100 would include interest that would be paid.
Council Member Brown noted that she had submitted a petition to include pay-as-you-throw in a flexible system which would provide special collection for those with special needs and for those who pay for extra service.
Council Member Bateman asked if the proposal being discussed would allow alternatives to curbside, such as using a trashcan that blends with the environment. She expressed a preference for residents being given the smallest cans and exchanging them for larger ones if they need to. Council Member Bateman suggested being lenient with those who apply for exemptions initially, since there always is resistance to change.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Heflin to clarify the issue of bags and/or different kinds of containers, noting that it did not seem possible to have an efficient operation with such options. Mr. Heflin agreed, explaining that the bars on the sides of the carts are part of a flipping system on the trucks. He added that a light, securely tied bag could also be collected quickly, but recommend against an “anything goes” system because of the resulting efficiency losses, animal problems, and injuries to workers.
Council Member Foy asked if it was correct that there would be a net savings of $76,000 in the second year with once-a-week backyard pick-up, as outlined in a memo from Mr. Heflin dated May 1, 1998. Mr. Heflin replied that that would assume cutting a full crew, which would curtail the Town’s ability to collect brush. Council Member Foy asked why Cary had altered their system the way they had. Mr. Heflin replied he was not familiar with Cary’s system. Council Member Foy asked for a summary of the nature of the sanitation workers’ injuries. Mr. Heflin agreed to provide that.
Council Member Evans asked what the estimated cost for the smallest container would be. Mr. Heflin replied that it would be less expensive, but he did not have an exact figure. Council Member Evans asked if a specific tax district could designate itself to have backyard collection. Mr. Horton agreed to find out, but suggested that an entire self-identified area could contract out for the higher level service.
Council Member Evans asked what level of enforcement the Town was considering for curbside. Mr. Heflin replied that they would use existing staff. He said that active enforcement would depend on the Council’s policy on sanctions.
Council Member Evans asked if the carts could be built into the landscape or screened in some way. Mr. Heflin replied that some had done that during the pilot program. Council Member Evans inquired about burying, and Mr. Horton replied that there were prohibitive health problems related to that.
Council Member Ward expressed interest in putting topography into the exemption policy and looking further into the option of backyard pick-up at a premium cost. Mr. Heflin explained that many cities offer menu services, adding that it was not possible to estimate what the cost of that might be because there is no way to know how many homes might opt to pay for that service.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked if the staff had done any analysis at all of what the savings would be with pay-as-you-throw in a bag with rear yard pick-up. Mr. Heflin replied that any savings that pay-as-you-throw generates would likely be on the disposal end rather than the collection end. Mayor pro tem Pavăo noted that a successful pay-as-you-throw system would help eliminate workers’ health problems because collections would be lighter.
Mr. Horton said that it might be possible to engage someone who knows how to do the necessary market research to get some idea of how many people would choose to continue a premium rear-yard service at varying cost levels. He added, though, that he did not know if it would be possible to do that before the Council adopted the budget.
Council Member Brown noted that the present system was flexible. She said that she hoped this flexibility would continue, and expressed appreciation to Council members who had expressed willingness to consider pay-as-you-throw. Council Member Brown suggested looking at a base fee and at a tax reduction for that fee if the Town has a pay-as-you-throw system.
Council Member Bateman wondered if curbside collection would preclude people from going to a private collector for backyard service. Mr. Horton replied that this would be a choice for the Council to make, noting that nothing would prohibit anyone from going to a private collector as long as they obeyed the laws of the State and the rules the Council establishes. Council Member Bateman asked if it would be difficult in terms of the Department’s statistics. Mr. Horton replied that the Town would not pick it up if the resident did not put it out there.
Mayor Waldorf asked if trash and recycling could be picked up on the same day in a given area of Town, noting that this would address the appearance issue that some people had complained about. She suggested that neighborhood meetings would be a good place for people to address appearance issues, such as bringing roll carts and recycling bins back into their yards. Mayor Waldorf recommended beginning implementation with the newer neighborhoods, which generally have smaller lots and paved driveways.
Mayor Waldorf asked if one neighbor having a 68-gallon can and another having a 32-gallon can would cause collection problems. Mr. Heflin replied that the price break tends to be around 10,000 carts, so ordering substantially less would change the price. Mr. Horton suggested exploring that idea. He said that it might be possible for someone to pay a fee to have a different size cart than the standard. Mayor Waldorf replied that she would prefer it to be part of the system because she was becoming wary of all the additional fees. Mr. Heflin explained that many communities that had started out with smaller containers had incurred cost when people changed to larger ones and had left many returned small carts.
Mayor Waldorf offered Council members a 20-minute video by Howard Baldwin, a career Sanitation Division employee, which follows collectors on a route.
Council Member Foy suggested using the May 17th meeting to discuss this and other issues.
Council Member Evans noted that she would not be at that meeting. Mayor Waldorf agreed with the suggestion, and noted that the Pay Plan consultant would be at that meeting as well.
Council members agreed by consensus to discuss this issue again on May 17th.
Finance Director Jim Baker explained that the fund balance available for use in the 1999-2000 fiscal year was $4,746,000. He said that the fund balance appropriated to the current fiscal budget was $850,000, which left a balance of $3,896,000 in the current year. Mr. Baker estimated that the current year’s revenues minus the current year expenses for normal routine operations (excluding encumbrances from prior years) would be about $50,000.
Mr. Baker explained that the cost resulting from the hurricane and snowstorms was about $120,000, after federal reimbursements to date. In addition, he said the Town has appropriated $118,000 directly from fund balance for other expenses. Mr. Baker explained that the fund balance would go down this year by about $300,000 due to the current year situation highlighted in the report.
Mr. Baker recommended transferring $250,000 from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund and transferring $440,000 to the CIP Fund. He noted that $350,000 was sitting in the Capital Reserve Fund because each year the Town has made a transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund for the future year’s contribution to the CIP. Mr. Baker said it represents a cushion to some extent.
Mr. Baker explained that the revenues that make up the $783,000 in the Capital Improvements Fund are the $440,000 from the General Fund, the $300,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund and the $43,000 from the cell tower revenues. Mr. Horton added that there is a $300,000 reserve in the Capital Reserve. He noted that the Council could use those funds, but cautioned that it had been set up as a conservative “rainy day” fund.
Mayor Waldorf inquired about the recommended percentage of unappropriated fund balance that the Local Government Commission wants the Town to have. Mr. Baker pointed out that the information was in his memo and explained that if the Town ends up at $3.6 million it will be about 10%. He noted that the guideline for the minimum amount is 8% to 12%. Mr. Horton added that the Town is at the bare minimum and might get a warning letter from the Local Government Commission.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
The minutes from May 3, 2000 were adopted on July 5, 2000.
______________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC
Town Clerk