MINUTES

FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

City Hall, Room 207

Immediately following Personnel which begins at 6:30 p.m,

or 6:45 p.m., whichever is later

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  John VanderLeest, Tom Weber, Tony Theisen, and Steven Deneys

 

MEMBERS EXCUSED:  None

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Doug Daul, Chad Weininger, Dave Nennig, Chief Stauber, Linda Dupuis, Ald. Wiezbiskie, Lisa Conrad, Recording Secretary Ginny Mamrosh, and others

 

1.   Roll Call.  

 

Chairperson VanderLeest called the meeting to order.  Roll call was taken, and all were present.

 

2.   Approval of the Agenda.

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber and seconded by Ald. Theisen to approve the agenda as amended to consider Items #1 through #5, then Item #7.  Item #4 will be held until the next meeting.  Motion carried.

 

3.   Approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meetings of May 9 and June 6, 2006.

 

A motion was made by Ald. Theisen and seconded by Deneys to approve the minutes of the Finance Committee meetings of May 9 and June 6, 2006.  Motion carried.

 

4.   Request by the City Attorney to cancel interest and penalty charges on parcel #21-455.

 

This item is being held until the next meeting.   

 

5.  Report of the Purchasing Agent:

1.  Telephone switch equipment for Fire Dept. and City Hall from Inacom Information Systems for $11,388.

 

Purchasing Agent Linda Dupuis said this equipment was publicly and competitively quoted, and the low acceptable quote was selected.  Funding will come from IT Capital Equipment. 

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Theisen and carried to approve 1) Telephone switch equipment for Fire Dept. and City Hall from Inacom Information Systems for $11,388.

 

2.  Three pickup trucks for Parks Department from Holz Motors for $32,976 total.

 

Ms. Dupuis said this equipment was competitively bid with the VALUE bid, and that the City is getting 2006 pricing on 2007 vehicles.  It is within budget, and will be covered by Capital Reserve funds.

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Deneys and carried to approve 2) Three pickup trucks for Parks Department from Holz Motors for $32,976 total.

 

3.  Emergency purchase of radio communication equipment for Fire Station #7 from Motorola through Baycom, Inc. for $10,172.

 

Ms. Dupuis said funding for this equipment, publicly bid under the WSCA contract, had been approved at the last Council meeting and an emergency purchase order was placed.  This request is for approval of the vendor. 

 

A motion was made by Ald. Theisen, seconded by Ald. Deneys and carried to approve 3) Emergency purchase of radio communication equipment for Fire Station #7 from Motorola through Baycom, Inc. for $10,172.

 

4.  City-wide towing services agreement to Crosby’s Heavy Duty for an estimated $2,800 per year.

 

Ms. Dupuis said several customer service issues relating to the way some customers were being handled, and possibly ethic issues, arose during the last contract.  She explained that this contract does not include Police “no-preference tows.”  The Council has previously instructed the Police Department on procedures to follow if asked by the owner of a vehicle needing a tow, which company they should call.  This towing contract is for City vehicles, Police tows – towing vehicles when no owner is present – and Inspection tows.  Vehicles brought in on Inspection tows are often not picked up by the owners because of the condition they are in. 

 

Ms. Dupuis said vendors had complained that Crosby Heavy Duty always won the quote.  She said she advertised and held a public meeting this time, and only two vendors showed up, Crosby Heavy Duty and Gene’s Deep Rock.  Vendors are eligible to quote if they have the equipment and are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 365 days of the year, but other vendors didn‘t attend the public meeting. 

 

Ms. Dupuis said she did revise the specs in that they are much more detailed as to what the City expects, and included customer service levels and ethics issues.  The City has always paid the vendor for Police and Inspection tows, and that is how it had been bid.  Both the City and the owner of the vehicle were charged.  This contract states that the City will no longer pay.  The entire cost will go to the owner of the vehicle.  The cost of the contract will go from $14,000 every year down to $2,800, with the City paying only for City vehicles, and the owners of other vehicles paying all costs on those tows.  Ms. Dupuis said this is a cooperative agreement and other communities can buy off the City bid if they wish. 

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Theisen and carried to approve 4) City-wide towing services agreement to Crosby’s Heavy Duty for an estimated $2,800 per year for a three-year term plus two one-year option renewal periods. 

 

6.  Report on 2006 1st Quarter Overtime.

 

Finance Director Doug Daul said departments are within budget.  He distributed a new report, saying it had been redone to reflect the two extra pay periods per year for the Fire Dept.  Salary and Overtime are both under budget. 

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Theisen and carried to receive and place on file the Report on 2006 1st Quarter Overtime. 

 

7.  Consideration of the action by the Transit Commission to give the option of extending paratransit service through the entire City of Green Bay if the City agrees to fund 100% of the additional cost for 2006.

 

Transit Director Dave Nennig asked to recap this issue up to this point.  The Paratransit program began in 1990 because of a Federal mandate that resulted in the Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA).  Maintaining this program has proved to be a challenge for Green Bay, as well as communities all across America.  About 27,000 Paratransit trips were taken in 1999, while more than 96,000 trips were aken in 2005.  This shows an increase of 249% in the number of trips in 10 years.  Additionally, the cost of the trips has increased 20% over the last four years.  He said it is difficult to follow this Federal mandate when revenues do not keep pace with costs, and State, Federal, and local funding do not completely address this problem.  While working on the 2006 budget, they realized no more funding could be found and that the current services could not continue. 

 

Mr. Nennig said about 24% of the budget goes to fund service for about 4% of our passengers at present.  The Federal mandate says Paratransit service must be provided for disabled persons who cannot use the regular public transportation system and must be comparable to the fixed-route bus service that is provided.  Every Paratransit provider must comply with numerous Federal regulations.  There are to be no limits on the number of trips an eligible person can take, and there are no capacity constraints – they cannot say they are full and unable to do a trip.  Paratransit also is not allowed to prioritize trips by trip purpose. 

 

Mr. Nennig said the cost of one person using the basic service twice a day (to and from Curative, or a job, etc.), five days a week, can cost $7,800 per year.  He attended Federal training on how these costs can be managed, and learned of some alternatives.  The message from the Federal instructors was to make sure you comply with ADA requirements; it was great to do more if local funding could support it, but if not, make sure ADA requirements are met.  The Transit Commission didn’t want to cut services, but the funding wasn’t there and they did increase fares in October.  They then tried to make cuts in areas not regulated by Federal law, and looked for cuts that would affect the smallest number of people.  They also looked at potential fixed-route cuts.  The ¾ mile limit has been the issue, and many systems in Wisconsin and throughout the country use that boundary.

 

Mr. Nennig said “comparable” is defined as being within ¾ mile of the fixed bus routes, the theory being that a non-disabled person could walk ¾ mile to a bus stop and use regular bus service.  Communities can go further out than that, but not less than the ¾ mile option.  Alternatives were studied by a committee comprised of representatives from the City, Bellevue, DePere, Ashwaubenon, and Allouez.  This year-long study looked at budget problems, present and future, as well as funding equity.  It was apparent that several communities were getting more service than they were paying for, so they looked at origins and destinations of trips and tried to determine what impact the ¾ mile limit would have.  Mr. Nennig displayed a map showing destinations and origins of trips taken during a typical month in Green Bay.  Many of these trips were to Bellevue and DePere and were beyond the ¾ mile service area. 

 

Mr. Nennig said a change was made in the #14 route, extending it to the I-43 Business Park, thereby allowing access to Prevea and the residential area on Finger Rd.  This deviation was accomplished by limiting the number of trips made to Edison School to two per day on school days only.  This 4-month study showed three origins or destinations that are no longer in the service area.  He said the impact on City residents appeared to be minimal, and that individuals in that area are now being served by other programs, primarily Red Cross . 

 

Mr. Nennig said implementing the ¾ mile limit restored equity.  The study had showed that 1,237 trips, or about 10% of Paratransit trips, were outside of the ¾ mile area, and that 70% of those trips were taken by 16 individuals.  More fuel and labor costs resulted because many trips were further out in the municipalities.  The other communities weren’t willing to increase their contributions to Transit to pick up the difference.  They couldn’t handle the cost, and felt that their residents had service available through the Red Cross program.  The impact of the ¾ mile limit was greatest on Bellevue – about 59% is not served by Paratransit at present. 

 

Finance Director Doug Daul said the City budget includes only one line item for Transit, called “Transit Operations.”  He said they are funded at about $1.2 Million, all of that being levy dollars. We levy that amount and are then billed monthly by Transit.  Mr. Nennig said the program gets State and Federal funding, as well as fare box revenues, and that a local match is required to get that funding.  In past years, the local share had been determined based on fixed route mileage in each community, resulting in inequities over time.  This year, Transit began charging each community for its fixed-route service based on the fixed-route miles in their community, and for Paratransit based on the population in the Paratransit service area in their communities.  They can increase Paratransit service to cover the entire community, if they pay more for that service.  This policy is consistent, in that Transit now provides Paratransit service within ¾ mile of our bus routes, and if they want service beyond that, they can extend the bus routes or pay more for that service. 

 

Ald. Theisen asked what the average Allouez or Ashwaubenon resident pays in property taxes that go toward Transit, compared to the average Green Bay resident, since with the ¾ mile limit, residents of those two municipalities are within the ¾ mile limit.  Mr. Nennig said he could get that information, but it is complicated by the fact that an individual does not have to live in our service area to use Paratransit, he just has to be in the area.  Anyone can come into our service area and ride our buses.  The ¾  mile limit affects not only those that reside in that area, but also anyone who wants to travel in that area.  If a Green Bay resident in the service area wants to travel to the far east side that is not in service area, he can’t do that, either.  Limiting the area affects everyone who is on the program because it restricts where everybody can travel to.  He said Federal regulations mandate that residency not be a part of the certification process.  Applicants are certified based on their functional abilities.

 

Mr. Nennig said the numbers used in the study were from the 2000 census, and that there has been a lot of growth on the east side since then.  They estimate approximately 325 new housing units have been built there since 2000, and using an average of 2.44 persons per household, estimate that 793 more people live in that area since that census was taken.  About 2,207 people in the City live outside the ¾ mile limit.  Over the entire program, about 2% of the population of the service area is eligible for Paratransit.  That figure was applied to those numbers and showed approximately 44 people in this area would be eligible for Paratransit if it were extended to both east and west boundaries of the City.  Mr. Nennig said in February he estimated the cost of adding service to the entire City of Green Bay at about $100,000 for the remainder of this year, but this analysis shows a figure of $121,397 for the full year.  The fuel escalator cost was revised since then to reflect 41 cents rather than the 22 cents originally used, bringing the cost per trip at present to $18.06, or about $123,000 per year for 44 people taking the average number of trips in this area, at 2006 costs, or about $10,000 per month. 

 

Mr. Nennig said he has had 6 calls since January asking about Paratransit services for 12 persons in the City residing outside the ¾ mile limit.  He distributed a copy of different options available to the Paratransit program, derived from numerous studies done, and from other municipalities.  The first option was to reduce service to the ¾ mile limit, while providing service beyond this area in any community willing to pay for the higher level of service, which is what the City has done.  In our case, those communities were not willing to fund the difference.  He said they had put figures together showing what the cost difference would be for each community to provide service under a new allocation formula, and some increases were substantial.  Bellevue’s local share would have quadrupled, and DePere would have had a sizeable increase.  Mr. Nennig said he will provide the numbers that were presented to the municipalities. 

 

Mr. Nennig said we can look at changing anything beyond ADA requirements, including reducing service to curb-to-curb only, instead of also offering door-to-door.  Door-to-door service is not presently required, but the U.S. Dept. of Transportation recently proposed a change to present regulations that would require door-to-door service on a case by case basis.  If this goes into effect, it will substantially increase costs and reduce revenues. 

 

Mr. Nennig said subscription trips could be eliminated.  These are trips taken regularly from place to place, such as to a job.  Individuals are not required to call every day to schedule these trips, and he said dropping that option would require more personnel to schedule the reservations daily.  By Federal law, subscription trips can’t comprise more than 50% of the total capacity of the service, and Medivan said they are close to that figure.  The fee for door-to-door could be increased to any amount for service beyond the ¾ mile limit, and last October it went from $3 to $5 per trip.

 

Expanding bus service is another option.  If service were expanded on the far east side, that area would be covered by Paratransit as well.  Mr. Nennig estimated the cost of adding another fixed route to serve the far east side of Green Bay and to increase Paratransit in that area to be $165,000 at 2006 costs.  This is contingent upon getting State and Federal funding for that route, and generating sufficient fare box revenue.  Mr. Nennig said those costs must be put in the 2007 budget if there is interest.  This is an underserved area, and Metro gets many requests for both fixed and Paratransit service.  The whole area has about 2200 people that are not served by Transit, primarily on the east side.  Some calls come from people not living in the area but who want to travel to that area. 

 

Mr. Nennig said they are encouraging competition by bidding out Paratransit service and that four vendors have expressed interest.  There are pros and cons regarding multiple providers.  Metro staff would have to be increased to comply with Federal regulations.  Some communities have taxi discount programs for both fixed and paratransit services, but it is difficult to do as part of ADA service because of compliance restraints.  Most communities with that program consider them to be non-ADA services.  As a provider, we are responsible for scheduling and providing service for any ADA-eligible passengers requesting the service the previous day.  With multiple vendors we must be able to assure a trip is available for anyone requesting it.  Transit systems using multiple vendors take reservations in-house and then arrange transportation through multiple carriers.  Transit would need more dispatchers and have mechanisms in place to ensure that every vendor is complying with Federal requirements. 

 

Mr. Nennig said feeder paratransit service through fixed routes is an option that may be worth looking at, but it needs more study.  Many disabled individuals qualify for paratransit because there are no sidewalks where they live, or other barriers exist to keep them from getting to fixed route service.  With feeder service, individuals are picked up at their homes and taken to the nearest bus stop.  In addition, in some cases fixed bus routes could be modified so accessible service on the fixed routes is available to more disabled persons.  This would be looked at on a case by case basis.

 

Chairman VanderLeest said the Committee must decide whether or not to cover these costs for 2006 and suggesting opening the floor.

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber and seconded by Ald. Deneys to suspend the rules to let interested parties speak.  Motion carried 

 

Melinda Winter, 3530 Golf Dr., said the fact that the Red Cross operates only between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. severely limits her ability to find and hold a job.  She couldn’t arrive at work before 8:30 and would have to leave by 4:00.  It does not operate on holidays or weekends.  She said Paratransit is the only option she has that will allow her to be employed.  She is unable to walk an extra mile to get to a bus stop or drive to get to one.  She said some services the City provides, such as mowing lawns in the parks, are not as critical as the need for transportation for persons with disabilities.  It is an essential service, and one hard to understand if you haven’t experienced the need yourself.  She said her life is dependent upon transportation, and having it taken away because she is 500 feet down the road was difficult to understand.  She pays taxes to the City and feels penalized because other municipalities have not been paying their fair share for so many years.  She said it is not appropriate to pick and choose who is to get essential services and who cannot.  She lives in a newer house that is accessible and said if she has to move into an older home in another area, it may not be accessible.  She is choosing between an accessible home and transportation.  She needs both.

 

Ald. Wiezbiskie asked if any options, such as unused grant money, are available to Ms. Winter, but Mr. Nennig responded that all available grant money is being used.  He said wherever the line is drawn, some people will no longer be in the service area and that it makes sense to have a consistent line.  The City could make an exception to the ¾ mile limit by extending it all the way to the City boundary or just for another 500 ft., but there is cost associated with such a change, and the City must agree on funding for it.  Ms. Winter mentioned offering premium services, as some other communities do, and Mr. Nennig said that is one of the options for services outside the ¾ mile boundary.

 

Helen Harrington, 855 15th Ave., said her problem isn’t as serious as Ms. Winters‘, but  she represents other elderly or disabled people who use her place of worship.  Between the 16 individuals she is speaking of, there only 5 cars to take them to this place of worship.  She lives within the City, but her place of worship is outside the ¾ mile limit.  Her service has not been taken away, but it would be a terrible burden if it were.

 

Take Ronsman, 1688 Beaver Dam Drive, said she doesn’t need to use public transportation, but empathizes with Ms Winter because she knows how difficult it is to find a good job, even with transportation.  She feels, as a taxpayer, that public transportation should be a sacred cow and said a creative solution should be found to raise the money.  She asked the Committee to come up with ways to find necessary funding, possibly pulling parts of the 7 different options together.  She asked that they work on getting increased routes for 2007 so the Transit system is more convenient.   

 

Ms. Harrington said she expected an increase in rates as gas prices went up and was puzzled when they did not.  Mr. Nennig explained that by Federal regulations, we cannot charge more for a basic Paratransit trip than twice the bus fare.  The fare was raised last year from $1.25 to $1.50, and Paratransit was raised to $3.00.  They do not want to raise the bus fare more because of trying to encourage ridership. 

 

Ms. Winter said Appleton, Neenah, Menasha, and Oshkosh all serve their entire cities, plus parts of surrounding areas.  Mr. Nennig said the difference between those areas and Green Bay is the 85.21 money that is given to the State by the Federal government to be distributed to counties for elderly and disabled transportation.  In those municipalities, Valley Transit gets the funds from Outagamie, Winnebago, and Calumet counties.  Green Bay doesn’t get any of that funding -- it goes to the Red Cross.  This decision was made some time back at County government. 

 

Mr. Nennig said there will soon be a countywide study regarding elderly and disabled transportation.  The Red Cross does about 65,000 trips per year in Brown County.  Their program is different in that it is for elderly and disabled.  Any person 60 or older automatically qualifies for their service, while our program is only for those disabled who cannot use our regular accessible buses.  Every county gets these funds, and it is up to each to say how they will spend the money.  The State Legislature appropriated a 36% increase for the 85.21 program but the City won’t get any of that.  The County Commission of Aging will set some aside for a study of the needs countywide.  

 

Lisa Conard, Transportation Planner for the Brown County Planning Commission, said part of the grant that funds her position is intended to provide assistance to Green Bay Metro.  She was involved with a committee serving the Mayor last year in developing the maps used at tonight’s meeting.  A trend they see is that systems are going back to the ¾ mile limit.  She said Appleton is no longer 100% covered by Paratransit service.  She is familiar with the Red Cross and their funding stream and said they do provide 62,000 - 65,000 rides per year and are able to do so with a budget of a little over $500,000 because they’re a private non-profit and get assistance through volunteer drivers.  There are 30 shifts of 4 hours apiece per week, providing 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. service.  She said Green Bay Transit would be unlikely to be able to do more with those funds because of not having volunteer drivers and not receiving donations.  85.21 funds go to the Red Cross, and that is more efficient at this point.  In the Valley, those funds go to Valley Transit; who goes beyond ADA requirements and provides an ADA-like service on Sundays at a higher rate than what customers pay during the day. 

 

Ald. Theisen asked if the Red Cross has any way to petition for exceptions, and Ms. Conard said they could, but their weakness is in the number of volunteer drivers they can recruit, and they are full at present.  Mr. Nennig said another difference between Paratransit and Red Cross is that Red Cross can and does prioritize trips.  If they’re full any day, they do not provide the trip.  We cannot refuse, under Federal regulations.  

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Theisen and carried to return to the regular order of business. 

 

Ald. Weber asked Mr. Nennig when and who made the decision to extend beyond the ¾ mile limit, to do door to door and other services not required under ADA.  Mr. Nennig said an advisory committee was set up when Paratransit was developed, and the recommendations came out of there.  Ms. Conard said she has been on the staff since 1989, and is familiar with the program prior to that.  In 1987, before ADA, the City took it upon themselves to start providing cab rides and special transportation rides, where the user paid a fee and the City picked up the rest.  By 1991, the City decided to comply with ADA as soon as possible and started to implement ADA, winning awards for going above and beyond requirements.  This was a progression going back to 1987 when rides were provided before being mandated.  They served all of the Metro service area communities in their entirety. 

 

Ald. Weber said subsidizing taxis was brought up at the February meeting of the Committee.  He asked if there is a method in which the municipality, under some other funding program, can offer a subsidy to either Transit or to a cab company so that it doesn’t fall under the Paratransit requirements.  Mr. Nennig said he didn’t know of any funding source where the City could operate such a separate program outside of Transit and Paratransit.  He had checked with local cab companies – the largest company’s rate is $2 for the first half mile and $2 per mile thereafter.  If a trip is longer than 7 miles, this option would be more expensive than a current Paratransit trip. 

 

Ald. Theisen asked if the City agrees to extend Paratransit service to the entire City, would this provide service for Green Bay residents only; he was told it could be used by any eligible individual who wants to travel to and from this area, regardless of where they reside.  If we extended our limit to the entire City, it could be used not only by Green Bay residents, but any eligible individual who wants to travel to and from this area, regardless of where they reside.  Ald. Weber said someone could drive them into the area.  Origin and destination have to be in the service area.  If we were to extend service to all of Green Bay, we don’t have to extend the service area anywhere else.  We can be at the entire City limits and not have to serve more than ¾ of a mile anywhere else. 

 

Ms. Conard explained that everybody pays the same cost per person in the affected area -- if the boundary is increased beyond ¾ mile, people in other municipalities could go to the new area, but people in Green Bay could also go to the other areas.  Ald. Theisen said he was fine with that, because the City budget would be paying for the service, but the other municipalities were not paying.  If Green Bay is the only source of funds for this new service, we’re providing new service not only to people in Green Bay, but also to people outside the City whose municipalities are not willing to pay any more.  Miss Conard said this is spread out over the cost per person.  Ald. Theisen suggested approaching the municipalities and asking them to pay their fair share

 

Mr. Nennig said the cost for a full year would be $123,000, or about $60,000 for the rest of this year.  Ald. Deneys suggested looking at something for the short term and then look at expanding next year because the $60,000 is not available this year. 

 

Ald. Theisen asked if exceptions could be made, such as was done with storm water runoff.  This was legal, even though several persons were treated differently than everyone else.  He suggested getting a legal opinion on whether an exemption could be granted on an individual basis, possibly with an extra fee being paid; Mr. Daul said he was uncomfortable with setting Transit policy instead of determining whether or not we would fund this issue, and Ald. VanderLeest said this issue should go to the Transit Commission.  Mr. Nennig said the City’s audit firm had recommended that if the City wants service beyond the uniform level being provided in all of the communities, we should have the Paratransit provider bill the City directly for those trips so they doesn’t get confused in the accounting procedures. 

 

Ald. Wiezbiskie agreed with Ald. Theisen, saying Ms. Winter might be only exception and to give her a chance at an exemption if this is legal.  He said with all the development on the far east side, further studies are needed to look at extending bus service there, then these problems will be solved.  

 

Ald Theisen made a motion to ask the Law Dept. to determine if the Transit Commission can legally grant exemptions to anyone outside the ¾ mile boundary within the City of Green Bay for City residents on a case by case basis.  If legal to grant exemptions, he would like to recommend that the Transit Commission consider developing a procedure to grant exemptions.

 

The motion died for lack of a second.

 

Ald. Weber said he still didn’t see a funding mechanism in the motion, and that is the only charge of the Committee tonight.  He said the Committee needs to make a fiscal decision -- they cannot just find the money.  They hadn’t talked about trying to incorporate more fund-raising partnerships in the City to help with projects.  He suggested checking with charitable organizations to see if they can help fund a special Transit need.  Ald. Weber said we don’t have the money to be all things to all people -- we have a budget and responsibilities, and must address the funding mechanism. 

 

Ald. VanderLeest said this can be referred back to Transit for them to look at exceptions or cost shares with other communities, or to work with the Red Cross for other alternatives.  He asked for another motion.

 

Ald. Theisen made a motion to refer this back to the Transit Commission to request that they ask Allouez, Bellevue, Ashwaubenon, and DePere to pay their proportionate share of the costs if the City extends Paratransit Service through the entire City of Green Bay.  The recommendation of the Finance Committee is to not agree to fund 100% of the additional cost of extending Paratransit service to the entire city for 2006 if the other communities do not agree.  Ald. Weber seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Nennig said if the City had a uniform ¾ mile service area and wanted to have some other transportation program that it would fund beyond that for just City of Green Bay residents, that may be possible, as long as it wouldn’t change the boundaries of our Paratransit service area.  It could be administered in a different manner.

 

Mr. Daul said if this had been done at budget time, the funding mechanism would have been totally different.  There is no Federal or State money available in mid-year.  Mr. Nennig agreed that it would be easier to incorporate it into next year’s budget and allocate it to each community. 

 

Ald. VanderLeest said this is a difficult issue, but should go through the Transit Commission.  They may want to look at an exemption basis or working with the Red Cross, or contracting with the Red Cross for services for exemptions.  The City could subsidize a portion of those people outside the ¾ mile.  There are other options besides opening up the entire area without appropriate funding from other communities.  He asked for last year’s figures.  He said the Contingency fund is for the full year, for all departments.  He urged Mr. Nennig to work with the Transit Commission to look at some of the alternatives.  If we can’t get funding from other communities, he suggested looking at contracting services with the Red Cross for outlying areas or working with them to identify opportunities for people not served by City.  Mr. Nennig said the countywide study on the elderly and disabled transportation needs will address some of those issues. 

 

A vote was taken, and the motion carried.

 

8.  Request by the Finance Director to retain Schenck Business Solutions to conduct a private audit on behalf of the City of Green Bay.

 

The Finance Committee may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(e), Wis. Stats, for purposes of negotiating or deliberating the investing of public funds for the purchase of audit services, which, for competitive and bargaining reasons, requires a closed session.  Pursuant to Sec. 19.85(2), Wis Stats. The Committee will reconvene in open session for the purpose of acting on the balance of the agenda.

 

A motion was made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Theisen and carried to convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(e), Wis. Stats, for purposes of negotiating or deliberating the investing of public funds for he purchase of audit services, which, for competitive and bargaining reasons, requires a closed session. 

 

A motion was made by Ald. Theisen, seconded by Ald. Weber and carried to reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2).

 

A motion was made by Ald. Theisen, seconded by Ald. Deneys and carried to receive and place on file the request by the Finance Director to retain Schenck Business Solutions to conduct a private audit on behalf of the City of Green Bay.

 

A motion to adjourn was made by Ald. Deneys, seconded by Ald. Weber, and carried.  The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

 

2006 CONTINGENCY FUND

$180,778.00