10-01-86 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council October 1 , 19£36 The 19II7 budget for Engineer is proposed at $5,400, ~ahich reflects a$1,000 decrease over the 19£36 budget. It was the concensus of the Counci1 to approve this portion of the budget. The Planning portion of the budget was proposed at $13,375 versus $11,~9?_ for 1986. Councit cut S250 from the Engineer-Other category and $200 from the Attorney-Other category. Council approved the Planning budget at $12,925. Council approved the City Nall portion of the budget at $18,745 versus $1£3,270 for 198Fi. Police Protection was previously approved by the City at $277,511 for 1987 versus ~230,600 for 19f36. Protective Inspection had a proposed budget of $33,735 for 19F37 versus $31,725 for 1~II6. John Palacio, (iuilding Inspector, requested that additional money be budgeted under Conference & Schools as he would like to attend the 1987 ~lational Conference of Buildinc7 Inspectors which would be held in Kansas City. It was the concensus of the Council that it was agreeabte to attendance at State-wide conventions, but not national conventions helcl out-of-state. Ho~aever, Council stated that it ~vould consider each request on a case-by-case basis. The City Clerk felt that there k~~ere some errors in the year-to-date figures reflected in the agendas and that amounts paid through Flugust of this year were actually higher. Council approved the Protective Insnection portion of the budget as presented. Emergency Servfces/Civil Defense is proposed at fif~,012 for 19H7 versus $5,100 for 19£36. The Civil Defense Director pointed out that a portion of his salary is reflected in the 19£37 budget as the City will be reiinbursed 50% of this salary from Federal funds. Council indicated that the 19£36 Civil Defense budget should be amended to reflect this salarp as vaell. The Council approved the Emergency Services/Civil Defense portion of the budget as presented. Council approved the {Inimal Control budget at ~a4,16n versus ~4,~88 budgeted in 1986. Council reviewed the 19£37 proposed Streets budget in the amount of $136,750 versus $215,347 for 198fi. It was noted that in 1986 the City budgetetl $100,000 for Street Repairs, and there is nothing budgeted in this category for 19f37, Roger Glanzer, Public lJorks, noted that there is an increase of $4,000 in the P~aintenance Materials category of the budget. This is due to increased repair of City streets. There is also a$10,000 increase in the Snovaplosving portion of the Street Budget. Council discussed snowplowing and it was suggested that the Public !alorks Superintendent and 3i11 [3lesener meet ~•aith the County regarding snowplowing and their bilting of the City for the ploNiing in addition to a 40°~ administration fee. Page -4-