My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-30-93 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
11-30-93 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:42:06 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:55:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 30, 1993 <br />not amount to a third for each of these areas. <br />However, the Administrator indicated that he has not <br />been uncomfortable with the salary totals in each of <br />these departments. <br />Scalze pointed out the time involved in running a <br />billing system and supervising personnel and the office <br />structure, and felt that the third split was not far <br />off. <br />Morelan pointed out the attempt to make the Water and <br />Sewer Funds self-sustaining, and felt that a more <br />accurate accounting of salary expense to these accounts <br />could make a difference in rates. <br />LaValle asked about copier supplies under <br />Administration and whether the amount budgeted under <br />this area reflected a credit back from 3% gambling <br />funds. <br />The Administrator reported that the credit from the 3% <br />gambling funds was posted to the General Capital <br />Improvement Fund. <br />Morelan asked what was included in Operating Expense <br />under the Fire Department budget. <br />The Administrator replied that water and sewer utility <br />costs were posted under this line item <br />Scalze asked about pension plan costs. <br />The Administrator replied that staff has had <br />significant discussions with the State on exactly what <br />the new rule changes require. It appears there are <br />some inconsistencies in the law, and that <br />grandfathering of pension levels is unclear as to the <br />date. The State is attempting to obtain an answer. <br />The Administrator reported that if the $2,050 benefit <br />level is not grandfathered in, the City will have to <br />take a hard look at its contribution level. It would <br />then require a significant increase in the City's <br />contribution to maintain that $2,050 benefit. If the <br />benefit level must drop to the 1991 or 1992 level, it <br />may require less funds to maintain that level, and the <br />City may wish to cut back to whatever amount is <br />required to maintain the required benefit level. <br />The big issue motivating these changes is that <br />charitable gambling proceeds have been used to increase <br />the benefit level to increase to a point higher than <br />what some cities can support. Since that revenue is <br />now precluded, the schedule is pulled down. <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.