Laserfiche WebLink
MINUT~S <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />S~PTEMI3CR 2, 1998 <br />The Co~u~cii reviewed the Pire Department b~idget wliicl~ reflects a 3.1% <br />increase. Tlie Pire Chief reviewed the budget for the Uene6t of the <br />Council indiclted th~t increases are retlected in the special activities <br />cafegory as well ~s sonie saiary increases for officers and cierical help. It <br />was noted that there was actu111y a decrease of approximately $8,000 in <br />H~e Fire Departinent's bud~et from 1997 to 1998. 1'he 1999 bud~et is <br />$2,000 less than the b~~d~eC was for 19~7. <br />Protective lnspections is bud;eted at a 17.7% incre2se which ref7ects an <br />increlse in building inspection contract coscs from 35% of fees to 60% of <br />fees for projects other than Pitrina P1ri< and Che Rice Street redevelopment. <br />This is more ~~ef~7ecCive of tl~e marl<et and i~~ some cases still be(ow the <br />marl<et. The Adminish'ator reported tl~at 60% o(' Pees is needed to <br />adequately reimburse the 13uiiding Ofticial for time spent on smaller <br />projects. The Ado~inist~r~tor esYimated that the ~mount budgeted for <br />inspectors is less th<tn whaf the City would lil<ely p1y to h~ve ti full-time <br />employee in [his posit~ion. "'~his ~rrangement will prove even more <br />beneficial when a downturn in building act'ivity is experienced. <br />rmergency Services/Civil Defense is bud~eted at a 1.4% increase. <br />[ Ioevever, the City Administrator indicated that he would s(~eal< to the <br />Emergency Services Directorto determine i{'the $100 per month <br />compensation w~s atlequate. <br />A~~imal Cuntrol w~s bud~eted ~t the 1998 IeveL However, a contract <br />~ro~osal has not been submitt~ed to the City at this point. <br />The Co~incil reviewed the Streets butl;et with the Administrator noting the <br />increase in em~~loyee costs. The Administrator indieated thaC increases <br />were required in Public Wori<s sal~ries in order to coin~~enslte tl~ese <br />positions on a basis similar to cities our size. Morel2n expressed concern <br />relative to the cany-over of f~inds fi~om 1998 to 1999 for si~ns, stripin~, <br />~nd sealcoatin~. Morel~n su~~ported the c~nyin~ over offunds for work <br />YhaC was not performed, but not for worl< that was under-budget It was <br />noted that stripin~ was not done in 1998 and inst~llation of street signs <br />was not completed. However, the cost of sealcoaCing was under budget. I1 <br />w~ts the consensus of the Council to eliminate the $8,000 clrry over for <br />sealcoatiii~ ~nd to c~rry over $500 for signs and $3,500 for stripi~~g. <br />Storm S~`ver ~s weil as Street Lighting were projected at 0% i~~creases. <br />RecyciingiSanitation reflecfetl a 1.7% decrease over the 1998 f3ud~et. <br />While C'ity Garage was at a. I% decrease. <br />The Councii reviewed t~he Parl<s & Recreltion bud~et which is projected at <br />a 7.2% increase. Morel~n asl<ed ~bout why the ct2y camp subsidy was not <br />6 <br />