My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01-09-2017 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2017
>
01-09-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2018 10:07:38 AM
Creation date
9/18/2017 3:26:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
01/09/2017
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION December 5, 2016 <br />DRAFT <br /> 5 <br />recommending replacement of two vehicles in 2017. Two vehicles would be moved for 174 <br />review in 2018 for potential replacement. They have adjusted the plan to reflect a five 175 <br />year review for potential replacement on patrol vehicles and seven for other functions. 176 <br />Council Member Maher asked if being on the list means only that the vehicle will be 177 <br />reviewed for replacement but not automatically replaced. Mayor Reinert asked if the 178 <br />policy reflects the 100,000 miles and sixty month replacement policy that was discussed 179 <br />by the council; if they are covered by a warranty, why not keep them through it. 180 <br />Council Member Rafferty noted the warranty question and it is sixty months; the City 181 <br />could take the cars to that point and look and see if they are still good. Looking at other 182 <br />communities he sees the cars going to at least 110,000 miles. Council Member Rafferty 183 <br />noted that he sees a change in the amount proposed for capital purchase in the first year. 184 <br />He then discussed the administration vehicles in the police department and asked if it 185 <br />would make sense to have them as leased vehicles? He’s heard of some communities 186 <br />doing it that way. Finance Director Cotton remarked that the cars are specially outfitted 187 <br />and that could make a lease situation with return of the vehicles at a certain point 188 <br />difficult. 189 <br /> 190 <br />Staff noted that the capital replacement plan is included in the proposed budget for 2017 191 <br />and that triggers a capital replacement note process in January. 192 <br /> 193 <br />Mayor Reinert said he likes the proposal presented and if the city implements this new 194 <br />policy, experience will be gained. To change the policy drastically, however, and not see 195 <br />much savings in an eight year period doesn’t seem possible but experience will tell. 196 <br /> 197 <br />Council Member Rafferty suggested that it’s conceivable that the mileage could be higher 198 <br />than anticipated. 199 <br /> 200 <br />Director Swenson asked what amount the city would like included for the investigation 201 <br />vehicles in the budget forthcoming. Mayor Reinert said, with this new policy, it makes 202 <br />sense to have a full warranty on the cars but then perhaps keep them longer. Council 203 <br />Member Rafferty remarked that if those cars are non-intercepter, the warranty won’t be 204 <br />five years/100,000 miles and the Chief concurred. Mayor Reinert suggested a cost 205 <br />analysis for extending the warranty. 206 <br /> 207 <br />Administrator Karlson said staff will bring both the policy and schedule forward in 208 <br />January. Finance Cotton said it would be appropriate to have figures (either new or used 209 <br />but decidedly which) included in the 2017 budget. Staff will bring forward the 210 <br />information at the next council meeting. 211 <br />8. Finalize 2017 Budget – Finance Director Cotton reviewed the latest adjustments 212 <br />in the budget presented (as noted in the staff report). Regarding the change from the 213 <br />DEA Task Force assignment, Council Member Rafferty asked about how that impacts the 214 <br />current staffing and particularly how that officer returning to the ranks could impact the 215 <br />vacant sergeant position (could we promote one position to the sergeant position and not 216 <br />hire an additional patrol officer?). Council Member Kusterman said he is not in favor of 217
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.