Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-10city council minutesBook 19 SPECIAL. MEETING October 10, 1978 12:00 Noon The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Pasley. Page 287 The Roll of the City Council was called with the following members present: McCluskey, Olesen, Williams, Raymond, Hopper, and Bauman. Absent: none. (COMPLAINTS REGARDING DUSTY °.ROADS) The Mayor stated that there was two people who lived on First Avenue and Ithaca Street and Third Avenue and Kearney Street complaining about the dust and want the City to go back to sprinkling the streets down there. The Mayor told them that long before he came into office the City Council had established a policy of no street sprinkling, but he did want to bring it before the Council to see if they still agreed with this previous policy. Mr. Lewis had told the Mayor that it had been years since the City sprinkled any of the streets. At the present time, the Mayor explained, the Idaho Power Co. was moving part of their installation from Kearney Street over towards the freeway and work was going on in the Benito Juarez Subdivision between First and Third Avenues and there was just more traffic down there than there has been in the past and so, of course, much more dust. The Council agreed that they would not start sprinkling the streets again. Councilman McCluskey explained that the reason it was originally stopped was due to the fact that the Street Department could not keep up with. the City as a whole. (DISCUSSION REGARDING JAYCEE PARK) The Mayor reported that the Caldwell Community Foundation approved a grant of $1,600 for Jaycee Park providing that the Jaycees match it and there was presently '$600 on deposit in the City of Caldwell by the Jaycees. The Mayor further commented that he had talked with Rick Bowman and he said that the Jaycees were having a meeting that night. This will be brought up at their meeting and they will determine if they want to take on the challenge of raising the $1,000. It will cost the City of Caldwell nothing. The Jaycees have a year to raise the funds and until the funds were raised, the Caldwell Community Foundation would hang on to the money. (DISCUSSION REGARDING THE APPROPRIATIOiN ORDINANCE) The Mayor stated that the Auditor informed the City that the Appropriation Ordinance was the official legal document and that the figures in the budget book when adopted should correspond with the appropriation ordinance. The Mayor further stated that the Council could adopt the figure of $8,753,196.00 to make the budget legal, with the reservation that the budget will be trimmed wherever possible. Councilwoman Williams stated that she could not vote for it unless the stipulation was in there that it be trimmed considerably, because there was just no way that she could see that the City could operate with this kind of a budget. Councilman Raymond said that the only alternative they had was to adopt it and then trim. Councilwoman Williams then stated that she felt they had already adopted it but it - does -not mean that the 'City would have to spend Book 19 all the monies. Page 288 Councilman McCluskey then said that they were all saying the same thing - the ordinance has been adopted and so now they must trim the budget if they want to. The Mayor further stated that Mr. Messuri said that from an audit procedure that the budget on official adoption should be identical with the Appropriation Ordinance. What the Mayor and the Auditor were asking was that the City Council adopt the revised figures of the budget book so that the figures will correspond with the Appropriation Ordinance with the under standing that it will be reduced. Councilwoman Williams then stated that if the motion was made that the City adopt this budget with the reservation that no print outs be given to any Department Heads until the City Council has had time to analyze each fund, she could support it. The Mayor assured her that this would take care of the situation. IT was then MOVED by Williams, SECONDED by Olesen that the budget figures be adopted with the reservation that no print outs be given to any Department Heads until the City Council has had time to analyze each fund. Some more discussion followed. Councilwoman Bauman questioned as to why the City Council would want to adopt the figures before they have gone through it. Councilman Raymond could see no correlation between the cutting of the budget and the adoption. Councilwoman Williams then stated that she would withdraw her motion, but the second, Councilman Olesen, did not withdraw his second. The Mayor then read what the auditor stated as follows: B° It is my opinion that the budget accompanying the Appropriation Ordinance should agree by fund with the ordinance approved by the Council; for example; if -the ordinance - reflects a total appropriation for the General Fund in the amount of $2,000,000.00, then the total of all line- items - appearing in the budget for the General Fund should total $2,000,000.00. I wish to point out, however, that changes can be made at any time 'throughout the fiscal year. The budget can be changed to reflect a decrease from the original total or transfers can be made from one budget line item to another. These, of course, must be approved by the City Council and reflected in the minutes.!! Councilwoman Williams stated that this would almost indicate that the changes could be made as the year went along. The Mayor still pointed out, however, that the total of the Appropriation Ordinance and the budget book must be the same. Councilwoman Bauman stated that she did not think there was any- thing that would make the budget legal. The Mayor pointed out that the Auditor had requested that it be done this way and felt it should be done as he asked. Councilman Raymond then asked if there was a motion before the house. Since Councilman Olesen did not withdraw his second the motion was still in effect. Councilman Raymond asked Councilwoman Williams why she had withdrawn her motion. She replied that someone on the Council was contesting the fact that the reservation in her motion that the print outs not be given to any Department Heads until the City Book 19 Page 289 Council had the time to analyze each fund and she would not vote for it under those conditions. She then stated that with the motion as she made it, she would let the motion stand. This was that the budget be brought in con.formity with the appropriation ordinance with no print outs given to the Department Heads until the City Council has reviewed each Department. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Williams, Raymond, Hopper, Bauman, McCluskey, and Olesen. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (EXECUTIVE SESSION CALLED) MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Raymond that the City Council adjourn into an Executive Session for ten, to fifteen minutes. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Bauman, McCluskey, Olesen, Williams, and Raymond. Those voting no: none. (REGARDING COST OF LIVING FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY) MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Williams, SECONDED by Bauman that the cost of living raise for the employees be postponed until January 1, 1979, based on the fact that they have already had a. cost of living raise of 7% this year effective the first of. January, 1978. She further .felt that it should be made clear to the employees that they will be receiving a cost of living raise. MOVED by Raymond, SECONDED by Olesen to table the motion until the Council was finished with going over the budget to see where the City stood so they can know what can honestly be done without having to adjust. Councilman McCluskey asked that a, time be set as to how long the matter would be tabled. It was decided that the motion would state the 20th of October. Councilman Raymond then stated that his motion was to read that it be tabled until October 20th. The Second agreed to this. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Raymond, Hopper, McCluskey, and Olesen. Those voting no: Bauman and Williams. Absent and not voting: none. MOVED by Williams, SECONDED by McCluskey that the official City Council Meeting be adjourned and that they go into an Executive Session. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Williams, Raymond, hopper, Bauman, McCluskey, and Olesen. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED There being no further business, the Meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. APPROVED AS wri tt e n THIS 17th DAY OF October 1978. ror ATTEST: A CitS�' lerk