Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-31 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, December 31, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in Room 326 of City Hall, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Martin and Orton; Acting Department Heads Bunn, Clerk Kennedy, members of ABSENT: Director Hess CALL TO ORDER Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster, City Manager Murphy, Interim Jackson and Linebaugh, City the press and audience. Mayor Noland called the meeting to order, with Director Hess and Director Bumpass arriving at a later point in the meeting. PRESENTATION TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Mayor Noland noted that today was David McWethy's employment with of the Board of Directors, the appreciation for over 13 years of absent the last day of Assistant City Manager the City of Fayetteville. On behalf Mayor presented McWethy a plaque in service to the City of Fayetteville 1986 BUDGET Mayor Noland asked Acting City Manager Murphy to clarify a point mentioned in the Northwest Arkansas Times that the budget was prepared by "the management audit team". Murphy clarified that the budget was prepared and submitted by a city management team, adding that to give credit to anybody but city employees would be an injustice to the amount of work employees put into the budget. Murphy stated the budget instructions were issued, for a completely new budget format, on November 13; and that after weeks of work, staff worked very hard to present by December 31 the new format of the 1986 budget. Murphy noted that the 1986 budget was arrived at by taking the 1985 expenditures, adding price changes to items previously approved, and taking into account any quantity changes. Murphy added that capital budgets and new capital requests are presented separately. Murphy stated the actual budget is "right around the same number" as in 1985. 421 421.1 421.2 421.3 421.4 Linebaugh presented the following summary of the 1986 budget: 421.5 Pi 422.1 422 December 31, 1985 OPERATING FUNDS The Operating Funds (General, Public Works, Airport, Sanitation, and Water and Sewer) have a combined modified accrual basis revenue of $18,253,658. The operating funds modified accrual basis expenses total $18,263,162. We will also be purchasing $3,929,236 worth of Capital and receiving $1,412,920 worth of contributions in. aide of construction. This will bring our Unreserved Fund balances to: The General Fund $1,544,705 Public Works 200,947 Water & Sewer 10,332,108 Sanitation 916,797 • Revenue Picture General Fund Public Works Water & Sewer Sanitation Airport Recommended Level Recommended Level Recommended Level Recommended Level $1,000,000 200,000 7,000,000 300,000 (Modified Accrual Basis) is as follows: $7,112,147 1,641,726 7,022,126 1,752,051 725,608 Contributions in aide The Water & Sewer Airport '85 Budget VS '86 Budget UP DOWN UP DOWN DOWN $ 693,320 (822,220) 839,368 (21,893) ( 9,576) of construction are as follows: 532,977 UP 879,943 DOWN expenditure picture (Modified Basis) is as Salaries & Wages Mat'ls & Supplies Contract Services Maintenance Depreciation Interest Capital 1986 Budget $ 7,315,866 1,439,562 6,704,554 804,380 1,501,542 497,258 $18,263,162 3,929,236 46,007 (765,661) follows: '85.Budget .VS '86 Budget UP DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN UP $ 1,052,107 (193,328) (106,962) (179,135) ( 72,473) 12,422 UP $ 512,631 DOWN (531,943) December 31, 1985 NON-OPERATING The Non -Operating Funds have a combined cash basis revenue of $16,490,298. They have expenses of $24,228,656. This is a cash difference of $7,738,358. The reason for this difference is in Sewer Plant Construction Fund. We received the bond proceeds last year of $18,383,519 to pay towards a $10,459,753 cash deficit. The summary of the Non -Operating Funds Revenues and expenses are as follows: Continuing Education Center Advertising & Promotion Fund Sewer Plant Construction Fund Off Street Parking Industrial Park 1978 G.O. Bond Replacement Sewer Assessment 1970 Street Improvement Police Pension Fire Pension Municipal Judge Money Purchase Pension Fund Sales Tax Sewer Bonds • 1986 Revenues $ 887,000 466,000 9,330,850 195,333 2,900 -0- 161,000 3,700 5,500 492,000 536,765 15,500 231,750 1986 Expenses $ 970,269 498,426 19,790,603 141,105 600 460,450 500 200 100 192,400 164,982 3,225 80,000 4,162,000 1,925,796 $16,490,298 $24,228,656 SUMMARY The 1986 Budget (Cash Basis) operating and Non -Operating Funds less interfund transfers totals $46,421,054. This details as follows: Salaries and Wages Materials, Contracts & Maintenance Interest Depreciation Capital Principal $ 7,347,366 7,900,000 2,757,958 1,620,542 24,690,108 2,105,000 $ 46,421,054 423.1 423.2 424 424.1 December 31, 1985 Miscellaneous Funds Linebaugh reviewed expenditures of Miscellaneous Funds which he explained are required to be reviewed and approved by the Board because of auditing regulations: 1986 Total Expenditures Budgeted Advertising and Promotion Fund $ 498,426 Off -Street Parking Fund 95,330 (Operating) 5,775 (Maintenance) Industrial Park Fund 600 1978 G.O. Bond Fund 460,450 Replacement Fund 500 Sewer Assessment Fund 200 1970 Street Improvement Fund 100 CEC and Parking Facility Fund 970,269 Police Pension Fund 192,400 Fire Pension Fund 164,982 Municipal Judge Retirement Fund 3,225 Money Purchase Pension Fund 80,000 Sewer Plant Construction Fund 19,790,603 Sales Tax Sewer Bonds 1,925,796 Advertising and Promotion Fund Discussion 424.2 Director Orton asked if proceeds from the municipal parking garage would be used to make up the deficit in the Advertising and Promotion Fund. Linebaugh explained that originally about $200,000 in HMR taxes was accumulated before it was pledged to debt service on the CEC bonds. Linebaugh stated that balance is projected to run out at the end of 1986. In answer to a question from Orton, Linebaugh noted that the Advertising and Promotion Commission would have to address the question of their budget after the existing balance is depleted. 424.3 It was pointed out by Mayor Noland that $60,000 was allocated by the Board for a Convention/Visitors Project which was never used in 1985, and that no proposal has come before the Advertising and Promotion Commission for such a project in 1986. Linebaugh clarified that the Board originally approved a two-year subsidy transfer from excess HMR taxes of $60,000 to the Advertising and Promotion Fund, and that the allocation mentioned by the Mayor was a second allocation for a special project which has not occurred. 424.4 Orton expressed concern that the staff was recommending over $18,000 more in expenditures for this Fund in 1986. Linebaugh explained recom- mended increases were estimates based on inflation, and that the difference between the "staff budgeted" amount for 1985 and the "staff budgeted" amount for 1986 is approximately $3,861. December 31, 1985 Director Johnson stated she would prefer to ask the Advertising and" Promotion Commission to come up with a proposal foi a budgetary plan for the future. Linebaugh clarified that there had been two separate allocations of v $60,000 each - one of which is not shown in the budget because it was never used foi a new project - and the other is a transfer of excess HMR taxes which was approved in 1984-85 for use over a two-year period. In answer to a question from Director Orton, Linebaugh explained the $60,000 pledged for the special project which was never used is still in the General Fund. Orton stressed that if $60,000 was committed, it should have remained in the A&PC's budget. It was then generally agreed that at this point in time there is no such commitment, and in order for there to be funding in the budget for that special project, a new proposal for funding would have to be approved. Director Martin remarked that, at the last Finance Committee meeting, Murphy had made the point that the proposed budget is a starting point and, in many respects, is a not -to -exceed budget, and includes items over which the Board "reserves the right to continue to review". Murphy noted that items which are anticipated to be brought up this year were included in the budget with the proviso that the Board still needs to review any proposals. Revenue Sharing Budget Scott Linebaugh noted that revenue sharing figures shown in the budget cannot be official until after a public hearing is held. Linebaugh reported that hearing is scheduled for the January 21 Board meeting. In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Linebaugh explained that the 1986 revenue sharing budget will take into consideration a cut of approximately $350,000, or 8%. Arts Center Project Director Orton commented that the Arts Center Project cannot proceed any further until some budgetary commitment is made very soon by the City Board. Mayor Noland stated he would prefer to hear the Arts Center Board's upcoming proposal before making any decisions regarding funding. Pay Plan Increases Murphy reported that included in the budget is a pay step increase/ of 5% and a cost -of -living increase of 3.2%. Murphy explained that this was done based on provisions in the Pay Plan for pay increases, and based on a review of minutes of the Board Meeting where the Pay • 412 425.1 425.2 425.3 425.4 425.5 425.6 426 December 31, 1985 426.1 Plan was approved, in which there was a recommendation that each year the steps would be adjusted by economic factors influencing the economy. Director Bumpass arrived at this point in the meeting. 426.2 Municipal Court 426.3 Murphy reported the staff was unable to reach an agreement with the Municipal Court Judge to place the Administrative Services Department over the operations of Municipal Court administration. Murphy explained the Judge felt, in talking to members of the state and local judicial branch, that there could be potential for conflicts in that adminis- tration. ' 426.4 Murphy stated, in reference to the changes, new positions and requests made by the Court for 1986, that the Board should realize that any new positions would be under the administration of the Municipal Court_ Judge and at his discretion as to how the positions would perform. In answer to a question from the Mayor, Linebaugh explained that the city had, in the past, requested funding from Washington County for half the salaries of a clerical and bailiff position. 426.5 Murphy noted that the bailiff has reported that, in the last ten days, $21,000 in fines and fees had been collected. Murphy remarked that this answers the question of whether the issue of uncollectable fines can be resolved. 426.6 Director Martin asked Murphy if he was convinced that there was a legal reason why the administration of the Municipal Court cannot be taken over by the Administrative Services Department; and he asked if the staff would obtain information as to what arrangements are made by other communities. Murphy stated he thought the Municipal Court Judge's reluctance was more philosophical than it was legal -- and that the Judge's position was that there could be a conflict between the judicial side and the administrative side of the court should the Administrative Services staff decide to collect a fine and should the Judge decide to dismiss the case. Martin stated he thought the possibility of such a conflict had always been envisioned but that it should be called to the attention of the public so the public knows who is responsible for the lack of punishment of criminals in the community. 426.7 Director Bumpass asked if any contribution by Washington County could cause a problem for the city to legally take over the administration of the Municipal Court. Murphy noted that the staff's proposal would have been not to hire a new Administrator but rather to provide the administration through existing personnel in the Administrative Services Department. December 31, 1985 In answer to Martin's question as to what other communities are doing, Murphy reported a great deal of research had been done during the course of the performance audit. Murphy noted that in some communities, once fine collection was turned over to the administration, it moved into the computer system which issued a contempt citation when payment was not paid within a certain amount of time; that, when a response was not made to a citation within a certain time period, a warrant was issued. Murphy commented that such a mechanism does not exist for the City of Fayetteville. Reporting on the statistics for the last ten days, Murphy explained that out of 330 individuals who appeared before the Court, only 18 did not pay in the courtroom, five of whom were issued wage garnishments, and the remainder of whom were issued citations. Murphy added that the staff's 'proposal is to not hire the Administrator. Director Bumpass commented that it was fundamentally unsound to have a Municipal Judge in a part-time position trying to administer a full-time staff. Bumpass suggested a committee of the Board of Directors meet with the Municipal Judge. Mayor Noland stated he would be encouraged if collections could continue at the rate for the last ten days, but added that he failed to understand why collections at that rate had not gone on for several months after the budget was approved for the bailiff. Director Orton suggested that, if the Municipal Court budget is approved, it be approved along with an agreement which would be subject to review at the end of one year. In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, Scott Linebaugh reported that at one point in 1985 an additional $100,000 in accounts receivable had accumulated. In answer to Director Bumpass, Budget Coordinator Judy Huffaker reported that revenue collected in 1985 amounted to $335,000. Murphy pointed out that if the Administrator position is approved under the original agreement, there would be a risk of the city having to fund it 100% if the county does not agree to provide some funding. Director Orton noted that the county receives a portion of the revenues from fines collected. Director Bumpass asked how much time was spent by the bailiff on the DWI Program, specifically on counseling. Murphy responded that the Judge had recently changed the bailiff's responsibilities to that of a probation officer, anticipating that the fine collection would fall on the shoulders of the new Administrator position. Director Johnson made a motion that the Board not approve the Municipal Court budget until a meeting is scheduled with the Municipal Judge. There was no second to that motion. 427 427.1 427.2 427.3 427.4 427.5 427.6 427.7 427.8 428 428.1 • December 31, 1985 Johnson suggested the Judge be required to defend his budget. The Mayor suggested the Judge also respond to the question of how the bailiff's time is distributed, and what the Judge proposes the new Administrator's duties would include. Director Martin asked that the Judge present his arguments against the Administrative Services Department administering the program. 428.2 Murphy stated that, if the budget is not approved, some action must be taken to extend the current budget after January 1. Mayor Noland suggested the budget could continue as in 1985 until an agreement is worked out. The Mayor requested that the City Attorney be present at the meeting with the Municipal Judge. It was agreed that City Prosecutor Terry Jones should also be present. 428.3 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to not approve the Municipal Court budget until a meeting is scheduled with the Municipal Judge, and to extend the Muncipal Court budget for January, at the same level as in 1985. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Director Hess absent. THE MEETING RECESSED AT ABOUT 10:10 A.M. AND RECONVENED AT ABOUT 10:20 A.M. Finance Committee Recommendation 428.4 Director Martin reported that he, Mayor Noland and Director Lancaster had met as the Finance Committee for a 4-5 hour period to review the budget. Martin stated the 1986 budget is no greater than last year's budget and is something that city management hopes to use to develop cost reduction and productivity improvement programs, so that the budget will either come down, or the level of service will go up for the same amount of dollars. Martin reported that the budget conforms to the reorganizational plan which he stated would be conducive to cost control and productivity improvement. Martin added that there were literally millions of dollars of capital items requested in the budget process but turned down because they would not be necessary under the reorganization. 428.5 Martin, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee that the budget be approved .as submitted, but "as amended today to exclude the Municipal Court's budget, with the proviso that each Director may wish to flag certain areas they disagree with or on which they would like more information" so the staff does not proceed with the idea that those particular items have automatically been approved. 428.6 Martin commented that his motion was not non -supportive and he added that he deeply appreciated the level of participation, enthusiasm December 31, 1985 and commitment that the three acting Department Heads and other staff members have given. Mayor Noland asked the Directors for any major exceptions they wished to express as amendments to the motion, to be withdrawn from the budget for further study. Director had been on North expensive North Street Project Bumpass expressed concern about a street project he discussed by the Street Committee (from the railroad Street to Gregg Avenue) and which he noted had become item due to the utility relocations. stated tracks rather Supervisor Training Bumpass stated he wholeheartedly endorsed the in-house supervisor training program for city employees. Bumpass stated he thought it important this be developed for each employee, regardless of position. Airport Bumpass suggested a review be made of the Airport in general. Bumpass stated an economic analysis was needed of the impact the Airport is having on the community, and a program of "revenue enhancement" for the Airport. Bumpass stated the Advertising and Promotion Commission discussed the possibility of having a cooperative advertising pool with the airlines, whereby airlines and the city contribute to a common pool to advertise rates and flight availability, in order to try to reach a goal of 100,000 boardings in 1986. Bumpass noted that be had no requests for deletions from the budget. Discussion of Street and Sidewalk Projects Director Orton stated the budget did not reflect some decisions made by the Street Committee. Orton stated only four sidewalks are included in the budget and she commented that this was quite a cut from what has been spent previously. Murphy responded that when the staff met with the Street Committee there were about 40 street and sidewalk projects prioritized and the Street Committee either agreed or disagreed, based on priorities of the Street Department. Murphy explained that the staff then budgeted those projects, based on the priorities, until the money ran out. 429 429.1 429.2 429.3 429.4 429.5 429.6 429.7 429.8 4 430 December 31, 1985 430.1 Mayor Noland recalled that the Street Committee had agreed to review sidewalk items separately from street items. 430.2 Murphy explained that a problem run into by the staff was that, even though large amounts of money had been budgeted for sidewalks, some of the work wasn't getting done and some of the money has never been spent. In response to concern expressed by Orton that sidewalks should have been prioritized separately, Murphy explained that could be done but in order to add more sidewalk projects, some street projects would have to be eliminated. 430.3 Director Johnson remarked that there was no sense in adding more money to the budget for sidewalk projects if they aren't going to be completed. 430.4 Director Martin pointed out that the Program Summary in the budget shows $133,000 budgeted for sidewalk construction, but the detail portion of the budget shows $48,000 for sidewalks and he asked for an explanation of the difference between these amounts. Linebaugh explained that $48,000 is for specific costs, such as concrete, but that $133,000 includes such things as salaries and in-house prepar- ation. 430.5 Director Johnson remarked that, although sidewalk projects were approved by the Street Committee, they were never approved by the full Board. 430.6 Director Martin left the meeting at this point, commenting that he bad no requests for deletions from the budget. 430.7 Murphy stated he would provide the Board with a list of sidewalk projects which are included in the 1986 budget which were on the original priority list. 430.8 Linebaugh pointed out that another alternative available, besides eliminating a street project, would be to transfer surplus from the General Fund to Public Works Fund. Linebaugh stated there is about $500,000 in surplus funds. Director Johnson expressed opposition to that idea. Johnson stated she wished to see the complete list of sidewalk projects before approving the four sidewalk projects included in the budget. 430.9 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the sidewalk budget not be included in the budget to be approved, and that the Street Committee prioritize the sidewalk requests for full Board approval. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0, with Hess and Martin absent. 430.10 Director Orton asked Murphy if the street just east of the Courthouse was included in the budget. Orton commented that it had been discussed by the Street Committee that in 1986 money would be budgeted for deter- mining the route, for right-of-way acquisition and engineering, with construction to be done in 1987. Murphy explained that project was December 31, 1985 not budgeted through an omission or misunderstanding but that the staff would be pleased to include this item in the budget. Murphy estimated that $75-100,000 should be included in the budget for this purpose. Mayor Noland stated the Board made a commitment to Washington County to install this street and should follow up on this commitment. Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion that $200,000 be included in the budget for this purpose. Murphy noted that the $200,000 would come out of the General Fund. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. Employee Calendars In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Judy Huffaker explained that "employee calendars" are used by staff for recording employees' sick leave and vacation leave. Employee Assistance Program Director Johnson stated the Board had not seen the results of the Employee Assistance Program which was begun in 1985. Johnson stated that it was indicated that, before including that program in the 1986 budget, there would be some feedback as to the amount of participation in that program. Linebaugh stated this information would be included in the next Board agenda, along with a report on Workers' Compensation Claims. Judy Huffaker noted that a report from a few months ago showed that 20 or 30 employees had used the Employee Assistance Program thus far. Video Equipment Director Johnson stated she discussed with Linebaugh the fact that video cameras (used for filming Board meetings) were purchased with the idea in mind that they could'be used by all departments. Johnson noted that this has not happened yet and, unless this can be accomplished, she would ask that $2,000 in miscellaneous funds be held from the budget. Linebaugh explained that the staff was under the impression that cameras which were purchased to film the Board meetings could not be used in a portable manner but that, in checking further, it is believed that the equipment is portable. Discussion Regarding Training S Other Personnel Matters Director Johnson expressed reservations regarding supervisory training. She commented that the upcoming training sessions should be videotaped so that they can be used again. Johnson stated that, if the first sessions cannot be taped, "we ought to call a halt to it before we ever get started". 431 431.1 431.2 431.3 431.4 431.5 431.6 431.7 432 December 31, 1985 432.1 Johnson stated she thought personnel need a "coming -in" and "going -out" interview. She added that she thought this idea was probably "in the works" in the Personnel Department. 432.2 Director Johnson noted that salaries are included in the budget for new positions created as a result of reorganization. Johnson stated she would like the Board Personnel Committee to review those job descrip- tions and salaries. 432.3 In answer to a question from Director Orton, Johnson stated that Ron Raine (of Lawrence -Leiter and Company) indicated that videotaping the supervisory training sessions would inhibit the employees and, would not be beneficial. 432.4 Murphy explained that an in-house training program is proposed to be developed for employees which would be ongoing and which could be videotaped. Murphy noted that professionals are available in the area who work with video -training programs. Murphy stated that initial costs for such taped programs could run from $25-30,000 but that, later, costs would have to be incurred on a regular basis for supervisors or the personnel officer to train the employees. Director Orton suggested that the Ozark Guidance Center may have some training tapes available. 432.5 Orton stated she thought it a weakness in the firm which was hired to conduct the supervisory training that they will not allow the sessions to be taped. Linebaugh stated he would check with the City Attorney regarding the contract which the city entered into with Lawrence -Leiter and Company. 432.6 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to delete $27,000 from the budget until the Board receives a more definite proposal and other alternatives are explored regarding supervisor training. 432.7 Director Orton stated both she and Director Johnson have been disappointed that training tapes haven't been made in-house for use by various departments. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. Performance Measurement System 432.8 Director Johnson asked for clarification regarding $60,000 in the budget for a performance measurement system. Murphy explained this funding would be used for work measurement for cost reductions recommended by the performance audit report. Murphy noted the city would need the assistance of an industrial engineer for this analysis. In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Murphy stated this work would start almost immediately and bids would be sought. December 31, 1985 Ozarks Electric Sewer Project Mayor Noland raised the point that there is an opportunity for some cost participation for a sewer line which would end at Ozarks Electric Cooperative on Highway 16 West. Noland proposed including money in the budget either to form a sewer improvement district or to find a way to receive some reimbursement at a future date, as development occurs. Noland pointed out the cost participation may not be available later if Ozarks Electric should decide to install a septic tank. Don Bunn reported the city's share of costs was estimated to be about $100,000, with the total cost of construction to be about $108,000. Mayor Noland, seconded by Orton, made a motion to include $100,000 in the budget for this purpose. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. Sherwood Forest Estates Sewer Director Orton asked how many people would commit to hooking up to the sewer line for Sherwood Forest Estates, if the city should spend $60,000 on that project. Bunn stated he thought it would cost the city a little more than $60,000 to get sewer to everyone concerned. Bunn explained that the costs of sewer service within the subdivision would either be financed by an improvement district or by individuals. Bunn explained another meeting is scheduled in the near future with the property owners from the area to determine whether the property owners are willing to form an improvement district. Orton stated she saw no reason for the city to spend $60,000 if the property owners are not willing to form an improvement district. Animal Shelter Mayor Noland expressed reservations regarding the inclusion of $200,000 in the budget for a new Animal Shelter. Noland stated the Humane Society had proposed renovation of the existing shelter at a cost of $150,000. Noland expressed opposition to the Humane Society's proposal, stating he thought that was an unnecessarily high cost per square foot. Noland made a motion that the city spend approximately $75,000 to renovate the existing animal shelter in its present location, and that $200,000 for a new animal shelter be deleted from the budget. There was no second to the motion. Director Bumpass suggested the idea of a "storefront, retail -type animal shelter" to be located in the northern part of the city, to be leased or built, with the old facility to be maintained for the "transient" animals which pass through the shelter on a weekly basis. 433 433.1 433.2 433.3 433.4 433.5 433.6 434 • December 31, 1985 434.1 Murphy noted that the Humane Society's proposal for modifying the present facility would include a considerable expansion, so that the $150,000 would cover a much larger area of square feet. 434.2 Mayor Noland pointed out that the storefront concept would cause the animal shelter to be in competition with veterinarians and pet stores. Director Bumpass noted that many concerned people have volunteered to donate their time towards a cooperative venture among the vet community which would allow them to sell pets at a reduced rate and eventually solve the overall population problem. Bumpass added he was not completely in favor of the $200,000 expenditure. 434.3 Linebaugh pointed out that the $200,000 shown in the budget is not shown as an expenditure, but as a reserve in the fund balance for a mortgage to be given to the Humane Society. The Mayor noted that this still effectively reduces the amount in the city's reserve funds until the mortgage is repaid. 434.4 Director Johnson suggested the Board visit the Animal Shelter to review its condition. 434.5 Director Lancaster advised that Board members should attend a meeting of the Humane Society before forming any opinions on how the Shelter should be operated and by whom. 434.6 Mayor Noland pointed out that, if the city expands the personnel to a total of three full-time Animal Control Officers, this would about double the existing personnel. Noland .stated that, in comparing what is being done in other departments, he wasn't ready to double the efforts of the Animal Control Department. Noland stated he might be willing to approve two full-time employees. Director Johnson agreed. 434.7 Mayor Noland, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the equivalent of two full-time Animal Control Officers and a pick-up truck. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 434.8 Murphy suggested a review be made regarding either an arrangement for the Humane Society to operate the Shelter in an improved status, or for the city to improve it and operate it. Murphy noted the major problem regarding improvements to the Shelter has been that the Shelter is located on a landfill base. 434.9 Mayor Noland, seconded by Orton, made a motion to substitute $75,000 for the $200,000 in the budget, to repair and bring the existing Animal Shelter up to standard; and if such a project would involve additional money, a proposal be presented to the Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. . . December 31, 1985 Resolution To Approve 1986 Budget Murphy read' a resolution approving (with the exceptions noted) the 1986 General Fund, Public Works Fund, Water and Sewer Fund, Sanitation Fund, Airport_ Fund, Shop Fund, Advertising and Promotion Fund, Off -Street Parking Fund, Industrial Park Fund, 1978 G.O. Bond Fund, Replacement Fund, Sewei Assessment Fund, 1970 Street Improvement Fund, CEC and Parking Facility Fund, Police Pension Fund, Fire Pension Fund, Municipal Judge Retirement Fund, Money Purchase Pension Plan Fund, Sewer Plant Construction Fund, Sales Tax Sewer Bond Fund and Maintenance Fund. Upon roll call, the motion as made earlier by Director Martin, and seconded by Director Lancaster, was passed by a vote of 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 138-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 204 BOOK XXIII OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at about 11:35 A.M. `fit.:) 4�5 435.1 435.2 435.3