City Council Minutes 05/10/2003 RPV, City, Council, Minutes, 2003, Meeting, Community Leaders Breakfast, Budget Workshop Session, May, 05/10/2003 RPV City Council Minutes for the 05/10/2003 Community Leaders Breakfast






SATURDAY, MAY 10, 2003

The meeting was called to order at 9:20 A.M. by Mayor Douglas Stern at the Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file.

Present: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, McTaggart and Mayor Stern.

Also present were State Senator Betty Karnette, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher City Manager Les Evans, Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Jo Purcell, Recreation & Parks Director Ron Rosenfeld, Public Works Director Dean Allison, Finance and IT Director Dennis McLean, and Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Joel Rojas.

After welcoming remarks by Mayor Stern, self-introductions followed.

State Senator Betty Karnette gave an overview of the economy and the budget cuts that may be necessary to balance state’s budget.

Representing the League of California Cities was Ann Marie Wallace who explained the grass roots efforts being conducted by the League to protect cities’ revenue and break the cycle of the state appropriating it every time there is a downturn in the economy.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher then summarized his involvement in national issues such as homeland security matters, the rebuilding of the Space Shuttle Columbia, and legislation promoting student loans for those interested in pursuing graduate and doctorate degrees in scientific fields.

City Manager Evans then gave an overview of the City’s budget explaining that the City is in a much different situation than it has been in for approximately the last ten years due to the struggling economy, the lower State funding and less assistance from the State and other financial considerations. He explained that the City receives 18 percent of its General Fund revenues from Vehicle License Fees (VLF’s), which is approximately $2.4 million this year; that since the State had reduced the City’s VLF’s by 2/3rds, the State had been backfilling these funds to the cities rather than the cities not receiving these revenues; however, with the State budget crisis and with the Governor’s proposed plan, City Manager Evans stated that this backfill to the cities would disappear and cities would bear the brunt of the State reducing the VLF’s by 2/3rds.

City Manager Evans explained that because of this uncertainty, staff has prepared a scenario that would reflect the VLF backfill portion as not available in next year’s budget and would propose to City Council a baseline budget. He stated that the City is currently in fiscal year 2002-03, starting the year with a balanced budget; and explained that during this fiscal year, staff has added in some new programs that were funded out of the City’s General Fund reserve. He explained that at the beginning of the year, staff projected $13.3 million in revenues and proposed $13.3 million in expenditures; and stated that the VLF backfill is approximately $1.6 million this year and that the net figure of $11.7 million is what staff believes it will have to work with next year until staff knows what will happen with the VLF.

RECESS AND RECONVENE: The meeting recessed at 10:30 A.M. and reconvened at 11:00A.M.


Budget Policy Issues for FY 03-04 and FY 04-05. (602)

Staff recommended that the Council discuss the budget policy issues and provide staff with direction regarding the inclusion of these items or others identified by Council in the proposed Baseline Budget for FY 03-04 and FY 04-05.

CORE Deputy & Additional Traffic Enforcement: Reduced to two deputies; consider having CORE deputy instruct Student and the Law Program.

City Manager Evans explained that this is the third in a proposed series of four budget workshops. He presented Council with a narrative of the budget items that had been discussed over recent months, a menu of budget policy issues with their associated costs, a five-year financial model, and a draft budget.

He stated that he would like to begin the meeting by discussing the budget items related to the Sheriff’s Department, since there were representatives in the audience who needed to leave to attend another function. He noted that the items related to this issue were as follows: (1) additional traffic enforcement; (2) Student and the Law classes; and, (3) the CORE Deputy services.

Captain Jay Zuanich explained that CORE Deputy means Community Resource Deputy and that they deal with a myriad of quality of life issues, including the schools, disputes between neighbors, and other kinds of situations that regular patrol deputies are unable to handle.

Mayor Stern questioned how to quantify the impact of two deputies versus three.

Captain Zuanich responded that it was very difficult to quantify but that the deputies work extremely hard. He added that they spend more hours than they are being paid for serving as community liaisons and assisting patrol officers in their duties. He commented that despite the deputies each having a liaison city, their areas do overlap and they essentially go wherever the need is.

Councilman McTaggart queried how the other cities on the peninsula contribute to the CORE program and what would happen if one of those cities failed to participate. He mentioned that RPV is leading the way as far as providing funding for community activities beneficial to the entire peninsula. He expressed support for the many values of the program, adding that his only concern is having to wrestle with the numbers.

Captain Zuanich explained that the issue basically came down to dollars. He stated that it is well known that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has the major interest financially in all the programs on the hill.

Councilman Clark also wondered if the level of support for the CORE program should be predicated on participation from the other cities.

City Manager Evans stated that RPV pays approximately 60 percent of the cost and opined that if RPV funding stopped the other cities would most likely follow.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro, in an attempt to determine if two deputies would be able to cover the responsibilities of three, questioned how their schedules were organized.

Deputy Brandon Epp explained that the deputies are divided into three regions, reiterating that their areas overlap as needed. He stated that their schedules are constantly flexing to allow them to attend various meetings in the community. He said that the bulk of their responsibility during the school year is focused on juveniles, noting that juvenile crime makes up approximately 90 percent of the crime on the peninsula. He added that since the inception of the program this has been drastically reduced. He illustrated this by pointing out that there were 149 reports of juvenile-related crime in 1997 compared to 36 in the year 2002, which he attributed 100 percent to the involvement of CORE deputies with the kids in the community.

Councilman Gardiner questioned whether by reducing the number of deputies the City would save money but whether there would be an increase in law enforcement expenses as a direct result of that cut. He further wondered if the City’s budget for police services has increased at a lower rate or decreased as a function of having CORE and the subsequent reduction in crime.

City Manager Evans admitted that he couldn't answer that question, commenting that the overall cost of sheriff's services to the City stayed at the same level over the past few years.

Councilman Clark commented that there was no statistical correlation between the CORE program and the reduction in juvenile crimes, stating that other elements may have effectuated the reduction.

Mayor Stern added that as a general proposition there was a reduction in crime during that overall period, wondering how that effect could be filtered out.

Councilman Gardner suggested comparing some similar data in Torrance and other neighboring cities.

City Manager Evans noted that violent crimes, burglary, larceny, and grand theft auto statistically hit bottom in 1999 and since then have been trending up; however, the juvenile crimes are continuing to trend down.

Councilman Gardner questioned whether the school district with a budget far greater than that of the City and clearly reaping the benefit of the classroom part of the program contributes anything for the deputies.

Mayor Stern responded that the school district basically regards it as a municipality function and, therefore, it is not their responsibility.

Councilman Clark commented that everyone agrees that the CORE program does have some incremental value to the safety of the community. He suggested that in these lean times the City revert to one deputy for the year, determine the effect of that reduction and, if an increase in juvenile crime is presumed to be attributable to that reduction, increase the level. He requested verification that the cost of one CORE deputy is zero.

Assistant Manager Petru responded that the cost for each CORE deputy position is approximately $100,000 a year, adding that the City only pays 60 percent of that. She noted that one position is funded completely with grant money; $100,000 a year from the State and $15,000 in federal funds. She added that the federal funds have been decreasing in recent years.

Councilman Clark noted that since the City pays nothing for the first deputy and the cost for the second deputy is between $5,000 and $30,000, it would make sense to keep the number at two.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro stated that she is not in favor of sacrificing public safety and that in her opinion funding should be found for two deputies because she believes it has made a significant difference in the community.

All Council members agreed with these comments and asked Assistant Manager Petru to double-check the figures.

Councilman Clark questioned why the CORE deputies were teaching Student and the Law classes, yet the City was paying an additional amount to fund that program.

Assistant Manager Petru responded that until last semester the classes were being taught by one traffic deputy. When a third class was added in the Spring semester, he was unable to work the additional class into his schedule and the CORE deputies were called in to assist. She commented that the School District was requesting two classes per semester during the 2003-2004 school year.

Deputy Epp stated that the class taught at Rancho del Mar during the Spring semester was overtime for the CORE deputies.

Councilman Gardiner commented that it would be more financially sound to allocate specific time within their regularly scheduled hours for the deputies to teach the class rather than pay for an additional officer or overtime.

Mayor Stern queried whether that would be permitted under the grant funding or whether it would be considered improper.

Deputy Epp mentioned that another asset provided by the CORE team is the bonus of having two to three additional cars on the streets to respond to in-progress crimes. He stated that since they do not segregate themselves from the routine patrol deputy's job, if an emergency comes up, they are available to respond.

Lieutenant John Hererra reiterated the importance of having the CORE deputies available not only to act as community liaisons but also to assist the patrol force as needed. In response to a question by Councilman McTaggart, he stated that an additional 40-hour patrol car, under the City’s current contract, would cost approximately $113,000 the first fiscal year and rise to $180,000 after that.

Councilman McTaggart stressed the importance of the CORE team in relation to crime deterrence and the overall safety of the community. He opined that it would be well worth the extra expenditure to have this adjunct to the sheriff’s department and would be far less costly than an additional patrol unit.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro agreed that it would be a wise use of the money.

Assistant Manager Petru calculated that the cost of a CORE deputy is $115,821 of which the City pays 60 percent or roughly $70,000 per deputy. She added that, assuming the same level of grant funding of $115,00, if the City funded one grant deputy there would be a balance of approximately $45,500 and, if the City funded two CORE deputies out of the General Fund, the cost to the General fund would be approximately $24,000.

Council agreed to fund two CORE deputies and have them take the responsibility for teaching the Student and the Law classes as part of their regular duties.

Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program: Agreed to fund at the requested $550,000 level.

Councilman Gardiner inquired about the actual cost of the overlay and slurry program since the amount requested was the biggest discretionary item on the budget.

City Manager Evans responded that the amount needed was actually $1.3 million, but the Public Works Department came up with the reduced amount of $550,000 for the short term but certainly not for the next ten years.

In response to Councilman Clark’s request for a brief summary of how that figure was derived, Director Allison responded that the current slurry and overlay program has been in place for about seven or eight years. Each year the City goes into a single neighborhood and either overlays or slurry fills the streets, explaining that the streets that are in relatively good condition are slurry sealed whereas the streets that have decayed to a certain degree are overlaid.

City Manager Evans clarified the distinction between the overlay and the slurry seal, explaining that the slurry is a relatively inexpensive thin coat of oil and sand that places a new surface on the street and turns it black again and the overlay is about an inch of new pavement.

Director Allison further explained that the slurry is considered a preservative and the overlay is an improvement, adding that the overlay cost is approximately five to six times more. He went on to say that the current program is geographically based so that every seven years each street in a particular neighborhood is assessed and repaired as appropriate. He stated that approximately two thirds of the streets are slurried and one third receive an overlay, adding that the streets improve over time with the regular application of the slurry seal. He also mentioned that the City was already a year behind in its application of this program because, although it had been budgeted for FY 02-03, Council later deferred it when they realized the potential to lose VLF Backfill funds. He commented that his dilemma now is whether to do a fraction of the streets scheduled or to reduce the standards of their repair by slurry sealing streets that really need an overlay. He recommended maintaining the current standards but doing half the number of streets instead.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro mentioned that several years ago a pavement management study had been conducted to rate the level of deterioration of all the streets in the City. It was her understanding that as a result of this study there was an ordered application of the program under which the streets in greatest need of repair at that time were done first.

City Manager Evans explained that at one time the streets of the entire City were evaluated and a program was implemented based on a formula rating the expected deterioration of those streets. He stated that each area receives a visual inspection before any work is scheduled. He assured Council that areas were not repaired needlessly, adding that every street in the quadrant to be worked on was in need of at least a slurry seal to rejuvenate the pavement.

Councilman Gardiner questioned if the $2 million in the Building Replacement Fund was considered a separate fund from which money could be taken now for the road improvements and be replenished at a later time.

City Manager Evans responded that it is a separate fund to be used specifically for projects that "extend the life," of City buildings adding that these funds had previously been used for reproofing City buildings and could certainly be used for the necessary road repairs/improvements.

Mayor Stern mentioned that these funds could be returned to the General Fund if Council wished, saying they had been earmarked and set aside but that they were available if necessary. He added that he thought it was exceedingly prudent to make sure that funds were appropriated in this manner to ensure proper maintenance of the City’s capital assets.

Councilman McTaggart commented that a number of years ago a utility user’s tax was instituted for the purpose of maintaining the City’s infrastructure and that this money should be used for exactly that. He recommended that a portion of the work be deferred temporarily rather that the standards being reduced, adding that, when more money comes into the system, the situation be attacked more aggressively.

Councilman Clark noted that the orderly program used by the City to maintain its roads is a model for the South Bay. He noted that he would be comfortable with the proposed $550,000 figure and, if staff assessed a greater financial need, utilizing part of the reserve in the Building Replacement Fund to maintain the current standards.

Mayor Stern added that he believed staff had taken the correct philosophical view in maintaining the City’s standards by doing fewer roads at the moment.

Recess and Reconvene: Mayor Stern recessed the meeting at 12:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:45 p.m.

Potential Additional Litigation: Funded at $25,000.

City Manager Evans advised Council that the proposed $25,000 added to the baseline budget would cover basic legal services, special services, and litigation for the next year.

Emergency Preparedness Task Force Recommendations: Funded at $25,000.

City Manager Evans explained that the additional $25,000 would merely allow for some educational materials, upgrading the website links, providing handbooks, some minor consulting services, and a few conferences.

Mayor Stern stated he felt funding at this level is prudent.

Councilman McTaggart suggested the possibility of federal funding assistance to which City Manager Evans responded that, although certainly a possibility, federal funds in this area are generally geared more towards first responders, such as equipment purchases and providing communications facilities.

Employee Compensation/Merit Pool: Funded at $77,500.

City Manager Evans briefly summarized the City’s merit pool, employee bonus, and tuition reimbursement programs. He stated that the current payroll figure is approximately $2.6 million and that the merit pool is essentially employee raises, adding that the latest Los Angeles-Long Beach cost of living index is up 3.5 percent over this time last year. He explained that, although this is not necessarily the way the City gives raises, $50,000 would accommodate this 3.5 percent salary increase for each employee. He noted that over the past eight years bonus and tuition reimbursement programs have been in place, both equal to 1.5 percent of the payroll. He stated that the bonuses are distributed throughout the year to employees who display some form of meritorious job performance. He explained that approximately $5,000 of this amount is set aside for tuition reimbursement for employees wishing to further their education, adding that this number has actually decreased in the past few years since many employees have already taken advantage of the program and gone on to obtain their degrees. He proposed reducing the merit pool amount to 1 percent of payroll or about $26,000 and leaving $1,000 in the tuition reimbursement program.

Councilman Clark requested clarification of employee increases not being automatically distributed, but rather being issued as rewards to staff for their unique and meritorious performance or ideas.

Councilman Gardiner commented that given the Federal and State numbers, the 3.5 percent figure essentially zeroed out any merit increases by just allowing City employees to keep up with inflation and the cost of living.

City Manager Evans reiterated that in the past no cost of living increases have been automatically distributed, saying the salary compensation program maintains the flexibility to reward an outstanding employee with a 5 percent raise by not allocating a 3.5 percent cost of living increase across the board.

Traffic Signal Installation: Provided no funding.

City Grants: Budgeted $30,000.

Councilman Gardiner noted that he would fund organizations that assist people before non-humans (animals) and organizations in which the bulk, if not all, of their support is directed to the benefit of RPV residents.

Councilman Clark agreed, reiterating that funding should be prioritized for organizations that provide something for the betterment of people. He noted that although he is not against the arts, in austere times such as these, grant money should be allocated specifically to things that touch human lives. He added that Council should not increase the amount for any grants this year. He and Councilman Gardiner suggested that staff put together an ordered list of recipients and how they serve the community to be used for further allocation guidance.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro agreed that the number one priority should be programs that benefit the residents of RPV and that there should be no new granting and proportional reductions in those who already receive grants from the City.

Mayor Stern added that the difficult decision remains as to specifically who to fund and in what amount.

It was the consensus that staff should develop a list of grantees using $30,000 as budget limit with the following provisions: (1) no new organizations to be added; (2) prioritize reductions, giving preference to people versus arts and animals; (3) add a column showing the number of RPV people served. Mayor pro tem Ferraro is to work with staff on developing this list.

Conferences & Meetings: Budgeted $50,000.

City Manager Evans briefly summarized the category, stating that it basically covers the cost of travel and conference fees for City staff, Council, and some committee members. He added that the number had been neither reduced nor increased from last year with the exception of the Planning Department’s number that reflected a decrease in the number of Planning Commissioners to be sent to the League of California Cities Planner’s Institute.

Mayor Stern agreed that it is financially imprudent to send all members of the Planning Commission to the Planner’s Institute in Monterey, suggesting that those members attending could return with ideas and literature to share with their colleagues.

Councilman Clark agreed that it was not necessary to send all of the Planning Commissioners but felt that funding should be set aside for the Planning Department’s newest members in the areas of planning and zoning.

Portable Generator and Electrical Modifications at Park Sites: Provided no funding.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro inquired whether the City could get along another year without this item.

Mayor Stern asked what role City government would play in the event of a calamity that knocked out power at City Hall.

City Manager Evans responded that in the event power went out at City Hall, the current backup generating system would kick in. He stated that the area of concern would occur in the event of an incident such as a fire or an earthquake that rendered the building unsafe, thereby necessitating a relocation. This would be problematic because the City’s other facilities are not currently equipped with a back up power source.

Councilman Clark described this as a hypothetical risk assessment issue that in these austere times he did not find appropriate to budget for.

Councilman McTaggart wondered if one of the main reasons for this backup power requirement would be to provide shelter at the facility in the event of an emergency situation.

City Manager Evans explained that if needed the emergency shelter would probably be set up at the high school.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro agreed not to budget for this item, adding that it should be reconsidered as financial times improve.

Geographic Information System: Budget $27,000, but eliminate if from the Menu Selection.

Financing Alternatives Consultant: Budgeted $30,000.

Mayor Stern recommended funding at some level, saying the City needs to get a handle on infrastructure needs and understand the alternatives available.

City Manager Evans explained that part of the funding could probably be incorporated into a bond issue or other similar funding mechanism.

Memberships and Dues: Budgeted $44,466.

Traffic Signal Battery Backup System: No funding provided.

Document Imaging System: Budgeted $9,000.

City Manager Evans explained the requested amount was to initiate a system focusing on the City Clerk’s office.

City Clerk Purcell stated that the proposed funding would provide a "start-up kit" to begin addressing the City’s need for a document imaging program and would give staff some experience with implementing such a system in other departments. She cited the tremendous amount of space at City offices that are devoted to records storage and file cabinets.

Electrical Filter Devices: Budgeted $60,000 from the Building Replacement fund.

Director McLean explained that the City Hall was built in the 1950’s with an infrastructure that never anticipated the electronics network now in place. He stated that the breaker boxes are currently full and that network outage problems are being caused by wiring interferences. He determined in meetings with the City’s electrical contractor, Public Works Director, and IT advisor that the only solution is to create and install dedicated circuits in both buildings at a combined cost of $60,000. He stated that the Planning Building is worse than the Administration Building and warned that without implementing the suggested changes the outages will continue to occur, damaging equipment and possibly losing data in the process.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro suggested taking the additional $30,000 needed out of the Building Replacement Fund.

Councilman Clark advised leaving the $30,000 in the year’s General Fund and taking the entire amount out of the Building Replacement Fund to which everyone agreed.

Councilman Gardiner recommended using the best and latest technology, suggesting the possible use of fiber optic cable.

Director McLean stated that fiber optics would probably cost an additional $10,000 to $15,000.

City Manager Evans noted that the whole issue would be brought before Council with a firmer number before a final decision is made on whether to take the entire amount from the Building Replacement Fund.

NCCP Lobbyist: Budgeted $30,000.

Mayor Stern stated this item is critical to the completion of the City’s Natural Communities Conservation Planning program and suggested maintaining the proposed funding level.

Pt. Vicente Trail Handrail: No funding provided.

Councilman Clark suggested generating some interest among the parents of children attending the school to put together a self-help type project where over a couple of weekends some of the parents could replenish and repair the rail themselves.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro commented that the Rotary had been looking for projects they could participate in where the outcome of their efforts could actually be seen.

Mayor Stern suggested that any viewers who were interested in volunteering assistance for the project were encouraged to contact the City.

Annual Abalone Cover Sewer System Subsidy: Reduced to $15,000 in FY 03-04 and eliminate any subsidy for FY 04-05.

City Manager Evans explained that two years ago the sewer system was completed and a maintenance district was created. At that time the City decided to share some of the costs of maintenance so the citizens would be assessed half the cost rather than the full amount. He suggested lowering the subsidized amount to $30,000 this year and then reducing it in increments of $5,000 each subsequent year until it reaches zero.

Mayor Stern opined that the subsidy should be reduced much faster than being suggested, stating that it is unfair to the other residents in the City to subsidize this system. He suggested an immediate cut to $15,000 or less with no subsidy at all in FY 2004-05.

Councilman Gardiner inquired what the average household cost is now and how that would change if the subsidy were zeroed out. He also asked what rule permitted the City to subsidize this maintenance district.

Director Allison responded that each household is paying an average $150 assessment.

City Manager Evans replied that the average cost would double. He explained that when the system was built and the district created, the City informed the residents that the maintenance cost would be a certain amount. The cost turned out to be higher and, in response to residents’ complaints, the City agreed to subsidize.

Councilman McTaggart questioned the actual amount of the maintenance cost.

Director Allison responded that there had been a few one-time costs such as the purchase of a generator, but on an ongoing basis he estimated the cost at approximately $50,000 a year, adding that the subsidy is structured so that the City picked up a little more than half the first couple of years.

Councilman Clark expressed concern that the entire community has been subsidizing something that benefits only a small portion of the residents.

Mayor Stern concurred and reiterated that the subsidy should drop to $15,000 in FY 03-04 and be zeroed out the following fiscal year.

Term Limits Ballot Initiative: Tentatively budgeted $4,000 as a placeholder.

Mayor Stern requested leaving the item as a placeholder since it may or may not be required.

Mayor pro tem Ferraro disagreed, saying the City needed all the money it could find right now.

Council members Clark and Gardiner agreed with Mayor Stern that it is prudent to leave it as a placeholder and make the determination of using it at a later date.

Computer Network Services: Budgeted $20,000.

Construction of a Trail Link between PVIC and Ocean Front Estates: Request the developer to fund.

Recess and Reconvene: Mayor Stern recessed the meeting at 1:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:45 p.m.

Interior Painting at Hesse Park: Budgeted $1,000 to paint multipurpose room only.

Shade Structure at Eastview Park: No funding budgeted.

Expansion of the Catch Basin Insert Program: No funding budgeted.

Reader Board/Educational Access Channel: Combined the $12,000 from the Reader Board and the $10,000 from the Educational Access Channel for a total of $22,000.

Councilman Clark questioned the marginal value of the reader board, stating that the quarterly newsletter and the interactive website are far more useful as informational tools. He added that over 95 percent of the homes on the peninsula are equipped with computers.

Councilman Gardiner stated that part of the reader board funding was to provide resources for the new cable channel that would display an enhanced reader board that would be more informative and would serve as more of an online newsletter than the current format. He also suggested renaming the educational access channel RPV TV channel 33 because of its broader governmental and community access roles.

Councilman McTaggart stated that he would like to see the funding moved to the City channel and produce a streaming line at the bottom of the screen similar to that of many of the news channels. He suggested this could be used to list dates and times of events scheduled in the City and could be featured during low programming times rather than all the time.

City Newsletter: Budgeted $9,675.

Video Streaming of the City Website: Budgeted $7,800.

Canopy at City Hall Community Room Entrance: No funding budgeted.

Washington D.C. Lobbyist: No funding budgeted.

City Logo: Reduced funding to $2,500.

City Manager Evans briefly explained that the City logo funds are spent for things such as lapel pins, business cards, etc.

City Clerk Purcell noted that part of the expenditure has also gone towards the newsletter design and the redesign of City Hall stationery and design of the lettering for the doors at City Hall.

City Website Upgrades: Budgeted $4,800.

City Manager Evans explained that the current City website does not include a search feature.

Mayor Stern noted that this would truly enhance the ability of people to locate the information they are interested in on the City’s web site.

Everyone agreed it is an important item and supported its funding.

Door Replacement at City Hall Maintenance Building: Budgeted $1,500.

Sewer Investigation Program: No funding budgeted.

Major Repairs to Storm Drains: Budgeted $75,000.

Councilman McTaggart requested that a matrix of all the categories and figures be

e-mailed to Council as an Excel file.

It was the consensus of Council to place an item on the June Council agenda regarding setting up a public workshop to discuss financing infrastructure.

Council cancelled May 19th budget work session.

Adjournment: At 2:30 P.M. Councilman Clark moved to adjourn the meeting.

/s/ Douglas W. Stern



/s/ Jo Purcell

City Clerk