05/17/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sessic~ 1496, M/r~tes Page 2 May 17, 1989 -Council may wish to allocate to parks or some other project. 19) Reduction of Street Contractual Account ($317,898)--thls could be cut slightly for other high priority items. Mr. Ollendorff e~plained in sc~e detail how the city has been work/rig to catch up with bridge, street, curb, alley, and sidewalk work over the last ten years. The biggest variable is when a street or alloy ne~ to be rebuilt; however, there have not been any petitions recently frc~, owners on urJm~roved streets who were willing to pay their fair share of the cost of improvement, and none ware expected any time soon. This account requires a minimum of $250,000 just to keep up with re~jular maintenance. It is hoped that wh~_n the City gets its entire debt paid off, the tax transfer money can be used for infrastructure replacement. 20) C~unity Center indoor plants-- current budget is adequate. 21) Neighborhood /nsl~ction letters and informa- tion--cost is about $2,500. 22) City ~loyee w~ges--to be decided in execu- tive session. Council then went through the list and eliminated a number of items. It was agreed the first two items would be discussed when the Com~nity Development budget is considered next fall. Arts and Letters C~,ission. The Co~m,~esion will receive $1,600 as agreed previously, and as worthy projects arise during the year, matching money for gr~nts will be oonsidered. Side-yard refuse pick~p. Councilmembers Schuman and Wagner thought that re- quests for this service should be in %~citing and should be considered if the trucks go down the side street anyway and if it is truly a hardship case. Mrs Thompson agreed, adding that a true hardship case should be serviced even if the trucks don't go down the side street. Mr. Adams said he thought that when the city switched to bag pickup, accu~=~odations were made for hardship cases; the City shou/d follow whatever procedure was sat up then. Following further discussion, Council decided to leave the fLnal decision in each case up to the City Manager. Park lights. All agreed that excess park lights should be re_moved, and Coun- cilmembers Th~son and Price will confer with the City Manager to decide which ones should be eliminated in the Third Ward. Councilmembers Adams and Schoomer agreed with Mr. Ollendorff's suggestions for removals in the Second Ward. There were none to be removed in the First Ward. Extra police foot patrols. Mr. Wagner felt the City could not afford to do enough to make a difference. Mr. Schoc~er thought it should be done only if requested by the Police ~_ief. Mayor Majerus agreed, although she had no ob- jection to asking the Department to look into it and report their findings to Council. Mrs. Thu~son did not feel there should be extra patrol, but police on duty who get out of their cars and patrol on foot for a brief time in order to further police-c~m~,unity relations. Mr. ~ felt this would re~e ad- ditional police, but the City might consider it in the future. He c~nted that sc~e c~,unities were e~0erimenting with using police on bicycles, and he asked that the city look into experiences other cities have had. Mr. Price noted that C~m~,unity Development funds have been used for some time for police patrol in Parkview Gardens at a cost of $20,000 a year. Mr. Schoc~.er said this area had a very high residential density. Mr. Adams did not believe that