05/18/05 Budget Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Budget Study Session May 18, 2005 following, additional details relating to the capital outlay is included. He led her through these details. Ms. Welsch asked about the “riding fish” and Assistant City Manager, Thomas Moton, explained that the Gateway Foundation is way behind schedule. Then she asked how many people in this budget “were actually doing trees?” She heard that the tree crew used to be much larger than it is now. Mr. Ollendorff said it had been three for many, many years, but he would check. Ms. Welsch said she understood that in the past there were twelve workers. Mr. Ollendorff asked her if she wanted numbers for forestry or for the whole parks maintenance operation and she responded forestry, “the people who take care of the trees.” Then she asked if the budget line was for everyone in Nancy’s department and was advised yes. Ms. Welsch asked if the recreation people come later and was told yes and he provided details as to who does what. He noted there had been some fluctuation in the Park Maintenance area, where cutbacks occurred when there was a tight budget. Ms. Welsch wanted to know if certain structures would last longer if there were more maintenance staff and was advised no, that none of the capital outlay items are the result of delayed maintenance. Ms. Brungardt mentioned “privatizing” and said the Forestry Division is one of the areas where this has occurred. She asked if cost analysis has been conducted and was directed to page C-59, item 729.11, where the amount for contractual services is listed and advised that bids are shown here. This is the line that shows where increased tree maintenance would occur. Cost analysis takes place every five years or so and the result is a “break even” but having the City’s own crew makes it possible to accomplish more tasks, like tree removals and storm clean-up. She then asked about the current crew and was told they have more than they can do and that is why contractual work is undertaken. Tree-trimming is steady, but tree removals vary greatly and a choice must be made as to how to employ the crew. Tree removal is the single, greatest variable in the budget. Ms. Brot asked why the figure for 721.11 was reduced from $60,000 to $45,000 and was advised the current year’s figure is higher than usual and that the larger amount was not needed. The figure for next year is at a “more traditional level.” Ms. Brot asked about removal of trees from her property and was told it was her responsibility. Ms. Brungardt said one of the Park Commissioners wants to introduce the Ruth Park Golf Course master plan as a proposed project for the City to assume during the next budget cycle. She asked if there was money in the budget to introduce this master plan as a City initiative. Her guess was that there are not sufficient resources available to do so, and Mr. Ollendorff said that the Park Commissioner should bring up this suggestion to the Park Commission. Ms. Brungardt asked about “the process by which the community manages this kind of decision”. She needs to know if there are available resources and Mr. Ollendorff said the Park Commission used to have a sub-committee on capital outlay. Suggestions come from the Park Staff and the Park Commission Page 2