Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 3/3/87 -4- <br />Mr. Wilamosky, Chairman Finance Committee reported: 1) Committee met February 23rd <br />with all members in attendance as well as Mayor Petrigac and Director Cunningham. <br />Committee met with Police Chief Marsh, Fire Chief VanKuren, City Engineer Schaller <br />and Director Becker. Met with department heads primarily to receive input with re- <br />spect to appropriations recommended by the administration and how they viewed them <br />based on what they preceived their needs to be. Committee's goal was to learn more <br />about the needs of the respective departments and get some input. Chief Marsh also <br />advised that his department has confiscated $12,000 in a recent drug arrest; city <br />can use the money for law enforcement purposes. Chief Marsh progosed sharing the <br />$12,000 with WEB who was actively involved with the North Olmsted Police Department <br />in the investigation and arrest that resulted with the confiscation of the $12,000. <br />Under the law, WEB cannot benef it through this money unless the City of North Olmsted <br />offers to share it with them. Asked council to consider the proposal to share the <br />money with WEB and give the Finance Committee some feedback. <br />2) In summary, committee met with Engineering, Building, Police and Fire Departments <br />and will be meeting again. This was just one segment of the General Fund that was <br />discussed and will be coming back to the General Fund for some further review next <br />week. <br />3) Finance Committee met briefly with the Transportation Committee; Mr. O'Grady will <br />be reporting out on a mutual concurrence between both committees regarding the pur- <br />chase of some equipment for the Bus Line. <br />4) Committee met again on Marsh 3rd with all members present as well as Recreation <br />Manager Fattler and Ralph Bohlman and a couple other members of the Recreation <br />Commission who wanted to share dialogue regarding the appropriations for the Recrea- <br />tion Fund. Committee also met with Mr. McKay, Law Director Gareau and Michael <br />Gareau, Jr.; committee discussed the administration's recommendation for funding <br />the Rec Center. Mr. Bohlman stated he had recently received a number of changes <br />to the appropriation recommendation; committee has not received any proposals from <br />the administration regarding those changes. Committee did receive some changes <br />from Mr. Fattler dealing with wages, benef its and utilities. Many of these changes <br />answered a number of questions the committee had because of its concern with these <br />three areas. In addition, there was discussion regarding adjustments to revenue. <br />Mr. Fattler advised the revenue projections reflect a decrease of approximately <br />$6,500 from the original projections submitted to committee. Committee asked Mr. <br />Fattler to prepare a list of potential operation changes that he believes would <br />result in reducing costs with a minimal impact on overall operations. He did in- <br />dicate that he would try to prepare a list for next week's meeting. <br />5) Finance Committee will meet next Monday and Wednesday; Recreation Commission <br />will be meeting next week to rediscuss areas of the Recreation Fund and committee <br />intends to meet with them again next week also. The Recreation Fund is still going <br />to have to undergo some severe scrutiny. If there is some information the administra- <br />tion could share about revenue and expenses, it would be appreciated. <br />For the record, Mr. Logan asked: What is the difference between the recommendation <br />of the Recreation Commission's revenues and expenditures versus the Administration's <br />at this point. Mr. Wilamosky responded: It is in excess of $200,000; this is for <br />1987. For the record, Mr. Logan asked: Did that submitted Recreation Commission <br />budget include anything that the Recreation Commission members considered to be <br />capital improvements or improvements for the Center? Mr. Wilamosky responded: No, <br />it did not. There were no major improvements there such as roof rehabilitation <br />and no, it was just basically general maintenance and there was about a $200,000 <br />variance. <br /> <br />