Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'3 ,. <br />I- <br />t \. <br /> <br />MONDAY <br /> <br />MAY 21, 1984 <br /> <br />plan by 6%, with all departmental budgets being reduced by that percentage; and (4) <br /> <br />City personnel salary-wage increases in 1984-85 should be no more than 6% (as opposed <br /> <br />to the contemplated 7% increase for employees under the City Manager's jurisdiction, <br /> <br />whereas the City's "constitutional" office employees are scheduled to receive 9-plus'7o <br /> <br />and City School teachers and administrators are scheduled for increases ranging from <br /> <br />8.6% to 15.7%), with Mr. Wilson noting that even a 6% increase is considerably more <br /> <br />than the 3-to-5 percent increases received this year by employees in private industry. <br /> <br />Mr. Robert S. Johnson, of 1161 Yorkshire Road, while not directing his comments to the <br /> <br />proposed budget itself, protested the amounts of electric service deposits required of <br /> <br />new customers of the City, declaring that such deposits are beyond the means of many <br /> <br />handicapped persons and newly-wed couples. There being no other citizens present to <br /> <br />comment on the budget, Mayor Cole declared the public hearing closed. City Manager <br /> <br />Edmonds then informed Council that, as supported by updated budgetary data presented <br /> <br />(including a revised appropriation ordinance), the 1984-85 budget document has been <br /> <br />revised to reflect recent actions by the State Compensation Board on the various <br /> <br />1984-85 budget requests filed by the City's "constitutional" officers but does not <br /> <br />include a $25,000.00 item previously approved by Council for the limited dredging <br /> <br />(and "rocking") at the City's hydro-electric impoundment dam. Vice-Mayor Oakes then <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />offered his motion that the 1984-85 City Budget, as revised, be adopted and, in so <br /> <br />doing, suggested that Mr. Wilson's comments be taken under advisement for future con- <br /> <br />sideration as well as suggested that Mr. Edmonds respond to Mr. Johnson's comments <br /> <br />regarding utility deposits required by the City. As to the latter suggestion, Mr. <br /> <br />Edmonds noted certain conditions under which utility deposits are not required by the <br /> <br />City and, furthermore, pointed out the terms and conditions under which deposits may <br /> <br />be returned to customers. With Vice-Mayor Oakes' budget adoption motion being <br /> <br />seconded by Councilman Reed, and there being no further discussion of the budget and <br /> <br />motion, Council adopted the budget, as revised, by a vote of four-to-one (Councilman <br />