Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-11-18-91CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991 CARMEL CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Dorothy J. Hancock. Council members in attendance were Tom Irvin, Annabelle Ogle, Alan Potasnik, David Adams and Frank Fleming. Council members Lee Lonzo and Minnie Doane were absent. City Attorney Steve Andrews and Clerk-Treasurer Susan W. Jones were also in attendance. The invocation was given by the mayor followed by the pledge of allegiance. Councilor Adams made a motion to approve MINUTES/NOVEMBER 4, 1991: the minutes of November 4, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilor Irvin. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Ogle made a motion to approve MINUTES/NOVEMBER 6, 1991: the minutes of November 6, 1991. The motion was seconded by Adams. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Police Department: Chief Allen stated he had just TRANSFERS: received a copy of a memorandum written by the clerk-treasurer. Allen stated the memo questioned the amounts shown as over the amount originally budgeted for 1991. Allen stated there were logical answers for the over-budgeted percentages and it was unfortunate the clerk-treasurer did not call the Police Department to discuss the problem. Allen stated the figures he presented did not reflect encumbrances and other amounts transferred into the budget accounts and the amounts spent and percentage over the original amount budgeted. Allen requested the following transfers: $4,000.00 from #424 - Software Support into #642 - Other Equipment $3,000.00 from #101 - Full Time Salary into #358 - Other Supplies $ 750.00 from #101 - Full Time Salary into #473 -Radio Maintenance $ 750.00 from #100 - Full Time Salary into #441 - Postage Irvin asked the clerk-treasurer what the conflict was between Chief Allen's request and the memo the Council received prior to the meeting. Clerk-treasurer Jones stated Allen's request showed the Department over-spent a budget by 46%. Jones stated the City goes by the current approved budget as of today, including encumbrances and transfers. Irvin asked if the budget was over-spent. Jones stated it was not over-spent. Ogle asked Jones if there was an opportunity to call and talk to someone before that evening. Jones stated the print out for the last claim period had just been printed. Jones sighted a similar situation with Major Nibarger which had been caught at the last minute. Ogle stated Jones' memo was dated the 14th and she felt it unfair that her letter was thrown at the Council at the last minute, and that everyone else had been told of the problem except the Department involved. Jones stated Allen received the same reports as she used. Ogle stated Allen had not received her memo and did not know she was calling the transfer request into question. Ogle stated that if there is a problem, she felt the department head should be contacted. Councilor Fleming made a motion to approve all four transfers as resolution #'s 11-18-91-1, 11-18-91-2, 11-18-91-3 and 11-18-91-4. The motion was seconded by Adams. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Mayor Hancock stated on forthcoming memos and correspondence, Don Allen should be referred to as Chief Allen not Acting Chief Allen. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to suspend the rules to add the request for transfer from the Carmel Clay Plan Commission. The motion was seconded by Fleming. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Department of Community Development Director, Wes Bucher, stated the Plan Commission was requesting transfer of the following items: $800.00 from #112-Committee Meetings into #110- Part-Time $100.00 from #250-Travel into #201- Social Security $250.00 from #475-Maintenance Contract into #441 -Postage Potasnik asked if the $800 line item #112 was from Committee Meetings that the Plan Commission secretary would receive money from or was it Committee Meetings from Plan Commission members. Bucher asked the clerk-treasurer if #112 was Plan Committee members or staff. Hancock stated #112 was Plan Commission part-time BZA secretary committee meetings. Potasnik asked if Dorothy, the Plan Commission secretary, was receiving compensation for her work with the sign ordinance committee. Bucher stated for all meetings which she was appointed to serve as secretary, she would receive per hour compensation. Potasnik asked if the line item #250 - Travel to Social Security would be for the Plan Commission secretary. Bucher stated that was correct. Potasnik made a motion to approve all three Plan Commission requests for transfers. The motion was seconded by Irvin. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Bucher requested the following transfers for the Department of Community Development: $1,500.00 from #110 - Part-time into #250 - Travel $250.00 from #350 - Other Garage into #301 - Stationery/Printing $750.00 from #647 - Communication Equip. into #486 - Subscription /Dues $1,200.00 from #690 - Furniture/Fixtures into #640 - Office Equip. Bucher stated that approval had been made this year for the Plan Commission to help offset expenses for DOCD staff at planning conferences. Bucher stated the $1,500.00 transfer into #250 Travel was a result of his reluctance to take the money for remaining expenses from the Plan Commission budget for DOCD staff because it did not paint a clear picture for DOCD or the Plan Commission when that was done. Bucher asked for the $250 transfer into #301 - Stationery/Printing to allow for the purchase of letterheads for the first of the year and purchase of the 1992 receipt books and certificate of occupancy books. Bucher asked for a $750.00 transfer into #486 - Subscription/Dues for staff dues to the American Institute of Certified Planners, professional memberships and dues for the Indiana Planning Association. Bucher asked for a $1,200.00 transfer into #640 - Office Equipment for computer equipment to establish the entire office with Wordperfect 5.1 and Windows and the software to share the fax and word processing equipment. An unplanned expense of a battery back- up system caused the budget to be reduced by $2,600.00. Fleming asked if the funds available in the account had been verified by the clerk-treasurer. Bucher stated yes. Fleming made a motion to approve all four DOCD requests for transfer. The motion was seconded by Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Bucher stated that sometimes department heads may be looked at to spend as much as possible at the end of the year. Bucher stated he would like to assure the Council that he thought all of the department heads looked at transfers as a necessary evil for conducting business until the end of the year. Bucher stated his department would not spend about 12% of the amount originally budgeted for 1991. Bucher stated he believed he and other department heads try to get by with as few transfers as possible to operate their departments. Bucher stated he appreciated the Council's cooperation. Hancock stated the Board of Public Works had a request for transfer of $1,000.00 from #442 - Telephone to #407 - Consulting, for engineering consulting fees for the of removal of contaminated soil near the storage tanks located at the Communications Center. Hancock stated a report would be given at the end of the Council meeting. Hancock asked that the Council approve the request for the transfer. Potasnik so moved. The motion was seconded by Irvin. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Potasnik made a motion to PROPOSED OVERTIME ORDINANCE D-729: introduce proposed overtime ordinance D-729 and to dispense with the reading. The motion was seconded by Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Hancock asked City Attorney, Steve Andrews, if he had spoken to all of the department heads. Andrews stated yes. Hancock stated that the overtime was in the 1991 budget and has been budgeted for 1992. Hancock stated the State Board of Accounts recognized the overtime as a policy, but stated it should be written as an ordinance. Hancock stated it has been a policy in effect for, at least, the past four and one-half years. Andrews stated the ordinance should reflect what is presently being done in the Civil City, Fire and Police Departments and the Communications Center. Andrews referred to page one of the ordinance where section A outlined to whom the ordinance applied. Andrews stated it was broken into four sub-sections with section B, as Civil City. Andrews stated for Civil City employees no overtime is paid until an employee reaches 40 hours. Andrews stated a civil city employee work week is 37 1/2 hours per week and straight time would be paid for 40 hours work and overtime paid in comp time or salary compensation at time and 1/2 would begin after 40 hours had been completed. Andrews stated the regular work week was 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. including meal breaks. Andrews stated Section B would include civilian police. Andrews stated Section C specifically directed itself to patrol and investigations employees. Andrews added that paragraph to indicate that patrol is 136 hours in a 24 day work period and investigations is 160 hours in a 28 day work period. Andrews stated there is an 11 hour lag under Garcia that the City is entitled to pay as straight time. Andrews stated that once 11 hours is gone, the officer would go into comp time or salary at time and 1/2 depending on how that is done. Andrews stated the ordinance simply reflects what is currently done and has been done for some time. Andrews stated Section D covered the Fire Department. Andrews stated the ordinance did not include exempted personnel. Andrews stated exempted personnel are generally defined as policy making positions other than a department head. Andrews stated that the City recognizes for the Fire Department, 212 hours in a 28 day work period and time and 1/2 is applied to time worked beyond the 212 hours. Andrews stated the ordinance provides for firefighters working on a holiday with a $75.00 bonus in addition to regular applied wages. Andrews stated Section E, covered the Communications Center. Andrews stated the Communications Center works 128 hours in a 24 day work period, with an additional 8 hours at straight time with time and 1/2 applied for time worked beyond 136 hours. Andrews stated the new ordinance under Chapter 2 excludes Police and Fire personnel from the programs addressed in Sections 2-41 through 2-49 and Sections 2-51 through 2-54, who shall be governed by their respective rules and regulations. Irvin asked what personnel were included in Section A. line b. Andrews gave a partial list, for example, the Department of Community Development Assistant Director, Battalion Chiefs in the Fire Department, perhaps Assistant or Deputy Chief Engineers, Majors and Captains. Irvin asked if Department heads were exempt from overtime. Andrews stated they received their salary, regardless of how many hours they work. Irvin stated he did not understand how the City got a 37 & 1/2 hour work week. Irvin asked if an employee worked 40 hours the employee would get an additional 2 1/2 hours pay at the regular rate. Andrews stated yes. Irvin asked about Section A - #7 on page 2. Irvin asked if he was a fireman and worked 240 hours and he would normally draw 28 hours of overtime on that shift, and if the firefighter is off sick and on vacation would he get the pay he would normally receive for that week. Andrews stated the ordinance intends to not dock anyone who is off on a paid holiday. Andrews stated if the holiday is paid, it is earned. Andrews stated if an employee works it should be counted toward the total time they are compensated without being penalized for having worked on a day off that would normally have been paid to the employee for not coming in to work. Irvin stated he agreed. Andrews sighted an example of an employee from the Street Department who drives a plow, takes off Tuesday with the flu, works through Friday and the City has a snowstorm forcing him to work Saturday, and Sunday. Andrews stated if he worked 60 hours that week, including the paid sick day, he would not be docked for the time he was off with the flu. Potasnik stated if he worked in the Street Department and took Tuesday as a vacation day and worked the rest of the week and a snowstorm struck the City, then two and 1/2 hours would be paid at regular pay even though 40 hours had not been actually physically worked, the employee would not be docked because of that. Andrews stated they shouldn't be. Potasnik stated if you have the time coming and you take it during the week, then it should be counted as part of the hours when considering overtime. Irvin stated he agreed. Andrews stated the Council should be aware of a change that should be made if the Council decided to approve the ordinance. Paragraph 7 is a rule, intended to apply to all employees in the overtime ordinance. Andrews stated it had been moved around and ended up under Section B for Civil City employees. Andrews asked the Council to make the change to include all City employees. Andrews apologized for the oversight. Potasnik asked if the ordinance came as a directive from the State Board of Accounts to convert policy into ordinance form. Andrews stated that they suggested ordinance form, it was not ordered. Hancock stated the State Board of Accounts ordered `all monies paid' needed to be put in ordinance form. Potasnik asked if the policy had been in effect for some time, not just the last four years. Andrews stated that was his understanding. Potasnik asked if the Police Department was exempt from the $75.00 holiday bonus which now applied to the Fire Department. Andrews stated his recollection was that it always applied to just the Fire Department. Potasnik asked what the time frame was for passing something like this. Potasnik stated it was a concern of his about how overtime payment was being handled now. Andrews asked the clerk-treasurer if she was paying overtime. Jones stated overtime was paid in some departments and not in others. Jones stated the only policy the clerk-treasurer's office had was for the Fire Department dated 1989. Jones stated City employees were now being paid straight time for vacation, sick time and holidays. Jones stated if an employee took vacation Monday and worked Tuesday through Saturday, the employee would receive straight time for the six days not five days straight and one day time and 1/2. Irvin asked if all the Department heads had a chance to review the ordinance. Andrews stated he met with Tom Welch, Jim Dougherty, Don Allen, Steve Couts, Wes Bucher and Doug Callahan. Andrews stated he had corrections from Police, Fire and Communications. Irvin stated he would like to have their input. Ogle asked if all of the changes came from responses from the Department heads. Andrews stated he only spoke with the department heads and Assistant Chief Callahan who represented the Communication Center and Diane Frewer from the Police Department. Irvin asked if a revised ordinance would be supplied by the City Attorney. Andrews stated paragraph 7 under Civil City employees would be changed to apply it to all City non-exempt employees. Fleming asked if all of the policies in the ordinance were in effect right now. Andrews stated that was his understanding. Fleming asked since the Police and Fire came under state statutes would the ordinance have to go before the Board of Public Works. Andrews stated no. Jones asked if an employee called in sick Monday through Friday and was entitled to, and received, sick pay, would that employee be eligible for time and 1/2 if he/she worked the weekend even though not one hour of physical work had been completed all week due to illness. Jones asked if sick leave was considered earned time. Andrews stated sick leave was earned time. Adams stated there appeared to be a need for the ordinance right away, pointing out the changes that had been made were very slight. Adams made a motion to add paragraph 7 from Section B into Sections C, D and E. The motion was seconded by Potasnik. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Irvin asked the Council for more time to review the ordinance unless it was an emergency, bringing it back to the December 2nd meeting. Hancock stated if the approval of the ordinance would be delayed, clarification would need to be made that the policy, as it has been enforced, remain that way. Hancock stated that she did not want to see an employee lose what they normally have received. Hancock stated the State Board of Accounts audit comment did not say that the policy was questionable, but if it was not made clear, someone's pay may be in jeopardy who would have a situation like this in the present pay period. Jones asked for a copy of the policy that the City has had for the past four years, so that no mistake would be made in how the clerk-treasurer's office determines pay calculations for the payroll. Jones stated the only policy in her possession was the 1989 policy written for just the Fire Department clarifying just vacation time as earned time. Adams stated that was the problem he had with not passing the ordinance that evening. Adams stated if the ordinance was passed it would eliminate the confusion. Adams stated if the Council wanted to allow the ordinance go to a second reading and then pass a special resolution the Council could then keep the ordinance in effect for the next two weeks. Potasnik stated the ordinance should be acted on because it was the policy that had been in effect. Potasnik stated if changes needed to be made it could be done, but he felt the policy had not been re-invented and the Council would only be following the instructions of the State Board. Irvin asked how long this policy had been in effect. Hancock stated it had been done that way since she had been clerk- treasurer. Irvin stated he understood some City employees had been deducted for overtime for the last pay period. Irvin asked if it would have to be retroactive. Jones stated the employees were all paid in separate checks two days later and if someone was not paid she was not aware of it. Fleming stated the Council should not change policies until budget time because the monies had already been appropriated. Andrews stated the ordinance did not change policy. Jones stated she wanted to clarify that straight time was paid to the employees in question, not time and 1/2. Jones stated this ordinance called for time and 1/2. Hancock stated that, during the last pay period the employees did not get time and 1/2 if they had vacation or sick leave and, therefore, Irvin was correct by stating that people did lose money during that pay period. Hancock stated the State Board would send a copy of the audit comment by the end of the week. Irvin stated if the City has been using the overtime practice for some years and all of a sudden with the last pay period, the City cut it off and tonight the Council would pass the ordinance, then what should the Council do about the employees that lost money during the last pay period. Jones stated other departments had been paid the other way and have been for years. Jones stated every department was slightly different in how they figured their overtime. Jones stated the Fire Department was different with the last pay, but the other departments were not. Irvin asked if the city owed the Fire Department money. Jones stated if the Council wanted to go back and make their policy retroactive to time and 1/2, then, yes, the City would owe the Fire Department more money. Andrews stated the ordinance did not call for the policy to be retroactive and he felt that the Council would get themselves into a problem if they did go retroactive. Andrews stated the ordinance was being presented to memorialize what has been a policy, whether written or oral, for the City, and it would not be a good idea to apply it retroactively. Adams stated if the current Council or a later Council would like to go back and catch-up, it could be done, but the ordinance before the Council was necessary from this point forward. Adams made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D- 729. The motion was seconded by Potasnik. All members voted aye, except Irvin who did not vote. Motion carried. Irvin stated he would like to go back and talk about the ordinance at a later date. Hancock called for the question. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Adams made a motion to SICK LEAVE/AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE. table the item until December 2nd. The motion was seconded by Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Potasnik made a motion to table SECOND READING/ANNEXATION C-162: the item. The motion was seconded by Adams. All members voted aye. Motion carried. CARMEL\CLAY PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD PRESENTATION OF RESULTS OF Judy Jacobs, Parks Board President, introduced PARK BOARD SURVEY: Dr. Brian Vargus, of the Indiana University Public Opinion Laboratory. Jacobs stated Dr. Vargus conducted the survey for the Parks Board that the Council so kindly paid to have done. Dr. Vargus stated he would like to say that the survey had been done in conjunction with the Parks Board, in the respect that they had as much input as possible and still be professionally responsible in terms of the kinds of questions that were asked. Vargus stated the data was collected in September, it was an age and sex quota survey of residents of Carmel and Clay Township based on the latest population numbers. Vargus stated the interviewer asked if the number was a residence telephone, within certain boundaries. Vargus asked if the resident fit the age and sex quota that the survey needed. Vargus stated the survey was from September 18th to the 23rd with 403 completed interviews. Vargus added that in order to complete those interviews 4,898 telephone calls had to be made, many of those were no answers or within boundary quotas. Vargus stated the results showed that the residents of Carmel and Clay Township were interested in, and wanted more parks. Vargus stated although there was a lot of variety in what people wanted, they did want parks and were willing to pay for them. Vargus stated 77% of those interviewed were in favor of a user's fee, Over 50% indicated they were willing to pay $1.00 or more in taxes, if it was directed to parks. Vargus stated there are four kinds of groups,1) nature lovers, who wanted trails and environmental kinds of things and would like, for example, the City to buy a forest and relocate it in Carmel; 2) family oriented, wanting picnic grounds and playground equipment; 3) athletic groups, who wants additional athletic facilities (this group is a smaller group); 4) picnic facility group, who would like that type of facility in and of itself. Vargus stated there was a small group who wanted an outdoor amphitheater and botanical garden. Vargus stated the important thing to realize was that the residents have a need for these type of facilities. Vargus stated that as the Board was aware, expenditure for parks in this kind of community would be incredibly expensive because of land costs. Vargus asked if the residents wanted a large, small or some mixture in size of park. Vargus said the survey determined most residents would like a large park and some small parks. Vargus stated the residents basically wanted everything, but as the Council was aware, they were faced with the difficult job of deciding what the City could pay for and fund. Vargus stated the one thing that impressed him the most about the survey, beyond the eagerness with which the citizens spoke to the interviewers about the parks was the strong concern for nature related kinds of things. Vargus added that how the City would address nature attractions within the budget limitations any municipality faces, will take a lot of creative effort on the part of the Parks Board. Vargus stated the Parks Board was active in soliciting input from citizens and the report encouraged the Park Board to seek even more input because of the diverse groups. Vargus stated it would take the wisdom of Solomon to address all of the diverse interests of the citizens. Vargus stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Council may have concerning the survey. Potasnik stated he was present when Dr. Vargus made his presentation to the Parks Board, and he felt that the City should be very proud of the survey. Potasnik stated the Parks Board would find the survey a very useful tool in their endeavors. Potasnik thanked Vargus and his group for their work. Vargus stated it was part of the University policy, to make available at cost, policy related research to any municipality or public body. Vargus stated that it was fun to do the survey and the Parks Board were a fine group of people to work with on the project. Vargus stated it was interesting to find that the citizens thought the City had more parks than it actually has, which was a fascinating problem from a researcher's viewpoint. Potasnik stated he should include Judy Jacobs and the Board and, David Carter, who brought Dr. Vargus to the attention of the Council. Hancock thanked Vargus for the survey. Hancock stated the survey solidified the things the Council thought and that it was nice to know that is what people were thinking. Hancock thanked David Carter and Judy Jacobs for the time they put in on the project. Fleming stated he was at the Parks Board meeting for the presentation and that Vargus' survey was very interesting. Fleming thanked the Board for all their hard work. Potasnik stated the people who live here are the community's greatest asset. Potasnik stated it was good to see individuals like David Carter and other examples of people who have come forward to ask what they could do to make this a better community, and to make this the community that it is. Fleming stated their were no claims COMMUNICATION CENTER CLAIMS: for that evening. Fleming made a motion to add the report on the underground storage tank remediation at the Communications Center site to the agenda. The motion was seconded by Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Don Larson of Commonwealth Engineering, presented a report which is attached to the City Council minutes. Potasnik asked in regard to Capital Environmental and Engineering Inc., if Larsen would take the sum of the three items for the total of what they would ask to remove the contaminated material. Larsen stated three steps were proposed, on-sight, off-sight and landfill. Larsen stated off-sight was cheaper than on-sight, but Capital did not specify the sight where it would be done. Larsen stated typical off-site disposal would be major petroleum industries with satellite facilities where the soil is remediated. Larsen stated he was not sure that the City would be interested in that business. Potasnik stated if the cost would be a little over $64,000.00. Larsen stated there were three options and the price was whatever option that was chosen not the total of all three. Potasnik asked if the background of the companies helped determine his recommendation. Larsen stated only one company provided references and it was not close to being considered. Potasnik asked if the Department of Environmental Management would be familiar with the companies. Larsen stated they were. Fleming stated, for the record, both the tanks were fiberglass. Larsen stated one was steel and one was fiberglass. Fleming stated he was present when they were removed and both were fiberglass. Irvin asked if Larsen was recommending #5 Petroleum Service Group, Inc. Larsen stated yes. Irvin asked if the fee of $18,760.00 would be in addition to what the City had already paid. Larsen stated the amount covered everything necessary to go through the bio-rememdiation process and complete closure and testing of the facility. Hancock asked if the site still tested poorly after the process, what would happen. Larsen stated they would continue to go through the bio-remediation process. Larsen stated, like all the other offers, they all have disclaimers. Larsen suggested the City Attorney review the contracts. Larsen stated they appeared to be a company with a good reputation, their description of the process was far beyond anything else that had been offered. Larsen added that Petroleum Service Group provides additional sampling along with filing a closure plan with IDEM and the City. Irvin acknowledged an audience member raised their hand to be heard. Hancock told Irvin he would have to suspend the rules. Ogle asked if Petroleum Service was going to perform a lot more service for $18,760.00 than Hoosier Equipment would be for their bio-remediation process at $10,300.00. Larsen stated yes. Ogle asked where the firms offices were located. Larsen stated he did not know. Larsen then stated he had bid addresses from Atec Environmental Consultants - East 65th Street, Indianapolis; Capital Environmental and Engineering, Inc.- 3421 W. Kelley Street, Indianapolis; Hoosier Equipment Services, Inc., 8014 W. Thompson Road, Indianapolis; Kennedy Equipment Co., Inc. - 807 E. Sumner Ave., Indianapolis: Petroleum Service Group, Inc. - has a PO Box address in Indianapolis. Ogle asked if he knew what firm did the treatment on the filling station on Main Street and Old Meridian. Larsen stated he did not know. Irvin asked if this meant the Council would have to have an additional appropriation. Hancock stated it would need an additional appropriation of $18,760.00. Hancock asked the clerk- treasurer if it could be done by the end of the year. Jones stated the last hearing would be December 10th, and since we needed 10 days notice and they needed 15 days notice, 25 days would not give the Council enough time. Hancock stated that this would be something for which the next Council would have to make the additional appropriation. Fleming asked if the Board of Public Works would have to issue a contract. Hancock stated yes. OTHER BUSINESS: Fleming made a motion to add a request to INAUGURATION EXPENSE: the agenda for use of the Council promotion funds not to exceed $1,500.00 to pay for the Inaugural Ceremony on December 8, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. in City Hall. Adams asked where the money typically came from in the past in terms of payment. Fleming stated Mayor Hancock handled it last time. Hancock stated it came from her campaign funds. Fleming stated he did not know where it came from prior to that. Hancock stated the City did not pay the second time she was sworn in as clerk-treasurer. Hancock stated she believed Mayor Reiman did it before. Potasnik asked if the funds requested were the funds used for the promotion of the City. Jones stated they were not, the funds requested were a separate line item in the Council's budget. Potasnik stated he asked a member of a prior Council about how it was handled, not in 1987, but prior to that. Potasnik stated he believed the money came from a promotion fund from the City. The clerk-treasurer stated Ted Johnson was on the Council and perhaps he could remember how it was handled. Johnson stated the mayor nor the Council, at that time, had no funds, but he was not sure where the money came from to cover those costs. Potasnik stated it was an item that would be held in City Hall, open to the public and the swearing-in of the new officials of the City. Potasnik stated as long as the money was not coming from the funds for the economic promotion of the City, he had no problem approving the use of the Council's fund. Potasnik was opposed to picking up the cost of the postage for invitations, and felt the individuals involved in the swearing-in should pick up their own postage costs. Irvin agreed with Potasnik's comments in their entirety. Hancock asked if there was a motion, and would the motion include a cap. Fleming made a motion to use the Council funds for the Inaugural Ceremony on December 8, 1991 not to exceed $1,500.00. The motion was seconded by Potasnik. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Irvin stated the line item in the Council's budget should be set aside four years hence, to cover inauguration costs. Potasnik stated that, at an earlier meeting, he BOND REFUNDING: asked the mayor to request that Umbaugh and Associates be asked to look into refunding of bonding. Potasnik stated he felt it was worthy of the Council to find out how much money could be saved through the refunding process. Potasnik asked if the mayor had anything to report concerning that matter. Hancock stated the contracts had been signed and that the information would be before the Council, before the next meeting and Roger Umbaugh will report to the Council, at that time. Potasnik asked the City Attorney about CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORMS: a copy of the Conflict of Interest paragraph from the City Code that was received in the Council packet. Jones stated she provided all members of the new City Council - elect with a copy for their reference and information. Potasnik stated he had additional information, COUNCIL NEWSLETTER: which included deadlines for the articles, about the newsletter for the Council. He asked the mayor to distribute the information to the department heads and the Court. Hancock stated she would follow up with his request. Ogle asked if there has been a meeting of the REDEVELOPMENT: Redevelopment Committee. Andrews stated yes and Dr. Story had the names and addresses of the committee which he believed the Council could contact. Hancock stated Santa would be CHRISTMAS LIGHTS AT THE SQUARE: arriving and the square would be lighted nest Tuesday night at 7:00 P.M., and everyone was invited. There being no further business before the Council the meeting was duly adjourned. Respectfully submitted: ______________________________ Approved: ________________________________ ATTEST: ___________________________________