Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-03-18-91CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 18, 1991 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL/CO UNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting of the Carmel City Council was called to order by Mayor Dorothy J. Hancock. Council members in attendance were Minnie Doane, Tom Irvin, Annabelle Ogle, David Adams, Lee Lonzo, Frank Fleming and Alan Potasnik. City Attorney Steve Andrews and Clerk- Treasurer Susan W. Jones were also in attendance. The invocation was given by Councilor Doane followed by the pledge of allegiance. Councilor Potasnik asked that on page 1, MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 1991: under the additional appropriation for the Communications Center that the minutes be amended to reflect that what he believed he has said every time it has come up that these were not additional tax dollars but monies not spent in the l990 Council budget. The other amendment Potasnik wanted was on page 4 with regards to the PGA, the last paragraph, with regard to the wording that Councilor Potasnik supported the appropriation. Potasnik also wanted it said that he supported the appropriation as long as we have this opportunity that we have people present who could really sell Carmel. Councilor Adams asked the clerk-treasurer about the difference in the signature lines. Adams stated that in the past we have always had two signatures and he noted there is only one now. Clerk-Treasurer Jones said that was what Roberts Rules of Order called for unless the Council established a policy different from that. Councilor Adams stated he believed those were the Council's minutes and with all respect to the other authority, would personally feel more comfortable with two signatures on the minutes for a checks and balances type situation and to determine the will of the Council would just simply move to establish the procedure whereby both the mayor and the clerk-treasurer both sign the minutes. Councilor Adams so moved. Councilor Doane seconded that motion. All members voted aye. Councilor Adams then asked for an amendment on page 3, halfway down where it talked about the $286.00 that was not reimbursable from the federal government. Adams thought it was the state. The mayor said it was disbursed through the state but it was federal money. Councilor Fleming made a motion to approve the minutes of March 4, 1991 as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilor Irvin. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Adams asked that with regard MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 1991: to signatures be reflected and also be applied to the March 11, 1991 and likewise that policy apply to all minutes in the future. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to approve the minutes of March 11, 1991 as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilor Adams. All members voted aye. Motion carried. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION/PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE D-694/GENERAL Councilor Lonzo made a FUND/CLERK-TREASURERS BUDGET/$2,731.00: motion to introduce ordinance D-694 and suspend the rules for reading unless anyone from the public wanted it read. Mr. Kendall asked that it be read. The mayor asked Jones to read the ordinance. This ordinance called for an additional appropriation within the General Fund, clerk-treasurer's budget, item #438, recodification of city ordinances in the amount of $2,371.00. Councilor Adams seconded the introduction after the clerk-treasurer read the ordinance. Clerk-Treasurer Jones wanted it stated for the record that the notice of meetings were published in the proper newspaper in plenty of time. Mayor Hancock then opened the hearing to the public. Ralph Frederick McKinney, 50 Wilson Drive, said he was very pleased that the city has undertaken the task of assembling all of its ordinances into one, single, easy to reference guide. McKinney asked six specific questions in regard to the work that still is remaining on the project and how it relates to the agenda item and the money still remaining to be paid to Hoosier Codification. 1. Does this mean this project, the recodification,is complete? If not, when will it be? 2. What is the total cost of the entire project? 3. Has the finished project been presented to the City Council and approved? If so, where will the public copy be stored? 4. What is the correlation between this project and the re- writing of the City's zoning ordinances by Campbell, Kyle and Proffitt? 5. Will the codification project be rendered obsolete by the re-write? 6. What additional expenses will be incurred by the re write? 7. How will updates to the manual be done? Who w ill have the responsibility to see they are done timely such as quarterly or semi-annually? How much will those updates cost? City Attorney Steve Andrews answered those questions for the Council. The project is complete as far as this project is intended to be complete. That is a rewrite of the city's civil code but it is not a rewrite of the zoning ordinances although that has been contemplated. What Hoosier did was complied the zoning ordinances into a separate chapter but they didn't attempt to rewrite them. We didn't feel they really had the expertise to rewrite all the zoning ordinances to tailor it to the needs of the plan commission and to the board of zoning and appeals. Campbell, Kyle and Proffitt and specifically Bill Wendling who is the attorney for the Plan Commission will be doing a complete rewrite of Z-160 and maybe even the subdivision portion. Andrews and Jones were not sure of the cost but that information would be available in the clerk's office. The council has not seen the finished product. There is a committee composed of Councilors Lonzo and Potasnik, Andrews, certain department heads and Jones. Andrews said they have gone over it and have approved the first nine or ten chapters which is the civil city code. That will be coming to the Council the second meeting in April. Jones stated the copies have been ordered and should be shipped very soon. Andrews stated we would get 24 copies initially. The public library will have one, each department will have one and all the elected officials will have a copy. Other copies are being contemplated to be ordered so that if people want to buy a copy they can have it. The library and the clerk's office will both have a copy for the public to use. Andrews stated that under the state statute it was the duty of the clerk to keep all the ordinances, however there is an additional service which Hoosier offers that the committee has talked to Jones about and that is an update service. Hoosier charges so much a page and then the committee is looking into purchasing the software so Jones can do it here. That recommendation is not ready to come to Council yet. Andrews said the final step would be for the Council to adopt by ordinance, the new code or the new rewrite and this is basically all the Council will have to do. Jones stated the total cost of the project. So far the city has paid $14,954 with a remaining balance due of $12,731. There being no further questions from the public, the mayor closed the hearing and opened it to the Council for questions. Hearing none the mayor asked for the Council's wishes on this ordinance. Councilor Adams made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-694 this evening. The motion was seconded by Councilor Irvin. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Mayor Hancock called for the question. All members voted aye. Ordinance D-694 passed unanimously. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION/LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS/PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE D-695/$330,000/IMPROVEMENTS TO 116TH AND GRAY Councilor Lonzo made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-695 ROAD: and suspend the rules for reading of the same unless a member of the public wanted it to be read. The motion was seconded by Councilor Adams. Mayor Hancock directed the clerk to read the ordinance after Mr. Kendall and Mr. Quinn both raised their hands to ask for a reading. After the clerk read the ordinance, the mayor opened the hearing to the public on ordinance D-695, Local Roads and Streets Fund, $330,000 for the 116th Street and Gray Road intersection improvement. Andrews asked before the public be allowed to speak that confirmation be given by Jones on the publication of the notice for the hearing. Jones stated it was published correctly and on time. Mr. Tom Kendall, 11818 Gray Road, asked the Council exactly how was the $330,00 going to be spent. Mayor Hancock said that was explained at the last meeting. At this particular point, while right-of-way acquisition is being negotiated, there is no way to say what exactly it will cost. The construction costs, until the bids are in, there is no set amount. Once those bids are in and awarded, the construction cost to the city will be 25%. The engineering costs are based on a percentage of the construction costs. Mr. Kendall then asked if the engineering fees that were billed back in 1989 included in this $330,ooo? The mayor stated yes. Mr. Kendall said he remembered, back that the state hearing held at Woodbrook last year, there was a design study report that had been circulated and it indicated a cost of $510,000 for construction, $35,700 for preliminary engineering and $76,500 for construction engineering and $21,000 for the acquisition of right-of-way. Kendall said he commented, at that meeting, as did a number of other people, that we questioned the accuracy of these figures and felt it might be a little bit low. We were assured these numbers were very realistic and just about what we needed, of which taking 25% of $643,200 that means our share would be $160,800. Kendall asked what has happened since last summer that has almost doubled the cost of this project? The mayor said these figures were estimated by the engineers. Hancock said there was nothing to say that S330,00 is all going to be spent. Kendall again said the difference between the $160,000 and the $330,000 is an awfully broad range for guess estimates and that is why he questioned it before and we were told that was a fairly accurate number and was very surprised to see it turn out to be $330,000 as this point. Kendall asked that before the council approves this, that perhaps we could get a better handle on how that money is going to be spent and why there is so much difference. Mr. Kendall wanted to state, for the record, that he is very much in favor of getting this project underway. It is something that has been needed for a long time. It is a safety issue for Carmel and he hoped the project could proceed just as quickly as possible. Kendall said he was not asking this question in order to cause a delay in the project in anyway but thought it was a question that needs to be answered both on behalf of council members and the public would certainly like to know why that figure has jumped. Kendall also said that some of the other questions that were asked back at that time that were significant include, will the project be done under traffic or will the intersection be closed while it is being built? The reason Kendall asked that question again, he said, is from a safety aspect. Kendall said he felt that if they take that street down to one lane and tried to get traffic through there, it is bad enough the way it is and when they move the street over to take away part of that hill there is going to be consider drop-off while they are scooping out that hill. Kendall had concerns with cars dropping off that hill or especially at night should the barricade lights not work that it could be very dangerous. Mayor Hancock said she thought it was the intention to keep the traffic flowing through that intersection but that is something that has not been determined at this time. The engineers and the construction people advice the safest way to do it and that is obviously something we want to do also. Kendall asked if the specifications have changed significantly since the Woodbrook meeting where we saw copies of that design on the wall as far as number of lanes, the amount of right-of-way that would be acquired? The mayor said that had not changed significantly and that is also in conjunction with the recommendation of the 116th Street Task Force, the way their recommendation came through. Kendall then said that so often in a public hearing, the public is first to ask questions, then the engineers stand up and say their part and the council asked questions and often the public learns more information and wants to ask questions again. Kendall asked if the council would allow the public hearing to stay open and allow for another opportunity for the public to ask questions. The mayor stated that was up to the Council. Katherine Benjamin, 11214 Moss Drive, stated she had spoken to Councilor Lonzo about this project within the last hour and had concerns over this, not so much because of the cost, although it is in conjunction with the cost and did not want to correct anybody with respect to this. As the only member of the 116th Street Task Force that is here tonight, Benjamin stated the Gray Road and 116th Street intersection was specifically was taken out of their consideration. Benjamin stated the task force went to that intersection but were no way charged with re-vamping, re suggesting, or re-designing any portion of that intersection. That intersection was given to them as something that had already been taken care of and consummated by the City Council. Benjamin expressed concern over the actual configuration of the Gray Road and 116th Street intersection might, at this time, need perhaps a closer look because that configuration was designed prior to the 116th Street recommendation. The original design of 116th Street was 5 lanes and now the recommendation is 3 lanes. The configuration of that intersection is such that it is designed as a 5 lane intersection. Benjamin wondered as to the wisdom of making a 5 lane intersection there going into a 3 lanes of 116th Street. Benjamin also had great concerns is the issue of Hazeldell Road. She said it was suggested time and time again, that Hazeldell Road will eventually be a north-south thoroughfare east of Keystone and between Carmel and Fishers. If that is the case, coming out of Noblesville, there is considerable traffic likely to come to us in Carmel out of the Noblesville harbor area as well as Tipton and other areas in that direction specifically if Noblesville creates a southern by-pass around Noblesville by use of Hazeldell. If that is the case and we create a Hazeldell intersection with River Road south, which would make only one of two actual intersections on 116th Street, the first of which is being considered here, 116th and Gray. The other intersection would be Hazeldell with River Road south. It was Benjamin's opinion that perhaps Carmel is over-improving the Gray Road intersection and may need to better improve what will eventually be a Hazeldell Road and River Road south intersection, giving consideration to turning movements, number of cars, number of stops, closest of stops, numbers of lanes and induced traffic. Benjamin again wanted it stated that the 116th Street Task Force did not in anyway shape or form consider the actual intersection but is concerned that perhaps Hazeldell might be a better place to put this type of an intersection and perhaps down scale this intersection to more closely match the recommendation of the 116th Street Task Force. Ted Johnson, 317 Concord Lane, wanted to pursue Mr. Kendall ' s $330,000 question. Johnson stated that someplace you had to arrive at $330,000 and his question was how that arrived at? How much was construction cost projected? How much was land acquisition projected? How much was projected for the previous engineering that was spent on project prior to appropriation and how much is anticipated for the engineering? Mr. Johnson said he felt that was a pretty simple question to ask and felt the Council must have had something besides a dart board to establish the $330, 000 and shouldn't that be laid out in the ordinance in that order so that when the time comes to spend that money, those monies are allotted for those particular items? Johnson said it should be easy to determine the prior engineering costs. Neither the council nor the mayor answered Mr. Johnson's questions at this time. The mayor then called for anyone else from the public if they had any other questions. There was no response. The mayor then answered Johnson's questions stating those figures were determined by the best guess from the engineers. To put a dollar amount on construction or a dollar amount on right-of-way has a tendency to determine what those bids will bid. They may come in lower but you need to have negotiation availability within those figures. Mr. Johnson asked if those bids would be competitive. The mayor stated the right-of-way was not competitive but the construction certainly is competitive but if you are going to have $1 million appropriated or set aside for construction then you had better believe it's not going to come in at $500,000. The mayor again asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak to Ordinance D-695. Hearing none, the mayor closed the hearing to the public and opened it to the Council for questions. Councilor Irvin directed his comments to Mr. Kendall and Mr. Johnson. Irvin suggested that all construction costs are based on estimates. Irvin stated that Johnson had served on this council long enough to know that. Irvin said the Council just passed an ordinance a moment ago to appropriate S2,731, of which, the Council under-appropriated and that money was put in the budget when Johnson was on the Council. Just because money is appropriated doesn't mean that you are going to spend it, but you have to have the money to do the job. Irvin felt that Butler, Fairman and Seufert should be able to answer all the questions asked here tonight. Irvin stated he was not a professional but felt Johnson was probably more of a professional in this line but Irvin thought he was at least as much of a professional as Mr. Kendall when it comes to this type of estimates He said he was getting a little tired of being ridiculed for something that they are trying to make it look like the Council is always trying to spend more money than what they are trying to say. Irvin said you had to start somewhere and this Council was just as dollar conscious as any of public. Councilor Adams said he personally used this intersection at least once daily. Not only for himself but for those he represents, is not willing to see this thing delayed anymore. Adams stated we have already had delays in this project and though some of the delays have cost the City money because we're back here again, doing what should have been done a long time ago and that for whatever reason the project did not get off the ground the way it should have been was by no way anyone's fault sitting at the Council table this evening. Adams said delays cost money and he was not in favor of re designing this intersection. He said he wanted it built and he wanted to make it safe. Adams said someone was going to get killed in this intersection someday and he didn't want to be responsible for any delay which makes that event more likely. Adams also said that he is going into this completely with the thought that we don't have to spend the money that is estimated to go forward. He felt it has been beat into the ground and no one can say what land acquisition costs are going to run right now. Obviously, with the delays that have already taken place, construction costs go up but he would hope we are not going to spend the entire $330,000. He assumes that when we do not do so that there will be those coming forward to congratulate the council for doing so. Councilor Fleming, read for the record, the second paragraph of a letter sent by the mayor to Council. "According to the State Board of Accounts the advertisement and the ordinance may read for the above three costs for the total amount. The amounts for each do not have to be separated or fixed. At this time, all costs are estimated. We obviously don't know, for sure, how much the right-of-way will cost and the construction cost can not be firmly determined until the bids are let. The engineering fees are based a percentage of the construction." Councilor Potasnik, in response to Mr. Kendall's inquiring with regards to what is going to happen with the traffic configuration during construction, asked if this is the time to determine that or imagined this to not even be a part of this section. Potasnik cited the Lake Forrest project and stated there were a lot of problems with regards to traffic and directional signalization but this didn't seem like the time or the place to ask these types of questions. Mayor Hancock stated that is something that would be determined by the Board of Public Works to look at the safety and the best way to handle the traffic through there. It seemed to Councilor Potasnik, as well, that after the situation the City had in regards to Lake Forest, the BPW passed guidelines as to safety and all of this with regards to construction and traffic. Councilor Lonzo stated that like Adams, not only does he pass through that intersection twice a day but every member of his family passes through that at least twice a day. He said he is going to be deeply distraught if he leaves this Council and this intersection hasn't been taken care of. Lonzo stated that was one of the his high priorities for running for Council. Lonzo said two major things have occurred in his mind with regard to this intersection since the last time the Council reviewed the plans. One is the Council has received the recommendation of the 116th Street Task Force and, should the Council decide to adopt any or all of those recommendations, he would like to know what impact that will have on this intersection. Also he didn't fully envision where a major north-south artery would be placed and certainly part of his vote on the George Sweet, American Aggregates project was based on now envisioning where Hazeldell might come through, hopefully all the way to 96th Street. Councilor Lonzo said it would be his desire to see this come back, two weeks from tonight, and have the engineers here to answer some of the questions about the design. Councilor Irvin seconded Mr. Lonzo's motion to postpone it if that isn't going to put the City in any kind of a bind. Councilor Irvin asked what are the deadlines? Mayor Hancock said it was going to take some time for right-of-way and it will happen whenever the money is available. The engineers won't start until the money is there. The mayor stated that American Aggregates donated the right-of-way on the northeast corner. Councilor Irvin also wanted the engineers to come back and answer some of the questions that were raised this evening. Irvin also asked for everyone to accept his comments in the context that they were meant. Irvin said the way he feels is that he is not running for any office and he is not raising any hell to get any votes and he hoped that was the case for everyone here. He understood the right to disagree but he didn't have to assassinate anyone because they disagreed. Councilor Lonzo said he could be persuaded to vote to suspend the rules and didn't think he would hear anything from the engineers that would cause him to vote no on this because he felt it was so important to get this done. Lonzo said he didn't really make a motion but merely made the point that if it were brought up to suspend the rules that he would vote no, unless persuaded to vote the other way. Lonzo also stated he would be gone for the next meeting and would have to pass his questions off to another council member. Councilor Lonzo stated that the public hearing has been closed, the rules are the Council rules and that the Council is under no obligation whatsoever to open it up to another public hearing and he thought he had been really good about when the Council felt there was a necessity open it up to public input. Lonzo said if the mayor was calling for a ruling that was his ruling. The mayor said she was. The mayor said this would come back before the next meeting unless there was further discussion from the Council. There was none. ORDINANCE D-696/PUBLIC HEARING/ENFORCEMENT AID FUND/$211,650/1991 Councilor Potasnik made a motion to introduce D-696. BUDGET TOTAL: The motion was seconded by Councilor Adams. Councilor Potasnik asked if the public wanted to hear this ordinance. Mr. Kendall and Mr. Quinn raised their hands. Mayor Hancock asked the clerk to read the ordinance. Mayor Hancock asked Carmel Police Chief Gary Barney to explain the enforcement aid fund to the public and to the Council. Barney said this was a continuation of last year's budget. Barney also stated this fund was established to administer a federal grant and the $211,650 was a cap of the project. The actual county-wide grant is $157,427.60 of which Carmel is the lead agency and the money is dispensed through the clerk-treasurer's office. The amount of funds the city would be putting up, 50%, is already in the city budget for 1991. Barney stated he returned unused monies in the amount of $40,000, the amount saved by paying 50% of the officers salaries, to the general fund last year. Barney said he also returned approximately $283,000 out of a $3 million police budget back to the general fund last year and felt that was fiscal responsibility. Barney also stated funds were deposited into this fund from seizing money, cars and weapons on investigations. This project is a metro project and includes all of Hamilton County. At this time, Councilor Adams disqualified himself from all proceedings and considerations of this ordinance. The mayor then opened the hearing to the public for questions, comments or objections. Mr. Jim Quinn, 3129 Jason Street, asked the Council if this grant had any stipulations with regards to the Drug Free Work Place Act of 1989. Mr. Quinn stated there are certain corporations and governmental bodies which are required to be in compliance with the Drug Free Work Place Act of 1989 that receive grants over $50,000. Mr. Quinn wanted to know if this grant is covered under that particular federal law? Chief Barney stated it was not and was strictly an enforcement grant. City Attorney Andrews said that was not the question and understood what Mr. Quinn was asking and that did not know the answer but would look into it. Don Silvey, Commonwealth Engineers, stated that he was aware of this act and it might be done like the state highway grants in that the city goes on record they would be willing to do so but doesn't really go through the motions until asked to do so by the federal government. Andrews reviewed the grant during the general discussions and stated the grant falls under the guidelines of the Hatch Act, Fair Labors Standards Act and the 1964 Civic Rights Act but it does not mention the Drug Free Work Place Act of 1989. Hearing no further questions from the public, the mayor closed the hearing and opened it to the Council for questions. Councilor Lonzo asked Andrews if he felt comfortable in going ahead with this. Andrews stated he was. Councilor Lonzo made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-696 tonight. The motion was seconded by Councilor Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Mayor Hancock called for the question. All members, except Councilor Adams, voted aye. Adams did not vote. Councilor Adams ORDINANCES S-52 AND A-64/UTILITY BUDGETS FOR 1991: made a motion to introduce Ordinance S-52 and A-64 and suspend with the reading unless a member of the public wanted the ordinances read. The motion was seconded by Councilor Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Quinn asked for the reading of these two ordinances. After the reading of the ordinance, Mayor Hancock stated that at the Board of Public Works meeting tonight, the Board did approve these two budgets and recommended their approval from the Council. Councilor Lonzo stated as parliamentarian, that the Council is absolutely under no obligation to have the clerk-treasurer read these if we decide to suspend the rules. Lonzo said he thought this was a great example of why we should not read the ordinances and this is the reason we receive our packets the week before. Lonzo said it was obvious to him that members of the public, including those who asked to have it read, had copies in advance and any member of the public could get these in advance. Lonzo asked the clerk-treasurer if that was correct. The clerk stated it was. Even though the Council may continue to extend this privilege to anyone who didn't bother to get copies, Lonzo again reminded the Council they were under no obligation. Jim Dougherty, utilities manager, stated he had met with the mayor, Councilor Ogle and Councilor Potasnik and had gone over these budgets in some detail prior to presenting them tonight. Dougherty started with the water budget and handed out revised copies of the budget. A typo was noted under Administration & General Expense, item 667.8 should have been $6,000 and item 675.8 should have been $4,881. The total of $395,602 did not change. This was merely a typing error. Mr. Dougherty then passed out a summary. (See attached) Dougherty explained and reviewed the increases and decreases in the budgets over previous years. At this time, the clerk-treasurer stated for the record that in the water budget she did not ask for travel money and asked that item be deleted. She also stated she did ask for Training and Instruction money in the amount of $1,250 from both the water and sewer budget. The sewer budget showed a total of $2,500 and the water budget did not have that line item at all. Councilor Lonzo made a motion to delete the amount of $600.00 for travel under the clerk account in the water budget and add $1,250 for training and instruction in A-64 and change the sewer budget for training and instruction S-52 from $2,500 to $1,250. The motion was seconded by Councilor Adams. All members voted aye. Councilor Irvin then made a motion to have the following language included in both A-64 and S-52. " Transfers from one control account to another and/or additional appropriations may be made by resolution of this council at any regular public meeting." The motion was seconded by Councilor Potasnik. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik stated this language was consistent with language in past ordinances regarding the water and sewer budgets and to be consistent with the procedure that is used in dealing with these type of transactions for all other departments. Councilor Irvin asked Dougherty if he would comment on the fact that if you add the two budgets together, it showed a $45,000 decrease over last year. Dougherty stated that would be like adding apples and oranges together but yes, that is the way it worked out. Councilor Irvin stated he thought it was commendable. Dougherty stated the water budget is up but the sewer is down. Dougherty explained the reason the water budget was an increase was because of the $96,000 water tower project and administration costs were up. Mayor Hancock asked Dougherty to discuss the decreases in the sewer budget. Again, Dougherty passed out a summary of costs over the past few years. (See attached) Dougherty did state the figures are budgeted close to the belt this year and he may have to come back to additional funds should there be a crisis. Mayor Hancock apologized to the Council for any inconvenience the delay in getting these budgets passed may have caused but this very tight budgeting process took some time. Councilor Lonzo stated for the record that it has been charged by some that the reason we did not get a budget in December was because there may be a huge increase in the rates on the horizon and asked for Mr. Dougherty's opinion on this. Mr. Dougherty stated he was unaware of any increases. Mayor Hancock then read a letter into the record from Mr. Umbaugh regarding a possible need for a rate increase. "In assisting the City with the preparation of the 1991 sewer operating budget (and the other one says water budget), and at the same time doing a preliminary analysis and review for the sewage (water) works, it would appear unlikely that a sewer (water) rate increase would be necessary based upon current estimates. Deviation from the proposed budget, could of course, have a severe severe impact on the sewage (water) works revenue needs." The Mayor said that Umbaugh explained to her that if the City went into any major construction would make a difference in the water rates or sewer rates. Hancock also had a letter from Don Silvey, who she said looks to the future for the City. Hancock read that letter into the minutes. "Per your request, I have reviewed the 1991 revenue and expenditures and the 1991 budget for the water and waste water department. Based upon the review and proposed needed improvements to the two systems, the proposed budget appears reasonable with adequate funds for operations and would not anticipate any rate increases on either system in the foreseeable future." Hancock said Silvey wrote this not as the fiscal consultant but as the engineer who looks at the city's projects and operations. Hancock went through the final figures for the Council's consideration. She had the grand total of the operating expenses after the amendment in the sewer utility of $2,178,711 with a grand combined total of $2,564,023. The total operating fund for the water of $1,520,071 with a grand combined total of $1,866,982. Councilor Adams made a motion to act on both budgets as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilor Lonzo. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Mayor Hancock called for the question. All members voted aye. Ordinances S-52 and A-64 passed unanimously. Councilor Irvin made a COMMUNICATIONS CENTER/CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT: motion to approve a claim to TA Electronics in the amount of $,8246.15. The motion was seconded by Councilor Ogle. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Councilor Potasnik made a motion to cancel NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: the April 1, 1991 Council meeting but stated the Mayor had the option to call a special meeting on April 8, 1991 if necessary. The motion was seconded by Councilor Lonzo. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Next meeting of the Council, unless the Mayor calls a special meeting for April 8, will be on April 15, 1991. There being no further business before the Council the meeting was duly adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Susan W. Jones, Clerk-Treasurer Approved: Presiding officer ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, Clerk-Treasurer