SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2001, AT 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, and Jim Ward. Council Member Edith Wiggins was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Finance Director Jim Baker, Police Captain Tony Oakley, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Parking Services Superintendent Brenda Jones, Human Resources Director Pat Thomas, Long Range Development Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Mr. Horton introduced the Town’s new Inspections Director, Lance Norris.
Item 1 – Council Discussion of Operating Budget and
Capital Improvements Program
Mr. Baker said the bottom line of the total budget for next year was up by 12%, with a portion of this increase due to increases in various departments. He said the total increase included the expenses for the annexation, of $1.370 million, and if this total were removed from the total increase, the percentage increase would be 7.8%.
Mr. Baker said the percentage increases for the individual departments did not follow a consistent pattern. For example, he said, in the Fleet Maintenance section of the Public Works Department budget the costs were being shifted and an internal service fund was being created. Mr. Baker explained how shifted costs such as this made the bottom lines of the departments appear to be different from past years. He reminded the Council that what appeared in the personnel expenses in each department reflected the full-year costs of the pay increases made last year, including the pay raises granted last year.
Council Member Strom asked if the Fleet Use Charge was for maintenance only, separate from Vehicle Replacement Charges. Mr. Baker said that was correct, and that the Fleet Use Charges included all of the personnel costs and the actual costs of repair, supplies, repair parts, and the like. He said that Vehicle Replacement and Computer Use Charges did not include indirect costs.
Council Member Evans asked if charges were removed from a department and charged to a separate fund, would that mean a reduction in the department’s costs. Mr. Baker said it would actually be an increase in the department’s budget because previously the majority of the costs appeared in the Public Works Department budget. He noted that on page 104 in the Recommended Budget, details of the expenditures were shown through the current year the way they had been counted, and in this proposed budget all of the expenses had been shifted to the other departments.
Council Member Evans asked if the cost shifting was being done with other expenses, such as copying. Mr. Horton responded that a number of items had gradually been shifted over a number of years as part of a more accurate report of costs within the departments
Mr. Baker pointed out an error on page 188 of the Recommended Budget. He said the figures shown in the summary table block for expenditures was a summary for expenditures for on-street parking, not off-street parking, and this would be corrected.
Council Member Foy asked why Workers’ Compensation Insurance was up significantly across the board. Mr. Baker said the Town was experiencing about a 20-22% increase this year and this was a State-wide phenomenon, adding there was a 15% increase in addition to the increased salaries. He added that there had been an increased cost of about 10% for health insurance for next year.
Item 2 – Human Resources Issues
Human Resources Director Pat Thomas summarized the recommendations:
Plans each year were tailored to meet specific goals:
· Lack of continuity—lots of time needed to develop and understand each year’s recommendations
· Confusion by Council, supervisors, employees on how pay increases
· Pay compression
Studies over 2-year period:
In 1999
· Conducted excessive review of pay structure
· Established a consistent structure with salary steps for career advancement and annual performances awards for longer term employees
In 2000
· Conducted review of competitive wages
· Established salary ranges at 75% percentile of the market
In both years
· Salary increases targeted to reduce compression
Results:
· Easier to explain to new employees
· Turnover is down 40%
· 8.9% through the 3rd quarter this year
· 12.4% in 1999-2000
· Enhanced recruitment and retention (except for bus drivers)
· Less salary compression
· Career advancement
Now that the structure is established:
· Council can focus on appropriate funding levels under the simpler pay plan
Recommendations on funding in 2001-2002:
· Pay range adjustments—2.75%
· Average merit increase above Job Rate—4.5%
· A thorough funding for step increases is recommended—step amounts 3.78% are established
Implemented October 5th:
· 389 employees below the Job Rate 220 employees above the Job Rate
· step increases for career progression average 4.5% performance increase
· 2.75% range adjustment for market
competitiveness
Council Member Strom asked how an employee moved from Step 2 to Step 3, was it length of time or performance. Ms. Thomas said it was basically time, but the employee had to have satisfactory performance before moving up a step. She said they would receive the probationary step up after their first six months, and after that it would be done annually. Ms. Thomas noted it took about 4-41/2 years to reach Job Rate.
Council Member Evans asked if each step represented an increase in salary. Ms. Thomas said it did—3.78% per step, adding that two-thirds of the employees will be increasing a step.
Council Member Strom asked if the step increase was the increase plus the 2.75%. Ms. Thomas said it was and it was each year until the employee reached the Job Rate.
Ms. Thomas continued with her presentation:
First component:
· Range adjustment—purpose is to address general changes in labor market and to keep salary ranges competitive
· 2.75% is recommended based on general market trends
· local
· market data for the last year—payroll increases averaged 4-5%
· national projections—3% schedule changes
· economic indicators such as inflation index—3.5% more
Second component:
· purpose—career advancement
· granted with satisfactory performance
· affects employees below Job Rate
· steps are 3.78%
Third component:
Performance increases
· Goals are to reward performance and encourage retention
· Potential for continued salary movement is important throughout employment
· Affects only long-term employees over the Job Rate
· Amount individual employee receives will vary based on performance rating
· 4.5% recommendation is based on projections of other employers
· Research Triangle area private employers project payroll increases 4% for hourly employees and 4.3%-4.6% for exempt employees
· Nationally employees project payroll increases 4% for hourly employees and 4.3-4.5% for exempt employees
· Too early in budget process for other local governments
Costs (salaries and benefits) for October 5, 2001:
· $1,074,000 all funds
· $816,600 General Fund
· $198,200 Transportation Fund
· $39,350 Housing Fund
· $19,800 Parking Fund
Ms. Thomas said the summary shows that 30% of the costs are reflected to do the 2.75% range adjustment, 37% of the costs step increases for job advancement, 4.5% average performance increase 33% of the costs.
Council Member Bateman suggested keeping the merit increase at the same rate as the step increase, 3.78%. Mr. Horton explained that 380 employees were below the Job Rate and those employees would be eligible for the 2.75% plus the 3.78%. He said that the employees at or above the Job Rate would be eligible only for a share at the 4.5% average level and range adjustments only apply below the Job Rate. Mr. Horton said those above the Job Rate receive only increases based on their performance review. He said noted that examples were located on page 9 of Agenda Item 2a.
Council Member Bateman asked how many people received a pay raise that were considered as needing improvement. Ms. Thomas said less than 10 people.
Council Member Foy pointed out that the Council had committed to the $287,200, and the Council should move on from there and not try to change that commitment. Mr. Horton pointed out that the Council had established a policy to compete at the 75th percentile.
Council Member Evans asked if the Council was going to make adjustments if it would be in the Range Adjustment numbers. Mr. Horton said the Council could look at changing the percentile range, and see what change that would amount to.
Council Member Evans said they could also look at the 4.5% performance increase. Mr. Horton said it was one of the policies the Council made each year.
Council Member Evans said this was going to be a very difficult time for the Town and for the community, because of what was happening at the University and State-wide, and she felt this issue needed to be looked at.
Council Member Strom pointed out that the 75th percentile remained a policy goal, but the other municipalities had not firmed up their budgets yet, so it was not possible to know where the 75th percentile would be. Ms. Thomas said the Town had only fallen about 1% behind the other municipalities, and about 6% behind the private sector. She explained that the Town would not know the exact percentage until after the other budgets were completed July 1. Mr. Horton said the Town of Chapel Hill was typically ahead of others in its budget work, but the staff would probably be able to report by the first of June about the recommendations of other communities. He urged the Council not to make any final decisions until after it was determined what other communities and the State would be doing. Mr. Horton said the University was not the Town’s primary competitor in the job market, but part of what was the general market for competition.
Council Member Foy asked why, in the chart on page 10, the total funds for FY 2001-2002, starting on October 5, 2001, were $1,074,000 and the Annualized Costs were $1,395,000. Ms. Thomas said that was the difference between implementing the changes on October 5 or July 1, 2001.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council ask the Manager to come back in a few weeks with the costs of a 2% range adjustment and a 4% adjustment.
Council Member Evans suggested costs at the 50th percentile. Mr. Horton said it could be done either way—by the numbers or by the percentile. Ms. Thomas said there was about 5% difference between the 50th percentile and the 75th percentile in the public sector market, and about 7-8% in the private sector market.
Council Member Ward said he would be interested in getting a picture of what the 50th percentile was, since the Council already knew more or less what the 75th percentile would be. He said the staff could give both the numbers and the 50th percentile.
Council Member Foy asked if the new positions were added into the budget numbers. Mr. Horton said the positions were figured separately and their costs were loaded in with each position. He said they were included in the 5.2 cents tax rate increase.
Council Member Foy asked that the added hours and new positions be broken out and also which ones related to annexation. Mr. Horton said that was available in the documents, which the Council already had, on pages 39-41, noting that the new annexation positions were listed on page 41. Mr. Horton said he could also break out the new positions not related to annexation. Council Member Foy asked that contract hours be added to the list.
Council Member Bateman said the position for a Recreation Specialist to serve people with special needs, which had been frozen for several years, should be funded. Mayor Waldorf asked if any other parks in the County had such a position. Council Member Bateman said that Orange County had such a type of position.
Item 3 – Engineering Issues
Mr. Horton said the essence of the Report, Cycle for Renewing Aerial Photography of Town’s Planning Jurisdiction, was that it would cost about $40,000 per year to have a cycle that allowed replacement data every four years, working in cooperation with the County, UNC, and others, and that data was essential. He said the price was better than if the Town did this on its own, noting it was budgeted in the CIP, and the staff recommended its approval.
Council Member Strom said this was more of a planning tool and wondered why it was not in the Planning Budget. Mr. Horton said that the resources, including the equipment, software, and the person who did most of the work, happened to be in the Engineering Department budget. He said ultimately it would be moved to the Information Technology Department, and, beyond that, would be in an Internal Services Fund and charged out to all the departments using it.
Council Member Strom said there was a fee structure in the Planning Department that had the potential to recover parts of the expenses. He felt it was a justified planning expense to go into the fee calculations for setting the fees. Mr. Horton said he agreed and the sooner it could be done the better.
Mr. Horton said that a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission had inquired about the location of the Resource Conservation District (RCD) on the Community Center property and what could be done with those portions of the property that were not within the RCD. He said a surveyor had delineated the RCD and the map was in the memo as Attachment 1.
Council Member Bateman said there was strong feeling on the Parks and Recreation Commission that the space needed to be maximized more. The Commission felt, she said, that there would not be an issue of parking, since most people using the Center would either be bicycling or walking.
Council Member Strom said there was some space for adding to the Community Center to provide more services to the citizens, and he would like to talk about that at some future time.
Council Member Foy asked what the schedule was for the swimming pool renovations at the Community Center, and, if there was one, would that be a good time for expansion of the Community Center. Ms. Loewenthal said they would be two different projects, which would cause disruption, making it difficult to continue with the programs while the projects were underway.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission should be asked to recommend specific add-ons to the Community Center so a review process could proceed.
Council Member Foy recommended returning the recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission back to them for further review.
Council Member Evans said this issue emphasized that the Council could not do everything for everyone, and the Council needed to decide what populations needed to be served, or what the priorities were. She said the Town did not have the money to do everything. Mr. Horton pointed out that, included in the Capital Improvements Program recommendations, was a proposal to study the Town’s space needs, so the Council could look at the future demands for space. He said it could be looked at as a whole, including Library expansion, Public Works and Transit relocation, the fact that Town Hall will not have space for the Information Technology Department, and, the Recreation Department needs for more space.
Council Member Ward said he wanted to get a clear picture on where the Town stood with the Northern Community Park, particularly what would get funded there in terms of the bond issue and how that would affect the long-term use of the Community Center property. He said he also would like more discussion on the Homestead Park issue, before more was done at the Community Center.
Council Member Brown said the Council needed to look at the requests from citizens and what the Council was also considering, and, at the same time, attempt to reduce the budget. She said she would have a difficult time voting for a budget with this level of increase. Council Member Brown said the Council could not have both—increased spending by add-ons, and holding the taxes down.
Mayor Waldorf said that she could not imagine adding this into the CIP for this year, but there was a long list of unfunded desirable CIP projects.
Council Member Evans said she hoped that the space needs study would include, under Buildings and Facilities, what the Town already owned. Mr. Horton said the space needs study would be a full projection of potential needs over a period of time, about 10-15 years, so the Council could build it into their thinking about the Capital Planning, which would cover all the functions and operations of the Town.
Council Member Foy said the County just finished a space needs study, and asked what such a study would cost. Mr. Horton said he did know.
Council Member Bateman said she would not support a $75,000 space needs study this year.
Mayor Waldorf said she did not know what a space needs study really was, but she felt that when a facilities study was done, the Council needed to have a discussion as to what was realistic. She said she did not want the Council to fall into the same trap that it had fallen into with the Aquatic Center, by not offering any fiscal framework or policy objectives.
Council Member Brown added that she had attended some of the Aquatic Committee’s meetings and they had listed a whole range of options—high end as well as low end for the Council’s consideration.
Council Member Ward said he supported the need for a space needs study, because it would give the Council a clearer 15-year CIP picture, and a critical part of that was to determine what the space needs were over the same period of time. He asked if there would be a cost-effective way of getting this study done that would give the Council the information it needed. Mr. Horton said the advantage of having the study done outside of the Town staff was that someone who knew how it should be done would undertake the study. He said there were intermediate means of getting the study done, indicating the Town needs, but it would not be as useful as it needed to be. Mr. Horton said that if the Council concluded that it could not afford to have a full-blown study using the best methodology, he felt the Town needed to do something, using some methodology.
Council Member Ward asked if it could be done by using square foot measurements on existing buildings divided by the number of staff to get some ball-park figures. Mr. Horton said the staff could probably use a graduate student to do that, since there already was money in the budget for an intern.
Mayor Waldorf said the conversation was really about some kind of bond issue that the Town would have to undertake. Mr. Horton said that the planning process, if started immediately, for the Public Works project would probably take about five years. He said a detailed study would be needed before the Council could float a bond issue.
Council Member Ward said he did not think that putting a graduate student to this task would be money well spent, if the needs were so critical. He said he would rather see that student work on something that would produce results that could be utilized. He said the Council could put the project into next year’s budget as a priority.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Manager, when time allowed, bring back to the Council recommendations for such a study. Mr. Horton said he would recommend that the Council not make any big decisions on needs until a professional study had been completed.
Council Member Bateman said that the recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Community Center should receive a response, that the Council would be undertaking a study at a later time.
Item 4 – Transportation Issues
a. Evaluation of Changes in Parking Meter Time Limits on West Rosemary Street.
Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka said the staff had looked at the usage of the parking meters and found the usage was very low. She said that daily revenue per metered parking space on West Rosemary Street was $1.40 per day, and mostly used during the lunch hour. Ms. Kuschatka said the Town would not lose any money by making the meters long-term as well as short-term, and that option might bring in more revenue. She said there would be a cost in converting the meters, but meters could be replaced according to the replacement schedule. Ms. Kuschatka said there would have to be an Ordinance change, because the existing Ordinance designated “two hour parking” for those meters.
Council Member Evans said there was a far greater opportunity in the western area of Town, and the parking spaces on Cameron Avenue did not turn over because students parked there all day long. She suggested that the Council look at Cameron Avenue, Roberson Street, and Graham Street, where parking meters had been removed, and suggested four-hour meters for those areas. Mr. Horton said that kind of study could be undertaken if the Council wished.
Mayor Waldorf asked the Council if it wished to have a study done to analyze a number of downtown streets for the potential of adding parking meters, or changing the parking regulations in order to capture revenue.
Council Member Ward said he was in favor of that. He said that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission had suggested that the Town be encouraged to put parking meters on Cameron Avenue. He said the Commission suggested that the meters be long-term, possibly eight hours, because there was a conflict between high turnover of parking spaces with the bicyclists who use Cameron Avenue to commute into campus.
Council Member Brown said these suggested streets were residential areas and she felt that would be getting into a difficult area, by spreading parking meters into residential areas, and this should be looked at carefully before making a decision.
Council Member Evans added that at the public housing on the corner of Roberson Street and Cameron Avenue she had noticed people parking there and walking to their jobs. She felt the Town needed to provide long-term parking so that other opportunities other than at the public housing were made available. Mr. Horton said the staff was still considering parking issues. He said he had noted that there was a huge demand for parking at peak hours during the middle of the day, usually by students, and believed that there was an opportunity to change the rates for parking at peak hours to discourage parking in the off-street lots and getting people on buses, and also to generate more revenue. Mr. Horton asked if the Council wanted the staff to pursue this study and bring back a report of the projected implications.
Council Member Evans said that a fare-free system might encourage people to use the buses. She added that the downtown businesses were looking at how they could continue to exist with competition from outside areas by providing free parking. Council Member Evans said she felt that it might be detrimental to the downtown businesses if the costs of the parking meters were raised, especially for the restaurants and the theatres.
Council Member Strom said he would be interested in the options offered by the staff and looked forward to further discussion of the parking issues, including the meters. He said he would like to have other options than just the four-hour meters.
Mayor Waldorf said that Council Member Brown had a good point about infringing on neighborhoods and this should be studied.
Council Member Brown reiterated her point and added that there still was towing on Cameron Avenue. Mr. Horton said the staff would not do anything without direction from the Council.
Item 5 – Other Issues
a. Report on Feasibility of Retaining a Federal Lobbyist for the Town.
Mayor Waldorf said this issue was “dead in the water” and did not need to be discussed. Mr. Horton asked for permission to go ahead and do the work through Representative David Price’s office. The Council agreed by consensus.
b. Proposed Position for Construction Management.
Mr. Horton stated that this area of work was getting more important and more time-consuming.
Ms. Loewenthal said the issue was raised again at the Council’s retreat as to whether to Town could save money by hiring a construction management person. She said the Town would save money, not quantified at this point, but more importantly, that without the position the staff was not sure it could spend the money appropriated this year for some of the projects for deferred maintenance. Ms. Loewenthal said it was easier to construct buildings from scratch, than to find architects and contractors who were willing to work on renovations. She said the renovation project had to be monitored on a daily basis, especially when situations arise which are unexpected during the course of the renovation. Ms. Loewenthal remarked that it was not just a question of time, but also a question of technical expertise.
Ms. Loewenthal noted that the position would:
· Be essential to the implementation of the recommendations of the Building Condition Assessment survey.
· Make implementation possible while continuing the present building maintenance program, which was expanding because of the expanding floor area and the increasing age of Town buildings.
· Help ensure that conditions uncovered during planned deferred maintenance work would be handled in a prudent, efficient and cost-effective manner.
· Help the Town keep up with capital maintenance and continuing assessment surveys, so the Town will not find itself in the position of having several facilities facing major deferred maintenance projects.
Council Member Strom asked if the proposed Construction Manager could take on a renovation project without having an architect involved. He said he could see tremendous savings if that Manager could see all parts of a project through without needing the services of an architect and a general contractor. Mr. Horton said if there was no deferred maintenance everything would be handled just as Council Member Strom described, but some of the major projects would have to be done with some outside sources, in order to play “catch up.”
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Town hired a Construction Manager would it save real money on architectural fees. Ms. Loewenthal said the savings would not come on architectural fees, but would come in a better use of the contractor’s money in about six deferred maintenance projects, and once those were done, money would be saved because the Town would not need an architect.
Council Member Strom said the Town was paying a great deal of money on those deferred maintenance projects, which made him very uncomfortable, because the Town ought to be getting the project oversight and projects phasing from the fees listed in the budget. Ms. Loewenthal said that usually architects’ fees did not include oversight of more than one visit a week to the site, and the oversight of the project itself was done by the staff, which took time.
Council Member Strom said he did not think the savings gained by hiring a Construction Manager were as great as he had thought when he brought the question of its feasibility to the staff in January. Mr. Horton said in the long run there would be the savings that Council Member Strom had thought would be possible. He said there would be savings by keeping projects on a regular maintenance schedule in order to do them a piece at a time, instead of having architects and engineers involved, and the Town would avoid the costs that come from deferring maintenance, where the buildings deteriorated.
Council Member Brown said she thought the Public Works Department was currently doing the maintenance. She asked, if a person was hired for the position, and after the initial period of catching up, would there then be that much savings over a period of time, over and above that which was being done by the Public Works Department. Mr. Horton said the reason the Town was having difficulty now was that the Public Works Department had not had sufficient resources and budget to provide the maintenance necessary. He noted that until this year, the Town did not have the resources necessary to do a full and thorough inspection and projection of all the maintenance costs which would have to be planned for over a long period of time.
Mayor Waldorf said she did not understand why an architect was necessary in order to improve buildings such as the Post Office and the IFC Shelter. Ms. Loewenthal said the distinction came in the list of projects, noted in Attachment 1, page 5, of the memo. Mr. Horton said an architect was necessary to prepare specifications, since there was no one on the staff capable of performing that task, and to prepare bids, adding that by law, the Town had to go through the bidding process.
Council Member Evans asked if the only person able to do those tasks would be an architect. Mr. Horton said the staff could do the work, if it had enough resources to hire a person trained on how to do specifications.
Council Member Evans asked if a contractor, in the future, could do the specifications. Mr. Horton said in the future, a person qualified to write up the specifications could handle simple projects, but other projects were more complex and would need someone with expertise to write up the many areas that needed to be addressed.
Council Member Brown asked if, after all the deferred maintenance was finished, was there a guarantee that if a person was hired for this position there would be savings in the future, or would the person’s contract be based on conditions of savings. Mr. Horton said the staff had identified fifteen years of costs on key buildings, and he felt that these costs would continue year after year. He said the Town needed someone who could tend to this, working along with Public Works, to get it done. Mr. Horton added there had been a need for this position for a long time and it would continue to be needed.
Council Member Strom said, looking at some of the projects needing to be done, that an in-house staff architect should be hired to prepare the speculations.
Mayor Waldorf said she agreed, and the idea of hiring a staff architect should be looked into. Mr. Horton said that an architect or an engineer would cost $20-30,000 more than the position of Construction Manager, but he felt it might be cheaper in both the short run as well as the long run.
Council Member Strom said he believed it would be cheaper immediately, since fees are a large percentage of the budget for renovation of the buildings. Mr. Horton said the staff could explore the feasibility of hiring an architect or engineer with skills in specification writing and preparing bid documents, and bring back a more informed proposal to the Council.
Council Member Brown said most architects were not skilled in designing swimming pools and needed to have a consultant, which was the case with the Aquatic Center. Ms. Loewenthal said that was one of the reasons that the architect fees for the A.D. Clark Pool were higher than for a normal building. Mr. Horton said they would look into this matter, and that the staff was struggling as to how it could manage the volume of work. He said the staff appreciated the Council’s guidance.
Council Member Ward asked if one person, doing all the things expected, would be able to keep up with all of the Town’s needs. Mr. Horton responded that one of the challenges would be to see if the Town could get all of the deferred maintenance projects finished in a short period of time by hiring just one additional person.
Council Member Brown said she would like to have the Council look at the possibility of reducing positions as they become obsolete. Mr. Horton said that was done every year.
Mayor Waldorf said she had met with Senator Dalton today in Raleigh, and had talked to Senator Howard Lee, about the negotiations with the University, and was reassured that the Senate leadership wanted to stay out of the discussions but would be watching the situation carefully.
Mayor Waldorf asked if there were any particular items that the staff wanted to discuss at the next work session regarding the CIP and budget. Mr. Horton said there were two key items: a follow-up report on the equipment replacement program, and inspection of commercial refuse collection operation.
Council Member Bateman asked the Council to look at the request that the Human Services Advisory Board made to increase its budget by 10%, an additional $17,000. She said she wanted to have a discussion regarding this request.
Mr. Horton said the staff inadvertently left out the request that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board made for $11,000 for funding of information programs, and would bring that to the next work session discussion.
Council Member Foy said he was interested in looking at the Human Services addition, and also wanted to continue to advocate for additional money for the Public Arts Commission.
Council Member Strom said $60,800 of worthy requests were on the list in the memo, and he would like to find a way of funding those through savings in other parts of the budget. He stated he would like to look at all of these, adding that they were relatively modest requests and would have a very broad positive social impact.
Mayor Waldorf reminded the Council that the Club Nova request could be considered as a program under Community Revitalization. Mr. Horton said it could be considered as an economic development item, or some other category.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.