02/27/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t M~. Obie stated he had met with Mr. Drapela last week and felt that at that time, Mr. Drapela was supporting Alternative One, but that he would still speak for the motion he had made. On page 2, the cuts seem to ~' be a reasonable list of cuts taking a broad cross-section of the department. ~ He could not justify maintaining and operating the ball fields. He also stated he firmly hoped that when the Community Development hearing was held that $23,000 be allocated for Jefferson Pool rehabilitation. He further suggested that the City take another look at its revenue situation since there may be some increased revenues which could be put to use in this matter. Alternative One seems to be the best solution to a bad situation. Ms. Miller asked for clarification on the uses of funds set aside for parking spaces at the Overpark and the Parcade. Mr. Henry responded that the Downtown Development District pays the Parks Department to administer the parking lots. Ms. Miller then suggested that perhaps the Downtown Development District would like to pay for a swimming pool. She further stated in looking over the engineer's report, that the engi- neer's Option One stated that the repairs need to be immediate and she would like clarification on what immediate should be. Mr. Drapela stated he felt the engineer meant that the repair needs to be done as soon as possible. Whether that would occur during the scheduled shutdown time or during the summer, or next fall, it should be done at a time when the roof repairs could also be made. They would like to reduce interruptions to users of the pool to the extent that they could. Ms. Miller stated that it seemed the repairs could be made during the ~ scheduled shutdown time and savings from the shutdown could be applied ~ to rehabilitation. Ms. Miller stated she does not wish to put the repairs off in hopes that the Community Development funds could be used. Mr. Delay stated he would like to clarify the situation with regard to the Community Development Committee. First, the committee decided that it would take no action on this year's grant proposal. He stated there was an accumulation of $79,000 in contingency funds from the previous years' grants and that money could be used on pool rehabilitation if the City and the core area neighborhood groups were involved together with the committee. He stated the $23,000 needed for repairs could not come from Neighborhood Block Grants. These funds cannot be used for operation and maintenance. These kinds of things should come out of the General Fund. He stated, however, that he does think the group will come to an agreement. He then asked if it was better to make across-the-board cuts that would affect more people a little rather than affecting fewer people a lot. He asked Mr. Drapela if Alternatives One and Two were better options than closing the pools and if so, why they had not been considered earlier. He then asked if the council should go with Alternative One or Alternative Two. He felt the Jefferson Pool should be repaired while it is closed. . Mr. Drapela stated that the staff had reviewed all the alternatives and the ones listed for alternative cuts on this memo were services the staff had considered at the time of the six-percent rollback. At that time, s~aff ~as ask~d to not pursue certain projects. Therefore, these reduc- tlons ln serVlces can be made at this time and no controversy is expected. e 2/27/80--12