CC_Minutes_2009_1012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 12, 2009 Page 10 Finance Director Miller noted that the City Council had suspended annual ongo- ing funding of Vehicle Replacement Funds in 2009; however, he noted that the Fire Vehicle Fund was a separate and distinct fund, which had previously set- aside $50 - $100,000 annually to address replacement cost needs of the depart- ment; and was suggested as a funding source for the proposed vehicle purchase. Mr. Miller clarified that the other departments did not have a separate fund that had been amassed over the years for ongoing vehicle replacements (i.e., Police, Street Maintenance, Parks), with only a nominal amount available of approxi- mately $100,000. Mr. Miller advised that the Fire Department had set aside an amount from each annual budget for vehicle and equipment depreciation, an ac- tual line item within the Fire Department's budget. Mr. Miller noted that the other departments did not make this provision and depreciation charges in those funds was insufficient to pay for anything beyond one year's needs, and could not provide long-term sustained funding, an ongoing challenge for the City's capital investment plan (CIP). Councilmember Johnson opined that it was his preference that the City would consider depreciation funding for other departments as well in the near future. Additional discussion included perception for funding a Fire vehicle when not funding other vehicles, even though the Fire Department's budget succeeded in providing for depreciation; value of assets for trading; trade comparisons for used vehicles between fire equipment and squads, depending on their condition. Councilmember Pust opined that the Fire Department had been responsible in its budgeting; however, she noted that the funds had been saved from general tax dollars, and could be used for other purposes, particularly when faced with current budget challenges. Councilmember Pust further opined that, as difficult of a dis- cussion as was indicated, the City Council needed to discuss the needs of other departments in addition to those of the Fire Department, even in light of their re- sponsible management. Councilmember Pust opined that the city's needs were the city's needs, and unless a fire truck was a higher need, money should not be spent on a fire truck, as the City didn't have the luxury at this time to reward the Fire Department as they should be rewarded, when compared with other unmet needs within the City. Acting Chief O'Neill briefly reviewed the City Council's creation, in the late 1980's or early 1990's, of a fund for replacement costs, particularly of major ve- hicle purchases such as those in the Fire Department. Acting Chief O'Neill noted the ages of four department units over 18 years or older; and noted that if the fund balance was utilized for another purpose, in the near future the Fire Department would be at a zero fund balance, with difficulties similar to other departments in attempting to replace vehicles and/or equipment and unable to do so. Acting Chief O'Neill recognized other pending budget discussions; however noted that the request was to go to bid, which would be a process of approximately six