City Council Reviews Proposed Budget

Print

Published on March 20 2019 10:50 am
Last Updated on March 20 2019 10:50 am
Written by Greg Sapp

Effingham City Council members participated in an hour-long review of the proposed city budget Tuesday night. The City's new fiscal year will begin May 1.

City Administrator Steve Miller said the proposed budget totals about $90 million, although that figure includes $10 million in fund transfers.

As the Council went through the proposal, one change was made. Heather Mumma and Jim Beam, who work locally on animal rights, made a pitch for adding an office and a meeting room at the Animal Shelter. The City provides the Shelter, but the County oversees its operation. Mumma is the County Board's representative on the project, while Beam is the founder of EARS and has worked on behalf of animal care for a number of years.

The Council agreed to the recommendation of the improvements to the Shelter, so added $80,000 to the budget for the improvements. To keep the budget balanced, members decided to delete design work on an extension of Heritage Avenue from Henrietta Street to Medical Park Drive.

Miller said the Council also discussed adding an IT person and also adding a shift supervisor in the telecommunications department.

The Council will vote to pass the budget in April.

During the Council's regular meeting Tuesday night, action was taken to purchase chemicals for the water treatment plant and rock for street maintenance projects. The Council vacated a portion of Henrietta Street, north of Wabash Avenue on the east side of the street. Also approved was a design for improvements at the street and sewer facility, and a plat of HG Development Subdivision, which will include the site of a 21,000 square foot two-story office building that will connected to the existing J&J Ventures building in the City Business Park.

Council members discussed a new software program to monitor the water treatment process, and discussed utilizing West and Company for audit services. The consensus was to go with a one-year contract rather than a multi-year agreement, as the City might take bids on the work in the future.