Laserfiche WebLink
59 <br />CITY OF COLTON <br />TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council <br />FROM: Hani W. Gabriel, Economic Development Diir�ctor� t 16 <br />APPROVAL: Nabar Enrique Martinez, City Manager///' <br />SUBJECT: Status of the Cemetery Operation <br />TE: July 9, 1996 <br />This memorandum is written to provide the Mayor and City Council <br />members with a status of the Cemetery operations, showing changes to the <br />operation and any impact from those changes: <br />BUDGET DELIBERATIONS <br />* May 31, 1996: Over the past two months, the City Council has <br />considered and discussed several proposals for the Cemetery operation, <br />beginning with a proposal at the budget hearings on May 31, which was <br />denied. That initial proposal consisted of 2 Maintenance Workers and yz the <br />time of a Customer Service Representative, with a projected deficit of <br />approximately $75,000. <br />June 18, 1996: The revised proposal was approved on June 18. This <br />budget consisted of 2 Maintenance Workers (to perform services and <br />provide special care and maintenance), no Customer Service Representative <br />(since that function was transferred to the Finance Department) and the <br />maintenance of the grounds through a landscape maintenance contract, and <br />is balanced upon a loan from the General Fund of approximately $25,000. <br />The two Maintenance Worker positions are levels 11 and III; the Worker III <br />position will be responsible for meeting with Cemetery customers and <br />scheduling burial services. In accordance with the approved budget for FY <br />96-97, the Economic Development Department will continue to maintain <br />responsibility of the Cemetery (assigned to John Fleming). <br />OPERATIONAL ISSUES <br />` June 4, 1996: During the budget hearings of June 4, the issue of <br />Cemetery employee layoffs was brought up at the Council meeting. An <br />employee of the Cemetery requested consideration for exceptions for the <br />two existing employees. Staff responded by stating that this was both a <br />personnel and legal issue and that they will review the request and its legal <br />implications and return to the Council, in closed session, on June 18, 1996. <br />The Council did not have time to consider the item and it was then <br />continued from that meeting to the meeting of July 2nd. At that meeting, <br />the Council was briefed in closed session and no action was taken regarding <br />the request. As discussed at the meeting of July 2, 1996, staff will return <br />T4-,, XTn 99: <br />