Laserfiche WebLink
2151 <br />on order for use at Redwood Shores, and if not needed there, will replace <br />Engine No. 2, which has mechanical problems which cannot be corrected and is <br />a hazard. Engine No. 6 also needed replacement. <br />He noted that fire apparatus has been rising in cost 10% per year, and recommendation <br />is to include fire engines as requested. He responded to Council questions concern- <br />ing condition of <br />the present <br />equipment, <br />and <br />again explained <br />delivery requires at <br />least 18 months. <br />Fire Chief <br />confirmed <br />that <br />the engines in <br />question were deteri- <br />orated, and responded to Council questions. <br />Auditor -Accountant then reported on Police vehicles, advising there are 21 cars. <br />A request for 1 Backhoe Loader was discussed at length. Mayor Bury felt the <br />item could be deleted from the budget, since it appeared to be non -emergency <br />equipment, and Councilman Arnett so moved, seconded by Councilman Keckley, <br />Councilman Weymouth requested comment from the department in charge of this <br />equipment. Water Operations Supervisor stated the backhoe is classified as <br />emergency equipment and was used for repairs of water mains. He advised there <br />are frequent major breaks in water mains 4" and larger, for which the backhoe <br />is used; and the one the Department is down for repairs at present. There was <br />discussion of possibility of leasing this equipment, and response was that it <br />is necessary to have the equipment available on 24-hour basis, primarily for <br />maintenance and repair, noting the system in Redwood City was installed in <br />1908 or earlier. Councilman Petersen spoke in favor of retaining the backhoe <br />in the budget. Councilman Arnett, as maker of the motion, requested holding <br />the item pending clarification of age and condition of existing equipment. <br />Acct. 485 (Employee Retirement) - Approved as submitted. <br />Acct. 486 (Other Non -Departmental Expenses) - City Manager reviewed the item for <br />PROBE of $8,000 as explained in report of March 13, 1970 of the PROBE Committee <br />in which the Committee recommended to Council, on motion of Councilman Henderson, <br />seconded by Councilman Rosselli and carried, that (1) Staff be directed to <br />prepare resolution to implement funds to PROBE budget in the amount of $2,000; <br />and that (2) Council consider at upcoming budget session PROBE funding as <br />follows: $3,000 available July 1, 1970, and $5,000 payable in March 1971. <br />Fiscal year of PROBE runs April to March and adjustment was to provide for <br />transition to their budgetary year. <br />Acct. 510 (Police Protection) <br />Discussion <br />and questioning <br />held on various accounts <br />explained by Staff, <br />including <br />request of <br />Police Chief for <br />additional $1500 being <br />added to his Budget <br />for <br />