06-08-83 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, .~ ~~ ~rq, r•i~ r. c Cli_t:y r;6U0C'i.1 .~IJiIC' Siy ~.9`i~S "~udi_t.: "enort '?'he Aud~cor i_nEormed th~ Gounci.~l that.: t'tere +aere some ~i.nterrund (Cont..) ad~t.t,tment:s that shoul.d bc macie. 'f~~~~ Aud~itur reported t:h~t. the C;i.ty has a collect~iori rate Eoe del.~inquent ttixes of 95% -i.n 74H?. Anythin; i.n the `)5`% to~LQC)% ran~:;e i, cons~i.dered a ~ood r.,ollect~ion r~ite. The Aiid~i.LOr i.nfornted tJ~ie counci7. tha.t tk~c Ci.ty's del.inquenc~i_es are :i.icreasi_n;. "I'1.-ie ].9°2 collection raCc. has :i.n~;~roveci, but ~i.s st.~i.J.t below the 901, mertc> 'Che Auditor recomn~end~d t,hat the Citq loo=:c ~i_nto w,i~s Co <,c-C thiesc taxes paid. Tize Auditor rc;po~.ted that somc cit;i.e~s wi_ll. not al.l.ow ex developer to buiLcl without paymeriC of dei:inc(uent tar.e ,. . . . <<i.s. Narcini. Stat_E;c tnat: ,~e a>sume< ~~t wa, T.ae CouciCy's re,pon;i_b~.12t:y to pet t:'.ixes col.l.ected. Thc :1udi.t;or replierl Chat ].e~;ally i.:l~~ev^e is noC. miich Che Citq can do, but just ~na!cin~ peopl.e awrirc that the City !<nomrs about_ the del.i_nquency could he1p. The Auditor stated t:kiaC Che caorst t:!iing the Cit.:~ can do :is notl~~ing. The Clerlc repox~teei that Ckic 1~ist of de.l.-inquencies is pririted i.n che .CF_gal. ,i,erlgrr. ~~1r. Rahey staCed Ch~.it 1~e ~aas i-ncLi.necl t.o ivi.thholbui.ld~i.n~ permiC unGi]. taxes xr•e X~aid, bDr. PorsbErf scat~cl that he di.d noC ~:~.int Co see thF del.:i.nquc.nc.i.es print<~~d in tPie paper, 1~>ut thc Oi.t:y could try Co do somathi_nf; on Cl~e City l.evel.. 1Rxs. Nzrcli.ni su{~p,estec,l that th~i.s be discuss~d when tl:ic City ACt:orne~ ~is o7resenC. Tho Aud~i.tor r~~pocted that tho City had a CTenera7. Tund bal.ance of ;C203,000 F~h~ich was a:G102,000 ~increase duri.ng; 19£~2. The Auditor repor[ed chat revenues were over bud~;eC buC tnere was a$ll,000 dP,rre,a.se for tax colLections. rvtrs. idardini_ asked the fis;ure~ C1'i,at Che ~1udi.tor recamnended the Ci.ty have i.n surplus. 'i'he Audi_tut- repl:i~-~d thaC: h~~_ recommends ,4~317,000, huC: t.he tmF~orcanf: th1_no i.s t.hat the CiY:y i_s wor~ic~i_ng t:owards ch~t ,n,oal. ti!rs, >calce aslcecl the Ci.cy's nrojected 1oca1. ;overnment aid. T,ie ~1erk renlied that. r;hea f~5;ure _is projectcd at i?_4p,pp0 for 1983 ;a~i.Cn a $60,~00 decreas~ i_n L984. 'fhe Aud~ieor repor[ed that the City's re.venue shar~i.n4; auclit raas made durinu 1932 and Cha~ audit: ha, been acca~ptecL 'Chere ~i_, ~ 1aw ch~nge ~>encl.i_ei~; Chet may maice C:~i.s audi.t nE~cessacy ~zm~ually, '1'h~ ~i.Cy G1er1< reported that dur~ing ].~1f33 res:i,dents would be cht:ir;;ed Fi.i11.y f.or t_tie removal o' rF~.se.asnd Cree>. t'he Au:hi.tor reported a parlc fimd bal,znce oi ~+126,000. The f~udi.t:or rcnorted that to 6a~C.ter def,.~i.ne the fund i.t ,hould be called a(,~pi_Cal ?roject ;~uta~{. nq„C _'