CC MINUTES 06261979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- Motion by Councilman Letourneau and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to approve the proposal for the diversion of the City' s sanitary isewer flow into MWCC lines through Roseville, as made by Short- Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. , and to direct the City Manager to send the request to the MWCC and to seek official approval of the improve- ment of Roseville as a supporting document. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Sauer said he was concerned that City employees "not make money out of the use of their own vehicles" , but when Councilman Ranallo told him the private sector considers 174� or 18fi per mile to be reasonable reimbursement, made the following: Motion by Councilman Sauer and seconded by Mayor Haik to adopt the resolution which increases the rate of reimbursement for use of employees ' vehicles to 17� per mile considering such reimbursement to be reasonable ones . RESOLUTION 79-039 A RESOLUTION INCREASING THE RATE OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE USE OF AN EMPLOYEE'S VEHICLE FOR OFFI- CIAL CITY BUSINESS Motion carried unanimously. • An alternative to Resolution 79-040 which would allow the City ' s levy limit base per capita to be increased to 85% of the County average was offered by the Manager in Resolution 79-040A, which would provide for submission of a proposed 1980 budget which will result in not more than a suggested 8% increase in the total pro- perty tax levy for taxes payable in 1980 . Councilmen Ranallo and Letourneau opposed taking the levy base increase which had been provided by the 1979 Legislature because there are no provisions for resident reaction through referendum to the $44 , 381 raise even though that amount might not"be utilized, especially since City services had not been cut after the previous levy limit base in- crease had been voted down and there was no guarantee a future Council deciding on whether to take the levy base increase would be as "conservative as this one . " Mayor Haik said conversations she has had with residents since the referendum had led her to believe there was much misunderstanding of the 10% raise which many believed would raise their total tax bill that much rather than applied only to the taxes the City takes . She and the Manager agreed the City might not face a crisis in 1980 but future programs such as the diversion of the sanitary sewer flow into Roseville, street overlays, sewer repairs , loss of revenues , and inflation in expenditures caused them to believe it is the re- sponsibility of the City to plan now' to avert fiscal problems in the future. They also denied that immediate curtailment of City • services had been claimed and Mr. Fornell reiterated in response to a question from Councilman Ranallo that the changes in the property tax system would not provide a tax bonus for the City. The Manager saw the request for the raise as only giving the City flexibility in 1981 and 1982 of coping with anticipated expenditure increases