Laserfiche WebLink
11213 <br /> In respon'se to question, Assistant' City Attorney Maloney <br /> referred to Section 55 of the Charter relating to Annual <br /> Tax Levy -and advised- that the City may budget for a re- <br /> serve account. - - - - - <br /> City Manager Fales pointed out that since the adoption <br /> of the budget, an unanticipated bill in the amount of : - <br /> $80,000 from the State relating to workmens-compensation <br /> insurance was received and had _to be paid- from the very <br /> nominal reserve of the City. Mr. Fales suggested that <br /> had the $80,000 bill be anticipated, provision would <br /> have been made for its payment. in"the- 1975=76 budget . <br /> Statement was made that it had been understood by some <br /> Council members that the tax rate had to be estimated <br /> at the time of adoption of an annual budget since <br /> assessed- valuation is not- known- at that -time, but that <br /> should the valuation be greater thairJ_that expected, <br /> then the tax rate would be reduced accordingly, but the <br /> City could not increase the budget, even--to provide a <br /> more adequate reserve fund. Mr. Fales suggested -that <br /> such may have been the custom in the City, but it is <br /> not the law, although precedent is important' in -taking <br /> action of the kind proposed . <br /> - <br /> In further response to question; Mr. Maloney advised <br /> that in the event of an emergency or major catastrophe, <br /> Section 56 of -the Charter relating to Limit of Tax Levy <br /> contains provisions which might make it possible to ' <br /> raise the tax levy above the $2 .00 limit . - <br /> Discussion followed regarding-the desirability of main- <br /> taining adequate reserves to' meet unexpected needs of <br /> the City; the continuing concern of some Council members <br /> with regard to the nominal reserve margin available to <br /> the City after its needs are= met; -the burden on taxpayers <br /> created by the rather inequitable property tax; the need <br /> for tax reform generally; and the desirability of under- <br /> taking the research required to determine whether 'or not <br /> the action suggested by the motion_ has ever occurred in <br /> Redwood City. - - ' <br /> The motion failed by majority voice vote . <br /> MOTION: Title having been read,• Councilman -Norris 'in- <br /> troduced the following ordinance and-moved, seconded by <br /> Councilman Henderson, its- approval for first reading :- <br /> - AN ORDINANCE FIXING THE AMOUNT -OF MONEY TO BE - <br /> RAISED BY TAXATION UPON THE TAXABLE PROPERTY- _- <br /> WITHIN THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AS REVENUE TO <br /> CARRY ON THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF SAID CITY <br /> -FOR THE FISCAL YEAR -1975-19/6, TO PAY THE BONDED <br /> INDEBTEDNESS OF SAID CITY FALLING DUE AND BE- <br /> ' COMING PAYABLE DURING SAID FISCAL YEAR' TOGETHER <br /> WITH THE INTEREST THEREON, TO MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC` - <br /> LIBRARY OF SAID CITY DURING SAID FISCAL YEAR, TO <br /> PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE RETIREMENT PLAN, TO PROVIDE <br /> - FUNDS FOR PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1, AND FIXING- AND <br /> LEVYING THE TAX RATE THEREFOR <br /> -7- <br /> Reg.Mtg. <br /> 8/25/75 <br />