1966 191-219 6-8 to 6-20-1966 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

194 the reduction at this time, since the Council has not completed studies of the enterprise and utility sections of the Budget. Councilman Keckley concurred. Councilman Petersen stated he had no objection to the motion to reduce by an addi- tional .03¢, but believes the Council should talk about all the aspects of the financial operations of the City, including the utilities and enterprises. Council- man Keckley pointed out that the Council had requested a report on the possible income which would accrue from an enactment of motel -hotel tax, cigarette tax, etc., and these estimates had not yet been considered. Councilman Rosselli pointed out the length of time the Budget had been in the hands of the individual members of the Council for study, but wanted the new sources of revenue reported. Councilman Henderson reiterated her desire to study the capital improvement budget, the district budgets, and the revenue projections. The City Manager informed the Council that since the time the Budget was printed for distribution to the Council, unanticipated revenue had been received. Two dividends from compensation insurance, one in the amount of $8,782, the other $31,282, for a total of $40,064 had been received and would increase the projected cash surplus. If this sum is added to the net decrease in the Budget, it would bring the total decrease in the amount needed to be raised by taxation to $70,138 (approximately .0554 when applied to estimated secured assessed valuation). After further discussion the Council expressed the desire that the reduction in the proposed tax rate should be at least .052¢ to bring it into line with the current tax rate for the fiscal year. Councilman Henderson stated she had in mind some items which might add to the Budget, referring specifically to the Friendly Acres Water System, and again pointed out that the Council should determine what the Budget should cover before settling on the tax rate. On roll call vote, on the motion to reduce the tax rate, Councilmen Bury, Granger, and Rosselli voted yes, Councilmen Henderson, Keckley, Petersen, and Mayor Herkner noted no. The Mayor pointed out that his no vote indicated the desire for further study of the Budget. There was a prolonged discussion concerning the next Budget Study session date, during which discussion Councilman Granger moved that his motion be reconsidered. There was no second. Councilman Henderson moved that the next Budget session be set at 11:00 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15th, seconded by Councilman Keckley. Under the question, it was revealed that a majority of Councilmen Could not be present at this time and the motion was withdrawn.' After further discussion, Councilman Keckley moved that the next Budget Study Session be at 11:00 a.m, on Thursday, June 16th, seconded by Councilman Henderson and carried on roll call vote, Councilman Granger voting no. On motion of Councilman Rosselli, seconded by Councilman Bury, meeting adjourned at 10:40 P. M. HELEN C. MOORE, City Clerk