06/29/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, e Res. No. 2698 - Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within and adjacent to Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision, and sanitary sewer construction within 160 feet north, south and east boundaries of Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision was read by number and title. Assessments for this improvement petition were: paving 90 percent and sewers 40 percent assessable within subdivision; no city costs. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2699 - Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer construction with Craigmont Subdivision was read by number and title. Assessments for this improvement petition were: paving and sewers 100 percent assessable within subdivision; city costs $2,000 for extra paving width. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Authorization to Pay Bills and Claims (list distributed to Council) e Res. No. 2700 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period June 13 through June 27, 1977 was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. v. City Audit Contract (memo and audit agreement distributed to Council) Manager explained this was an annual Council action for service provided by Coopers and Lybrand directly to Council. He noted with increased costs, the total contract was $29,500. Mr. Delay questioned the 33 percent increase, whether it was because of increased demands of time or an increase in the cost of personnel. Sherm Flogstad, Finance Department, said the increase came from both time and rates. Time spent had increased six percent in each of the past four years, but the dollar rate had remained the same. He felt the increase was justified as there had been no rate increase in the past four years. Mr. Haws wondered if it would be a good accounting practice to change auditors occasionall~ Mr. Flogstad said Coopers and Lybrand had been the auditors for 18 years, and were employees of the City Council. He said staff would be looking at such a change and would be making a recommen- dation to Council sometime in November. Mr. Williams had no aversion to change of auditors, but felt there should be a specific reason for doing so. His specific reservation in changing would be the substantial cost e in reeducating people who would be learning a new system. Mr. Flogstad agreed, noting the municipal auditing system is quite different from 5~ 6/29/77--3