01/10/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to recommend Pat Hocken be reappointed for a three-year term ending February 1, 1981. In response to a question from Mr. Haws regarding past policy of ~ appointment, Manager said members of the previous working study committee were appointed to the Commission traditionally by a motion approved by Council. Ms. Smith noted the Council did not go through the interview process for the prior appointment. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. E. Audit Report--Response to Councilor Delay's questions distributed. Manager reviewed the memorandum which responded to the audit firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. comments with regard to budget compliance. The first comment dealt with two items of expenditure in excess of the amount appropriated on a program basis. It was found the auditors made a transposition error in the supporting work sheets which were used. The second comment concerned the format of the City's pdopted budget in that it did not appear to comply with one of the fonnats outlined by the auditors. Manager noted the City had been. in compl i ance with the 1971 legislative local budget law to permit "program" budgeting according to an informal ruling of a representative at the State Revenue Department. He said there had been no substantial change in that law, and felt it was a matter of interpretation of the law in some respects. The City feels it was correct in its format, although ~ some adjustments might be made in adopting the budget ordinance in the future. He noted it was no major problem. The third comment was on the procedure used for a supplemental budget adopted May 10, 1978, by the City Council. The State Attorney General's office had offered an opinion April 10, 1978, which required the use of the Budget Committee in the supplemental budget adoption process. The opinion was not received by the City until May 15, 1978, five days after the Council had acted on the budget adopted May 10, 1978. However, Manager noted the City had since followed the procedures as outlined by the State Attorney General. The final comment had to do with the City's practice of treating the City's property tax levies for intersection paving as a serial levy, exempt from the constitutional six-percent limitation. The auditors indicated that should be counted within the six-percent limitation. However, Manager noted that an election had been held in 1926 and had authorized the City to levy that serial tax. This was part of the old City Charter. The City Attorney's office feels the new Charter does not repeal that authorization. Manager suggested that perhaps the City auditors should meet with the City Attorney's office for more clariflcation. . IIf 1/10/79--4