1987-03-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes March 10, 1987 Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Williams, to APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A NEW 3/4 TON VAN FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT FROM MIDWAY FORD FOR $11,054.00. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Berger briefly reviewed the staff report concerning high-perfor- mance copiers; stated the Committee believed the most important issues was to have two copiers. Berger indicated he just received information from Councilmember Schmidt regarding another copy machine which has similar features for less dollars; believes we should now look at the Panasonic copier. Schmidt indicated the information he gave Berger is from a Buyers Laboratory Report which indicates the Panasonic is the best buy for the features the city wants; asked staff to participate in the Buyers Laboratory, or with the League of Minnesota Cities so that we might get the best buy information. Motion by Williams, seconded by Schmidt, to DEFER ACTION ON THE COpy MACHINE UNTIL STAFF HAS EVALUATED THE PANASONIC COPIER. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Locke had nothing to add to the staff report concerning Ramsey County's valuation of New Brighton real estate, in response to the Planning Commission's resolution. Benke asked if we should ask these kinds of questions at the same time legislators are looking to overhaul the whole property tax system; and questioned if this is only in New Brighton or if it includes surrounding counties. Locke stated all property assessments are done by the County; believes those questions should be discussed by the Financial Policy Advisory Board to determine if this is something we want to pursue now or later. Gunderman had same concerns as Benke, but also concerned about those properties that are undervalued; we could get into the middle position of which the city should not be a part; believes there is a whole series of questions to be researched, realizing it may all be hypothetical. Brandt would like to see the question limited to that which the Planning Commission raised (equity between the owners of unimp- proved and improved real este). Brandt indicated we perhaps need to consider the relationship of other unimproved property in Ramsey County, but would not like to see this branched out at this point to the other types of property. Benke agreed with Brandt's logic, but wondered, if we once open the question of relative values, where the County would stop; and noted there are different ways of costing and benefitting. Page Six High-Performance Copier Report 87-74 Valuation of Real Estate Report 87-75