CHC 1979-06-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MR. CADINHA: The billing is the same, isn ' t it? MAYOR MATAYOSHI : Yes, because all of the billings and sewer systems are geared to the use of the volume of water. That is how the fees are set up. So I assume city and county went to merge it together. I don ' t know what happened. I don ' t know. I ' ll have to talk to Ed about that. I was reading the 5th Session meeting and you were talking about the department of finance and the problems that are related to it. I think the way it is set up now in the department of finance is fine. The divisions of the treasurer,7with Frank and the purchasing department and the accounts division under Takeo are the three divisions and the program audit, four divisions really under the •department _of finance I think works out very well . As far as movement,- or some functions being shifted to other areas , it could well be. Like the internal auditor and things like that could very well switch over. But that is not a charter issue. I. think, as far as the functions of the treasurer, purchaser and accounts , this is Irthi-nk the way it runs. MRS. KOBAYASHI : We have been getting testimony about limiting the property taxes in various ways on residences if you sell. Do you think that is something that should be in the charter? MAYOR MATAYOSHI : Let me say the first day, I think , I testified, I suggested some kind of limit but did not give you a solution, if you will go back on it. And I thought that a limit in the charter as a charter provision as a percentageof something. I 'm not adverse to that. Like the state :has _also a limit of expenditures in the new Constitution. I see nothing wrong with a limit here. But now if you ask me how to do this--Stanley and I have gone through this several `rays;;: to see how this would come out and it is not that easy to tome to a kind of a logical concusion. I 'm sure if you went to gross revenues, taxwise and so on and took a percentage of that you could probably come to a reasonable figure. If you went by Proposition 13 to 1% of the real property tax valuation, the lZ%, we are right there right now. We are not higher than 'Proposition 13. So if you are going to put a limit of Proposition 13 and everybody says oh, you are going to have a hard time. We are already there. We are not high. Although $17.90 seems awfully high. We are still not higher than the Proposition 13. As far as limits , I really have no objections. But how, I would reserve my comments. How are you going to limit it, you know. But putting a limit in the charter, I think it is not a bad idea. As far as limits for bonds , the statutes takes care of that and I think the limit of bonding is not as significant as the ability to repay the accounts more. They show how that service charge to general revenue has become the most significant factor to look at than is the now floating limit that you have. That, in itself, I think is inconsequential. I have said that the 16% as upside limit before is now down to 13% and will be down to about 11% of total operation , total income as a debt service charge percentage. -27-