From Judy Gilleland

Representatives from the MASC will be in attendance tomorrow to discuss with council the need for a capital levy to finish paying for the new facility. They believe that if the debt were paid off, they would be able to operate profitably. If Council is inclined to support the levy, we will need to pass an emergency resolution at the July 5 meeting, requesting the millage info from the county. At the July 19th meeting, we will need to pass an emergency resolution placing the issue on the ballot. The deadline for November’s ballot is June 10.

As far as supporting or not supporting the levy, I offer the following:

• There is merit to the notion that the Council is simply allowing the issue to be placed on the ballot to let the taxpayers decide with their vote.
• The MASC does a great job of providing many needed services for our senior residents. These residents would go un-served if not for the MASC. Part of being a well-rounded community is to provide services for our diverse population.
• Many cities actually fund senior citizen services as part of their general fund budget, we do not. MASC takes the burden off the city by providing these services for our residents.
• Are three levies on the November ballot too many? Health, possibly Public Safety and possibly Senior Citizens. Council should consider the tipping point for voters.
• Are we going to place the Public Safety levy on the ballot in November or wait until next spring or fall?
• If we place the levy on the ballot, we will need to devise a contract between MASC and the City so that MASC receives the funds. The levy will actually be a city levy. Since MASC does not have taxing authority; they will use the city as the taxing authority.
• Should we reserve ballot issues for those services the city actually provides within our city organization? Should Council examine priorities?