Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br /> It further notes that the City is one of the smallest cities <br />in the Stanton Group V and of this group consisting of 45 cities <br />it has the lowest total, taxable capacity and the lowest taxable <br />capacity per capita. It further notes that the landfill revenues <br />cannot be used to augment the City's budget for operating purposes <br />except in cases of an emergency. <br /> <br /> It further argues that the City is currently at the tax levy <br /> <br />limit. <br /> <br /> I first considered the contention of the Union that I should <br /> <br /> give little ..... weight- to the job evaluation study because of <br /> <br />discrepancies it has noted in its brief. First of all, I do not <br />consider that I have the jurisdiction under PELRA or the Minnesota <br />Comparative Worth Law to make a determination as to the validity <br />or non-validity of the study. Under Section 471.922 I am entitled <br />to look at it but in my opinion not to determine its validity or <br />non-validity. <br /> <br /> As I understand the evaluation plan was conducted under the <br />auspices of Control Data and was a part of and involved 130 cities <br />of which it was a part. Consequently I just don't have any choice <br />but to approve the plan and state that it does meet the <br />requirements of the Act. In my opinion to permit the arbitrator <br />to in effect review each plan of a particular political <br />subdivision and determine whether it ,is valid and is to be <br />considered or not to be considered on this basis would be to grant <br />him in effect another standard by which to disregard the <br />Comparative Worth Law. This is clearly not anticipated or <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />