09/22/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e referral, but he was strongly committed to the notion of a sunset on any selected revenue source. ~ Mr. Nicholson indicated his support for focus on a proposal to fund the core. Mr. Robinette said that the council needed to solve the core shortfall before entering into discussion with the community about how and whether to address the enhancements. He believed that the enhancements were important, and expressed the hope that the council could institute them in the future. Mr. Green said his proposal was structured to have widespread appeal to the community. He said he wished to fund the entire package or fall back on Strategy C. He believed that the public had expectations regarding both fire redeployment and the library, and those expectations resulted in support for those services. Mr. Green said that a restaurant tax would capture revenue from visitors. He supported a cap on the tax, but did not support a sunset. Mr. MacDonald agreed that there was community support for the enhancements. He believed that the library and fire redeployment would garner more votes as an individual packages and supported separating the enhancements from the core. Mr. MacDonald said the council should address the core first. The council discussed the issue of sunsetting versus establishing a cap on any selected revenue source through an amendment to the city charter. Ms. Ehrman pointed out the possibility of projects taking so long that they e ran into the ten-year sunset point. She suggested that, were a sunset to be a mechanism the council agreed upon, the trigger for a vote renewing the tax be something other than a specific year, such as a period of time after project completion. Mr. Boles said that his interpretation of a sunset was that it would eliminate the tax. The City Council at the time sunset occurred would need to take action to reinstate the tax. Mr. Rutan suggested that the sunset and the inclusion of the tax in the charter could contribute to the acceptability of the tax to voters, but pointed out that with the current climate of general distrust of government such components might not make a difference to some voters. Mr. Nicholson endorsed Mr. Green's remarks regarding the need for Strategy C as a fallback measure, saying that it was a legitimate outcome of any vote rejecting a revenue measure. He suggested that Mr. Green's proposal provided the council with a means to take a long-term view of the service system and avoided the need to make a short-term, expedient decision that gained a partial victory moving the City only halfway to the process goal of sustain- ability. Mr. Robinette referred to the council priorities and maintained that not all the enhancements were of equal importance. He added that prior to presenting e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 3 5:30 p.m.