09/23/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Tony Mounts, Financial Management Services Director, distributed copies of the tax proposals. Option 1 offers a 2.5 percent restaurant tax to fund core services or core capital. Option 2 sets the same rate, but calls for a 5 percent cap for funding core services and additional increments for voter approved purposes. Both options call for referral, as charter amendments, and both have a 10-year sunset. Ms. Ehrman initiated discussion by asking those favoring Option 1 to give their thoughts on funding for enhancements--alternatives to Option 2. Mr. Rutan stated his opposition to a restaurant tax but assured the council he will not be unconstructive of the council's process, saying he did not want his participation in the discussion to be construed as supporting the tax. He expressed concern with the community's perception of the proposal, specifical- ly as it relates to what is going to get funded. Mr. MacDonald expressed support for Option 1, saying strategies for the library and fire stations can be developed in consultation with interested parties. Responding to a questions from Ms. Ehrman and Mr. Nicholson, he said the council should concentrate on funding core services and commit to doing the other projects later, developing the details as it becomes relevant. Mr. Robinette said he liked the property tax for funding of fire stations. He felt it unwise, however, to have such a measure on the same ballot as one for core services or a State tax. With regard to the library, he felt it impor- tant to support the private fund raising effort underway. Mr. Robinette felt e Option 2 added confusion to the election and allowed opponents to argue that the City Council does not yet know what to do with tax proceeds. Mr. Boles disagreed that the public is incapable of understanding Option 2. He said that Option 1 precludes the use of a restaurant tax for anything other than the core, eliminating an important source of revenue for other projects. Mr. Nicholson said the only difference between the two proposals is that Option 1 requires a charter amendment to make changes in the tax rate, while Option 2 would require a vote outside of the charter. He felt the council should decide on the basis of which proposal is the most responsible, long- term approach to the problem. Ms. Bascom said it is an issue of what is the best chance of succeeding at the polls on an initial restaurant tax vote. She felt that the simpler the explanation and tie to services, the better chance the council has to win the initial vote. Ms. Ehrman felt it important to be "out-front" with the community now about how the funding will be used, saying one tax is better than two or three. She reiterated that the projects in Option 2 would be unnamed, and put to the voters at the appropriate time. Saying that there are many people for whom the library is very important, Mr. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 23, 1992 Page 3 11:30 a.m.