Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Heuser noted the tax had not been raised since 1977 and there was considerable support at the legislature for the bill, which was sponsored by Senator Bill Morrisette. Ms. Bettman noted her support for the bill. She determined from Mr. Hill that he was recommending an amendment stipulating that the tax not be tied to a specific use. While she agreed that the tax was a tax on poor people, she opposed using such an amendment as a new source of revenue because it was regressive, while tying the revenue to treatment was justifiable. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2 without amendments. Mr. Hill noted the added independent auditing requirements the bill imposed on all recipients of the revenues that would be realized by passage of the bill. He said the approach was proscriptive, which the City tended to resist because staff believed its home rule authority gave it the ability to make local decisions about the use of revenues. He said that such bills make it very difficult for cities to accomplish local goals, and in such instances the legislation was proposing to replace the council's judgment with its own. Ms. Bettman pointed out that it was well-established that the community needed services for drug and alcohol treatment. She perceived the bill as a public safety measure that would have a big impact on the City, although she acknowledged that generally such services were funded through the Human Services Commission. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Hill said that staff would have to track the costs of the audit annually. The City was guaranteed about one percent of the revenue from the bill, and would have to use it for law enforcement purposes related to drug addiction. The City could do that because it did provide services related to law enforcement and mental health, such as CAHOOTS. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Hill reiterated that one of his concerns was the proliferation of such bills, which increasingly took power away from local governments. Ms. Bettman repeated her remarks about the City's lack of funding for mental health and addiction services. She said she did not hear complaints that the gas tax was dedicated to the construction of new roads. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that was a constitutional restriction. Ms. Bettman asked if the auditing function was an additional expense. Mr. Hill did not characterize it as an additional expense as much as an additional obligation. The City would have to contract for an independent audit. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Hill said he did not know how much the tax would add to the price of a bottle of beer. The proposed tax was ten cents per 12 ounce for large retailers or manufactur- ers and five cents per 12 ounce beverage tax for smaller producers. Mr. Heuser reported that the bill had not yet had a hearing, but he believed one would be scheduled. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor indicated that her opposition to the bill was based in part to her dislike of earmarked funds. Mr. Pap~ determined there was no second to the motion, and it died. Ms. Taylor referred to SB 2569, related to motor vehicle accidents involving law enforcement officials, and MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 3