09/21/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Ms. Ehrman reiterated her support for the restaurant tax, saying that the tax contained an element of choice, captured dollars from nonresidents, and was strongly favored by the voters. Ms. Ehrman did not support a business income tax or personal income tax due to her fear that it would harm the community's reputation as a good place to do business. She said that she could not support any property tax increase for funding the core due to strong voter antipathy toward the tax. Ms. Ehrman said her support of the utility tax was tied to the low-income exemption and its broad-based nature. Mr. Nicholson noted that the personal income tax would capture more revenue from nonresidents that any other revenue option considered. Further, it was progressive, broad-based, direct, and a stable source of revenue. Mr. Nicholson said his support for the restaurant tax was based on its popularity among voters. Mr. Robinette said his support for the property tax was based on his belief that some tax relief would result from Ballot Measure 5, the tax was broad- based, and easy to administer. He acknowledged that the tax was not popular, and suggested it would be necessary for people to feel the results of service reductions before the council could gain voter approval for any increase. Mr. Robinette said that his support for the restaurant tax was tied to the survey results. Ms. Bascom said she supported the restaurant tax because of its ranking among survey respondents. She said she found arguments against the business income tax to be persuasive, and she was disturbed by its instability. Ms. Bascom e said she supported the utility tax, although she did not believe the tax would be accepted by the public. Mr. Miller said that funding the capital program with voter-approved property tax increases could buy the City time until the State Legislature works on revenue issues and the future becomes more clear. He said the council's reductions and shifts could take effect and the public would have a better idea of the impact of those changes. Mr. Miller said that by May, the City could have a revenue measure tied to a capital project on the ballot and would have more information about the legislature's progress on revenue issues. In addition, there may be more impetus for intergovernmental cooperation by that time. Mr. Boles responded to several comments made by the councilors. He said that the voters had clearly indicated their opposition to increases in the property tax as a revenue source. Mr. Boles suggested that reliance on the property tax in support of capital projects would result in elimination of the capital program. Further, he pointed out that any City-sought increase in the property tax would affect a revenue source that partners of the City rely upon. Mr. Boles said that the City needed to solve its problems without waiting for other jurisdictions to experience the pain that will force them to seek a solution to budget problems. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 21, 1992 Page 8 5:30 p.m.