Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1996-07-25 192 City Council, Special Meeting City Hall Conference Room A 760 Parkview Avenue Redding, California July 25, 1996 11:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor McGeorge with the following Council Members present: R. Anderson, McGeorge, Murray and Kehoe. Council Member P. Anderson's absence was excused. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, City Attorney Wingate, Director of Administrative Services Starman, Fire Chief Wagner, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to the City Council Rudolph. ELECTION DATES FOR BALLOT MEASURE - re Ratification and Continuation of 1990 Increases to Transient Occupancy and Business License Taxes (T-010-600 & T-070-100 & E-070-010) City Manager Warren recalled that the "window period" for placing a measure on the November ballot is July 25 to August 9, 1996. He stated that pursuant to the City Council's prior action, the City Attorney has drawn up the necessary documentation to place the appropriate measure on the November ballot, whereby the voters would decide whether to ratify and continue the 1990 transient occupancy and business license tax increases. He explained that subsequent to the City Council's earlier decision, staff learned that there are a number of propositions and initiatives dealing with government finances on the November ballot. In addition, Los Angeles County is proposing legislation which could clarify the issue regarding retroactivity and give cities and counties until November 1998 to bring the matter before the voters. He related that even if the measure was successful in November, the issue regarding retroactivity would still need to be clarified. City Attorney Wingate stated that the positive aspects associated with placing the measure on the November ballot include: (1)The City would be proactive, rather than reactive; and (2) The financial issues would be resolved sooner, thereby allowing funds to be spent on budgeted items and projects. He further related that the negative aspects of proceeding with a November election include: (1) The measure would be on the ballot with a number of other propositions and initiatives dealing with government finances; and (2) Unresolved legal issues. He explained that the primary legal issue is the question of whether an election receiving a majority vote would accomplish anything. He stated there is concern over whether these elections would be considered referendums. He related that under existing State law, a vote on the collection or imposition of taxes is considered to be a referendum; however, there is a question whether this law is applicable to local agencies. Mr. Wingate explained that the legislation being proposed by Los Angeles County is a compromise bill which would state that if a county or city takes the matter to the vote of the people prior to the State's general election in 1998, it would be insulated from any challenges regarding taxes already collected, even if the measure were defeated. He related that if the City put the measure on the November ballot and it was defeated, the City may lose the benefit of this proposed legislation if it is enacted. He stressed that even if the measure were successful in November, there would still be the question of whether the potential $4.5 million liability still existed. Mr. Wingate recommended that the City Council not proceed with placing the measure on the November ballot, but wait and see if the legislation is, in fact, introduced in the remaining three-weeks of the legislative session. He cautioned, however, that the legislation may not be introduced until after the November election. He noted that the City Council can call a special election at any time, with the actual election being held a minimum of 88 days following such action. Mr. Wingate stated that it does not appear that many counties or cities are placing this issue on the November ballot. Based on contacts made by Shasta County, less than 15 percent of the counties are moving toward a November election. The League of California Cities has indicated that out of the estimated 160 cities impacted, only an estimated 22 have held or are planning to hold an election in November. He related that Los Angeles County is as concerned as the City of Redding, as they have a potential $50 million per year liability associated with the taxes they are currently collecting. 07/25/96 193 In response to Council Member Kehoe, Mr. Wingate explained that the Guardino decision did not impose any mandated time line. He stated that the only time line which has been expressed is by the Jarvis Taxpayers Association which has made a general statement that it will file lawsuits if cities and counties do not put the issue on the November ballot. Council Member Murray questioned whether the measure could be structured to ensure that the entire measure is not deemed invalid if the courts later decide the issue of retroactivity is invalid. Mr. Wingate stated that whether or not the matter is a referendum is not the City's decision. He related that he has structured the measure to read like an initiative. He cautioned that it is, however, a measure dealing with taxes. He explained that there is no way to phrase the measure to avoid the legal question surrounding the issue of a referendum. Council Member Murray questioned why the business license tax is not considered a fee. He noted that there are wages associated with implementing the program. In addition, he viewed a tax as something all residents are required to pay on a continual basis. Mr. Wingate replied that in order to be considered a fee, the fee has to be conditioned upon providing a service and the related cost of providing that service. He noted that for a number of years, the charges associated with business licenses throughout the State of California have been identified as taxes. Council Member Murray questioned when the next scheduled election would be if the measure is not placed on the November ballot and the difference in price if a special election is called. City Clerk Strohmayer stated that the City's next regular election would be held in March 1998. The next regular election to be held in the County would be in November 1997. She related that the difference in price between a consolidated election and a special election would be approximately $10,000. Administrative Services Director Starman related that the City of Anderson adopted a resolution to place a measure on the November ballot. The Anderson City Council, however, gave its staff the authority to change the language to mirror the City of Redding's and also the ability to revoke the resolution if the City of Redding decided not to place its measure on the November ballot. Council Member R. Anderson believed staff made a compelling argument to postpone placing the measure on the November ballot. Council Member Kehoe concurred with Council Member R. Anderson. He questioned, however, what fiscal impacts the delay in bringing the measure before the voters would cause. Mr. Warren stated that during the budget study session, staff indicated that it would delay filling some positions and postpone some expenditures until the answers to the questions surrounding Proposition 62 are known. He cautioned that with a $35 million budget, it will be difficult to hold back on expenditures without affecting the current levels of service. With regard to the Civic Center, the City Council has approved the Project Manager's contract and the next major expenditure of money will occur when the architect's contract is approved in the next 60 to 90 days. Mr. Wingate explained that the $4.5 million liability is technically subject to claims for refunds filed by individuals who have paid the applicable taxes. He related that these individuals are prohibited by law from banning together and filing a class action suit against the City. He stated that the chances of the City being required to pay back the entire$4.5 million is relatively small. With regard to public agencies which have not brought the matter before a vote of the people, the State may, however, demand that the county auditors start deducting an amount equal to the taxes collected from the taxes paid to the agency. He stressed this is another reason why Los Angeles County's proposed legislation is so important. In response to Mayor McGeorge, Mr. Wingate explained that the Jarvis Initiative on the November ballot would add Article XIII(c) to the State Constitution, thereby incorporating Proposition 62's language. Another part of the Initiative would provide a two-year time frame for local jurisdictions 07/25/96 194 to take the adoption of new, extended, or increased taxes that occurred between January 1995 and November 1996 to the vote of the people. He stated that Los Angeles County, however, has interpreted this language to provide agencies two years to ratify the taxes they have been collecting. Mr. Wingate, however, viewed this as a very loose interpretation. Council Member Murray believed the City of Redding's measure is easily justifiable and should pass readily. He favored resolving the issue and placing the measure on the November ballot. In response to Council Member R. Anderson, Mr. Wingate stated his main question lies with what effect the passage of the measure would have on the potential $4.5 million liability. He related that Los Angeles County also has the same concern and is, therefore, seeking legislation which provides the necessary protection. He stressed that Los Angeles County's legislation is only speculative at this point. Mr. Warren reiterated that the positive aspects of calling a special election include: the measure would be separate from all other initiatives; would allow additional time to convey information regarding the issue to the community; and provide an opportunity to learn if Los Angeles County's legislation is passed during the upcoming legislative session. He stated that a driving consideration behind placing the measure on the November ballot is financial certainty. Council Member R. Anderson noted that a November election would still not resolve the question relative to the potential $4.5 million liability. Mayor McGeorge read the letter received from the Shasta Builders' Exchange (Exchange) dated July 25, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, into the record. In summary, the letter stated that the Exchange voted unanimously to support ratification of the City Council approved business license and transient occupancy taxes. In addition, the Exchange believes a special election would allow citizens a better opportunity to understand and vote on this critical issue and eliminate the possibility of the issue"falling through the cracks" on the November ballot. Frank Strazzarino, representing the Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce, reiterated the Chamber's willingness to assist in the passage of the proposed measure. He stated that the information received today from staff further complicates the issue. Regardless of the City Council's decision, he stressed the Chamber's commitment to assist in anyway possible. Lance Frederickson, representing the Shasta Business Council, echoed Mr. Strazzarino's comments. He stated that earlier this month, the Shasta Business Council met and also pledged to lend its support to the City to ensure the passage of the proposed measure. Bert Meyer, President of the Hotel/Motel Association, stated that the Association will support whatever decision the City Council makes. He opined that it would be better for the City to conduct a special election, rather than placing the measure on the November ballot. Mayor McGeorge stated that he had been a strong proponent for placing the measure on the November ballot. He concurred, however, that given the initiatives and propositions already on the November ballot and the information received today, it seems more advisable to wait and act after the November election. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to rescind the City Council's previous action to place the measure concerning the 1990 increases to the transient occupancy and business license taxes on the November 1996 ballot. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes RESOLUTION - Commemorating the Redding Fire Department's Centennial Celebration (A-050-140) Fire Chief Wagner conveyed the Fire Department's appreciation to the City Council for its support. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Murray, that Resolution No. 96-142 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding commemorating 100 years of service by the Redding Fire Department. 07/25/96 195 Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members -None Absent: Council Members - P. Anderson Resolution No. 96-142 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 11:45 a.m., Mayor McGeorge declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: / ! .69: Mayor ATTEST: a:t i o ,r , City Clerk f 07/25/96