Laserfiche WebLink
192 • <br />• May 12,1982 <br /> • <br /> ino <br /> City AC[ neyC explained that the City did have a <br /> itiations procedure and he ordinance would be subject to this <br /> perocedure which is Article X of the Charter for the City of <br /> If a 10%petition is filed within 15 days then he City <br />• isobligated to take i[for reconsideration to place it on the <br /> • ballot. <br /> Councilman Overstreet asked if wording could be incorporated in <br /> the ordinance that would cover situation where the County Charter <br /> • allows a longerperiodof time than 30 days for petition so that <br /> the City would not be imposing the[a x o citizens before the <br /> County. He felt the City should notget ahead of the County. • <br /> Bruce <br /> said if this happened the Council would have[ repass <br /> theM <br /> ordinance again. a suggested that Section 2 which reads"The <br /> • additional tax imposed82'' by this ordinance shall be collected o and • <br /> after July 1,1982"be changed to read: ,he additional tax imposed <br /> by this ordinance shall be collected on and after July 1,1982,pro- <br /> vided that it is the intent <br /> o <br /> of City Council[ and collect the <br /> additional[ only so long a the additionale impose <br /> isimposed and <br /> collected by Snohomish County,and i n <br /> the event referendum on the <br /> recent <br /> Snohomish County sales tax increase of one-half of one percent <br /> Bays the County's authorization to impose and collect the additional <br /> i <br /> then the City shall s imposition and collection of the addition- <br /> alt x for the period that Snohomish County is stayed and if i[i <br /> finally determined by vote of the electorate that Snohomish.County <br /> is o longer authorized to impose or collect a additional sales <br /> a <br /> then the additional t imposed herein by the City shall be re- <br /> • st <br /> pealed c with the dateSnohomish County i -longer <br /> authorized toimpose or collect the additional tax. <br /> Cushman presented facts concerning State,City,County,Transit <br /> r <br /> and State Surtax percentages,s stating the passage of the ordinance <br /> would result in a 6.7%sales and explained what the Cit <br /> share would be if it did and did not pass the ordinance. He <br /> presented a general overview of general taxes,their percentages, <br /> and anticipated 1982 budget revenues,as wells s <br /> those t that <br /> are collected and distii.butedby the State. He pointed out that the <br /> Motor Vehicle Excise tax would be reduced because of the equalization <br /> factor. <br /> Councilman Stephenson asked Mr.Cushman if he knew what other <br /> counties e going[ impose the t and said concerned about <br /> the effecut o o the business community if Snohomish County the <br /> only my[o pass i .Cushman replied he had no information <br /> at this time regarding other counties. <br /> Mike Wenzlick,City Treasurer,presented a o case"general <br /> • government balance sheets if athe C [ e <br /> City did no vthe increased <br /> • xv <br /> sales[ showing Chepossibility ofae$924,000 deficit, <br /> and also one showing a possible$331,900 cash on hand if the tax <br /> were imposed. <br /> • <br /> • There was discussion regarding budget c nthe a of a <br /> deficit end J angus,Chief Administrative Assistant,-vent <br /> pointed out <br /> i[has been the Mayor's policy the last 2 years[o have a hiring <br /> freeze and maintain a hold the line"budget. <br />