Minutes 1994 0613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Page - 2 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) would require on-going revenues to replace. John Jermanis, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He reviewed the General Fund spending plan and sales tax and property tax comparisons with other cities. He said the Task Force looked at a number of potential reductions and said the remaining $1 million available through reductions included closing libraries and swimming pools, reducing school -year programs, and turning off street lights. He reviewed Utility Tax comparisons with surrounding jurisdictions and said San Leandro's rate will still remain one of the lowest in Alameda County, as will its Transient Occupancy Tax rate. He said the Marina Inn has expressed concern about the TOT, and he has offered to meet with them and report back to the City Council . In response to Council questions, the City Attorney said the Utility Tax Ordinance would become effective immediately, but the tax would not be implemented until October 1, 1994. The Transient Occupancy Tax would become effective immediately but not be implemented until July 1 , 1994. The Hearing was then opened to the public. Paul Vargas, 872 Portola Drive, said he was against the Utility Tax increase. He described increases in sales tax revenue and discussed disposable income increases under various State and Federal administrations. He said several states are considering lowering or eliminating taxes. He said when taxes are lower, disposable income increases. Lou Filipovich, 15376 Laverne Drive, said the City must find $2 million per year to pay the debt on the City Hall addition. He said the City should create a budget that generates taxes. He said people throughout the state are stopping benefit and maintenance assessments; everyone is a taxpayer, there are no tax producers; there is no spendable money in San Leandro; and there are more and more minority employees in San Leandro. Dana Johnson, Farrelly Drive, said he wished there was not going to be a tax increase and wished there was a way to cut $700,000 from the budget. He asked if consideration had been given to problems that will occur next year, such as increases in employee health benefits, the furlough not occurring, greater State take of funds, or channel funds drying up, and asked if another increase would be needed next year. There being no further comments from the public, on motion of Council Member Kerr, seconded by Council Perry, and carried unanimously, the Public Hearing was closed. Council Member Kerr said he was impressed with Mr. Johnson's comments and letter. He said none of us want to raise taxes, but the Council is under the gun and compelled to find funds. He said there is no