My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2008 05 13
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2001-2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
2008 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2008 05 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:35:41 AM
Creation date
5/12/2008 11:07:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
5F6
Supplemental fields
Test
SSAGPKT 2008 05 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
NCIL COMMUNICATI <br />TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL <br />FROM: MALCOLM FLEMING, CITY MANAGER <br />DATE: MAY 13, 2008 <br />SUBJECT: UPDATE/DISCUSSION - REVENUE STABILITY WORKGROUP <br />ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER <br />SUMMARY: <br />The Revenue Stability Working Group is comprised of representatives from Boulder County <br />and municipalities within the County. The focus of the group has been to reduce the variation in <br />annual sales tax revenue going to each municipality by developing a way to share incremental <br />sales tax (i.e. new sales tax above the pre-Existing base amount in each community). The <br />attached charts show the sometimes dramatic variation in revenue collections in the individual <br />municipalities compared with the relatively Even combined revenue collection for all <br />municipalities over the same period. <br />Depending on their current fiscal and/or land use situation, each member of the Group may <br />have different reasons to consider revenue sharing including: <br />• Municipalities that are currently "leaking" sales tax (i.e., their residents are shopping in <br />other communities) might view revenue sharing as more equitable than the status quo, <br />and a key step to bolster the fiscal sustainability of their current budget, and perhaps a <br />means to increase levels of service with additional revenue. <br />• Municipalities that are currently "importing" sales tax (i.e., their level of retail sales is <br />higher than what would be supported solely by residents) might view revenue sharing as <br />away to help ensure long-term revenue stability if they believe that future retail <br />development in other municipalities is going to reduce their existing market share. <br />• Municipalities that are concerned about the fiscal implications of competing (i.e., <br />incentive packages) with their neighbors for new retailer development might view <br />revenue sharing as a more logical way to promote land-use decisions. <br />• Municipalities that are concerned about the land-use implications of the above <br />competition (i.e., sprawl, over-retailing, traffic congestion) might view revenue sharing as <br />a means to promote more aesthetic and sustainable land-use patterns. <br />With the help of consultants from BBC ResE;arch and Consulting, the Group has explored <br />various approaches to sharing incremental ;sales tax revenue including: <br />Population-based allocation where some portion of sales tax is attributed to point of sale <br />and the remainder is shared based on apopulation-weighted pool; <br />Spending Power, where the allocation is based on a weighted measure of spending <br />power of households in each community. <br />SUBJECT UPDATE/DISCUSSION - REVENUE AGENDA ITEM <br />STABILITY WORKGROUP <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.