Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> .... <br /> Ordinance No. 1034. Maybe it didn't come <br /> out that way and maybe it wasn't <br /> understood that way because of the way <br /> the ballot issue was worded but that was <br /> the true intent at the time. The true <br /> intent as far as I am concerned was the <br /> way Ordinance No. 1034 addresses the <br /> problem. <br /> Davidson: The only time it would go to the voters <br /> is if our decision was to go with the use <br /> tax. We are not allowed to impose a use <br /> tax; only the voters are. We passed this <br /> as an interim measure because we wanted <br /> Alpine to be competitive in Louisville <br /> and that is still our intent. We don't <br /> want to hold a special election sometime <br /> in the future. The November election is <br /> rolling around, if we decide to do it as <br /> a housekeeping measure with the use tax <br /> or if the Council decides to change this <br /> from an interim to a permanent solution, <br /> ei ther way, staff needs additional time <br /> to research it. <br /> Carnival: If that is your true intention, I don't <br /> have any problems with allowing staff to <br /> review this and bring back their <br /> suggestions for our consideration. The <br /> confusion I had was the discussion that <br /> we would have to go to a ballot on this <br /> particular issue. <br /> Hornbostel: If you go to use tax we can't do that by <br /> ordinance. <br /> Carnival: If we can present a way that it can be <br /> changed and made fair to all, could it <br /> not be done in an ordinance? I guess that <br /> is my question. <br /> Brand: I think we have two choices: either <br /> receive no taxes, which is what we are <br /> doing now on residential building <br /> materials and by doing the ordinance to <br /> refund a similar amount we collect no <br /> taxes; or we take to the ballot the issue <br /> of adding to the use tax residential <br /> building materials. If we do that and <br /> 15 <br />