My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2010 05 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2010 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2010 05 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:29 PM
Creation date
9/30/2010 12:21:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
5/18/2010
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2010 05 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
City Council <br /> Meeting Minutes <br /> May 18, 2010 <br /> Page 11 of 13 <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Marsella supported raising the fee -in -lieu and beginning the public <br /> process. She was concerned over the shared parking agreements. <br /> Councilor Muckle stressed the importance of the public process involved in the current <br /> downtown design guidelines. He supported an action plan, but felt a permanent parking <br /> plan in the residential area will be necessary. <br /> Mayor Sisk supported going forward with the FAR and the 1 -500 parking ratio. He felt it <br /> would support the downtown merchants and property owners. He was not in favor of <br /> using residential parking or shared parking agreements, but did support increasing the <br /> fee -in -lieu. <br /> Councilor Muckle supported restoring and expanding historical buildings with the <br /> historic preservation tax. He also supported increasing the FAR. <br /> DISCUSSION PROPOSITION #101 AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS #60 <br /> AND #61 <br /> Mayor Sisk reported on three initiatives, which will appear on the statewide general <br /> election ballot on November 2, 2010. These initiatives have significant municipal finance <br /> implications, which would undermine transportation and tax revenues collected by city <br /> and county agencies. He noted many cities and counties are considering passing <br /> resolutions opposing Proposition #101 and Constitutional Amendments #60 and #61. <br /> Deputy City Manager Balser outlined the three initiatives, which have significant <br /> municipal finance implications as follows: <br /> Statewide Proposition 101 would reduce vehicle, income tax and telecommunications <br /> revenues <br /> Cuts annual vehicle registration fee to $10 <br /> Cuts specific ownership tax to $2 for new cars and $1 for all others <br /> Exempts first $10,000 if vehicle purchase from sales tax <br /> Eliminates state and local telecommunications charges. Allows 911 rates from <br /> 2009 but no increases permitted <br /> Lowers the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 3.5% <br /> Constitutional Amendment 60 would limit property taxes <br /> Sunsets all property tax de- Brucings <br /> Future de- Brucings must be re -voted every four years <br /> Property tax increases (limited to 10 years <br /> Enterprises and authorities must pay property taxes <br /> Allows use of petitions to reduce property taxes in all taxing districts <br /> Cuts school district mill levies in half <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.