Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJTCC Minutes 1990-12-04SRCC MINUTES (Special Worksnop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1990, AT 5:30 P.M. Special Workshop Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Gary T. Ragghianti, City Suzanne M. Drake, Deputy Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmemter Manager Attorney City Clerk 1. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS REVENUE OPTIONS (CM) - File 9-2-42 Mayor Mulryan explained the purpose of this meeting was to discuss revenue options and to hear from staff what those options are; also to give staff some direction on whether or not Council feels they should move toward one of those options. City Manager Nicolai stated the Revenue Options Committee worked for approximately six months in looking at the various revenue options that would be outlined as potential sources of revenue to address not only the capital needs, but to some extent the operating needs as well. That report was submitted to the Council last June and there have been numerous reasons why it has not come forward. At this time staff would like to have the Council take the time to discuss some of the recommendations that came forward from that Committee and, in the context of what today's environment is perceived to be by the Council, address whether or not Council wants staff to pursue any one of these options or multiple options in greater detail, or come back to the Council at a later date. One of the strong recommendations of the Committee was that this issue be placed on the ballot. The deadline for the March ballot was today and the June ballot deadline is February 22nd. Ms. Nicolai stated that in order to have enough time to deal with this issue, she wanted to bring this to the Council in a special workshop. Ms. Nicolai commented that since this report was completed, several things have occurred and some are not addressed in the report from the Committee, but part of their decision was based on certain assumptions. Some of those assumptions included projects that were pending at the time that staff thought might be on line and generating some revenue. Some of these projects have occurred like Embassy Suites and some have not yet occurred - Costco probably will not and the PG&E project will not happen for a long time. Honda and Toys "R" Us are still in the works. The actual on-line source of revenue that those projects represented two years ago, has not come to fruition. She stated that the Capital Improvement Program remains in effect. Staff has been successful in accomplishing $20+ million worth of projects over the last year from various sources including gas tax and grants, as well as State and Federal funding, so staff has been successful in accomplishing a great deal and there are several projects currently budgeted in this year's budget. She stated staff is actively in the process of looking at obtaining more money through the Redevelopment Agency, which was one of the recommendations of the Committee that staff take an aggressive approach to this source of money. She stated that the sales tax has also remained fairly healthy over the last 12 years, and the City's dependence on sales tax continues to grow. She noted with the economy in a recession, it is difficult to predict what is going to happen over the next several quarters, even though the quarter since the budget was approved came in fairly healthy. So, the City's dependence on sales tax has not changed and it is something that continues to concern her. Ms. Nicolai also stated her concerns about the State budget deficit and the Federal budget deficit and the mechanisms they are now using to balance their budgets are causing tremendous costs to be passed back down to the local level. In the last two months, staff has taken some action on a couple of other alternative, minor revenue sources which merely made up the deficit that would have been incurred, had staff had to incorporate the County's new charges down to us, with no adjustment in new City revenue. Approximately $400,000 of County charges have come to the City after the budget was approved. In addition to this, staff has had numerous joint projects come to us from the County that are State mandated programs, like the Congestion Management Plan, where our share alone is projected to be close to $60,000. She stated that she is worried about the session that the State Legislature is in right now and what other mechanisms they are going to be using, including what they consider emergency sessions where they do not seem to have to go through any public process in making the decisions they have about the State's budget. She noted that whatever Council and staff decide to do could be swallowed up by other State mandated actions and/or removal of our SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special Works„,ip Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 2 subventions like the motor vehicle in -lieu fees. What staff wanted to do at this meeting was to have the Council run through the various options and/or discuss among themselves what the climate of the community was, and be able to talk with them about what the alternatives might be, to generally get a sense of whether there are any of them that Council would like staff to pursue at this time, so that whatever attempt staff might make to deal with the revenue option can be more successful. Mayor Mulryan then asked for questions from the Council. Councilmember Breiner asked Ms. Nicolai if anyone had factored in the rising energy costs for the City, indicating she saw this as a problem that Council had not counted on at the time of the budget hearings. Ms. Nicolai commented that this entailed the cost of oil and electricity and they will continue to grow. Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. Nicolai to list the options. Ms. Nicolai stated that the Committee basically recommended going with the Utility Users Tax. The reason why this was ultimately decided as the most feasible or highly recommended source at the time, was that the dollar amount the Committee recommended as an annual need is approximately $2.6 million. Of all the options available to the City, the Utility Users Tax brought in the most significant amount of money. She stated that while some people refer to the Utility Users Tax as regressive, to her it is the most equitable in that it is graduated somewhat based on the size of the house and the type of use. The larger the house the larger the utility use and, therefore, the same percentage would apply with a greater dollar amount. She stated that the lifeline rate can be exempted for both PG&E, as well as the telephone company for the core base rate, so that lower income and non -heavy users literally have a substantial part of their bill free from the Utility Users Tax. She stated this is also paid on a monthly basis and is billed by the utility companies, who do not generally charge the cities that are charging Utility Users Taxes as part of their billing process. The companies are set up to handle that and are not opposed to having these types of Utility Users Taxes, as long as the City follows their model ordinances and does not create some unique system where they have to do massive re -programming. She stated paying on a monthly basis makes it a more palatable type of billing than to have a large lump sum along with the Property Tax bill. These are some of the strongest points in favor of the Utility Users Tax. She commented that the detractors from it are that it does not have any direct relationship with what the money will be used for. It is a general fund tax. The City Council would use its discretion in setting its priorities to use the Utility Users Tax as they deem fit, with the recomRendation from the Committee that almost all of it be used for the Capital Improvement and Deferred Maintenance categories. She stated that the tax is not deductible for residential taxpayers. This particular type of tax is clearly not tax deductible and would impact the City's Gann Limitation. She stated that almost all of these options would require that if they were put on the ballot, the increase in the Gann Limitation would be put on the ballot as well. If they are not put on the ballot, the City would probably be required to raise the Gann Limit anyway, and have a ballot measure on just to deal with the Gann Limitation, which is another reason why the Committee did recommend that the Council go to the voters. One of the other options was the Landscaping and Lighting Act which is an Assessment District process. If they were to go to the ballot with this, it would have to be an Advisory measure, because the legal process to create the Landscaping and Lighting Act Assessment District is a totally different process. It has limitations on the types of things the money could be used for. It has to do with park lands, landscaping, street lighting, etc. Things like sidewalk repair, maintenance, and improvements of parks can be incorporated in the funding, but it is limited to those types of uses. For that reason there is a positive point in that it is fairly directly related to what the money will be used for and there is a strong attraction, in the opinion of the Committee, that the people feel more comfortable approving taxes when they have some sense of what it is that it will be used for. Ms. Nicolai explained this is billed on a annual basis and tends to be more of a parcel type of tax where no matter what the size of the parcel is, the same dollar amount is charged to each parcel. In her opinion, that is a negative in that the City will be hitting a lower income, small parcel person as much as a major large residential unit, but they are pretty much equitably benefiting from the types of uses of the funds, such as everyone would be benefiting from street lighting, etc. They are community -wide benefits and are all equitable, paying the same dollar amount. She commented, because this is billed on an annual basis, whatever dollar amount it is ends up being a one lump sum payment which is more difficult to raise. She stated that the probability of being able to raise as much money as the Utility Users Tax is dramatically diminished by the Landscaping and Lighting Act option just because of the way it would appear. SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Fleeting) 12/4/90 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special Worksiiop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 3 Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. Nicolai if they wanted to raise $2.5 million annually, what percentage of Utility Tax would need to be imposed. She stated that the Committee recommended 6% and that would raise $6.2 million. He asked with regard to the Lighting Act, what would be the tax required to raise that equivalent amount of money. She responded assuming that there are 16,600 parcels that would make it $6 per $100,000. Public Works Director Bernardi interjected that it has nothing to do with the assessed value. For every $100,000 that is to be raised under the Landscaping and Lighting Act as revenue, it will cost a specific piece of property $6 a year for every $100,000. Mayor Mulryan stated that that would be approximately $125 or $130 a year, $10 to $11- 12 a month. Finance Director Coleman explained the Municipal Services Tax is very similar to the Assessment District that Ms. Nicolai just talked about and the City of Mill Valley does have a Municipal Services Tax. It is basically a parcel tax where a certain amount is charged per parcel or a certain amount per living unit, and commercial property would be probably based on a certain amount per square foot. He stated it is very similar to what is being done on the Paramedic Tax, with the only difference being that the tax would not be designated for specific use, like the Paramedic Tax is and, therefore, would not require an election, which would be the only distinction between the two taxes. Those taxes would then be set each year by the Council at a public hearing. Ms. Nicolai noted some of the more minor sources of revenue, such as the admission tax; for example a 50t admission tax on the movie theaters or live performances, such as the shows at the Civic Center. The disadvantage of this is that it creates a disparity between what our City's theaters would be providing compared to other similar theaters in the County. Our City's theaters would probably be 50t more than any of the others in this County and this might have a negative impact. She stated it does not raise a great deal of money, noting it probably would not impact our Gann Limit, but the tax would need to be collected by the theaters and, on a positive note, it could be non-residents who would be paying this tax. She stated the amount of money does not come close to dealing with the Capital Improvement Program. One of the other things that the Committee felt quite strongly about was that staff and Council should focus on one option, not go with two or three different things. That would be too confusing and would also give the impression the City is trying to do too much. This is why the Committee focused on a single option that would generate the amount of money they believed the City needed to deal with the Capital Improvement Program. Mayor Mulryan asked about the entertainment tax. He stated that he assumed that staff keeps track of what that level of tax is in other communities so that our City should probably stay equivalent, at least, and not create any negative inducements on people coming into our theaters, but we should be at the current level. Mr. Coleman stated that the admission is not really a common tax and there are only certain cities, like San Francisco that impose it. It is a very rare tax and would probably not produce much revenue for the City of San Rafael - probably in the order of $100,000 or $200,000. He also stated that it could discriminate in saying that it will just be an admission tax on theaters and exclude other events. It would need to be something across the board because other cities have had a legal challenge on that particular issue and lost. He stated there are probably only 12 cities in the State of California that actually have one. Mayor Mulryan asked if there were any in the County of Marin. Mr. Coleman answered negatively. Ms. Nicolai commented that these are the primary sources of revenue that the Committee spent the most time studying. The reason they focused on them was because they are the ones that generate a significant amount of money. She stated that staff is reviewing the fee schedules on a regular basis to make sure that the fees are competitive and cover costs. The primary focus of the Committee was to generate enough to start addressing the Capital needs of the City. Mayor Mulryan asked for clarification of the distinction between the Landscaping and Lighting Act and the Municipal Services Tax is that the Municipal Services Tax would not affect the Gann Limit. Mr. Coleman replied that the Municipal Services Tax would affect the Gann Limit. Mayor Mulryan then stated that the Council would want to go to the ballot with this. Ms. Nicolai stated that the Landscaping and Lighting Act does not require a vote and staff does not think that to the extent that it would be new services or directly related to some new program, that amount of money would not affect our Gann Limit. If, as a component of the Landscaping and Lighting Act, staff were to say that they want the street lights and the maintenance of them to be funded by that, and we are shifting it from the General Fund, that dollar amount of the shift would technically affect the Gann Limit and would be considered a tax shift. SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 4 Mayor Mulryan stated that since the Committee had arrived at its recommendation, the assumptions were even more persuasive tonight with Costco and PG&E not being with the City any longer. With the City's continued dependence on sales tax and increased County charges, he agreed with Ms. Nicolai that they did not know what would happen next. He also stated that the Council agreed with the Committee's position that it should go to the voters, because the Council is sensitive to any tax matters. He stated that the Landscaping and Lighting Act and the Utility Users Tax are the principal ones in terms of being able to raise sufficient revenue. Councilmember Thayer asked about the sum of $2.6 million. Ms. Nicolai responded this figure was arrived at in reviewing the Captial Improvement Plan with the Committee and looking at what was needed on an annual basis to make sure that some upgrading would be done with continued maintenance factored in. She stated there were numerous factors and risks that were found about what constituted a Capital project versus a Deferred Maintenance project, because if maintenance is deferred for a certain period of time it becomes a Capital project. It was the decision of the Committee in looking at all of the factors that $2.6 million was what was really needed on an annual basis to start making progress to catch up and to keep an ongoing program of maintenance in these areas. Mayor Mulryan stated that Ms. Nicolai mentioned they had had some recent success in the Capital program and would this affect the needs. Ms. Nicolai responded negatively. She clarified that the Capital Improvement Program was an attempt to identify the entire magnitude of what is out there and not a single year's program; it was at least a ten year program in many respects. She also stated that they identified many revenue options that are available for each of the programs. There are many types of funds that can be used for each particular project. While they have been able to use a significant amount from the General Fund, a significant part has come from other sources. The $161 million needed is updated on an annual basis and is now $172 million, but $20+ million had been accomplished from other sources. The City is looking toward potentially $55 million of Capital projects. She stated they did not attempt to identify the entire list by local sources. She used the example of road services, that much of it depends on a local match in order to get the State money. Much is dependent on grants, etc. She stated they would not address the entire program through local money. It was a great concern of the Committee that staff continue to pursue other avenues for this. Councilmember Breiner asked if the Council stated that most of the funds would be used for Capital Improvements, would that require a 2/3rds vote? Ms. Nicolai stated that the minute it is restricted to a certain use, it becomes a special tax. As long as the Council does not have the discretion to make determinations as to how to use that money and it is identified, it becomes a special tax and requires a 2/3rds vote. Ms. Breiner asked if staff could get any ruling from Sacramento to be able to structure it (the ballot measure) to show the public the Council's intention to identify Capital Improvements as the biggest problem facing the City, without having to require a 2/3rds vote on the measure. Ms. Nicolai pointed out that Mill Valley does have a Municipal Services Tax and it does not need to be restricted like the Landscaping and Lighting Act. And yet the same amount of money could be generated as with the Landscaping and Lighting Act because it is a parcel tax, to be used for whatever the Council would determine is equitable. She stated the Municipal Services Tax would be more flexible because there would be more options on how to use that money. The City of Mill Valley's ballot measure set the tax at $145 a parcel. She noted it is similar to our City's Paramedic Tax which was set higher than what was anticipated to be charged to the public, so that they have a long period of time. She stated that the City Council of Mill Valley convinced the voters that they seriously meant to spend a majority of the tax for Capital projects, noting, however, that they are not restricted to doing that by saying they will not do anything but that. Mayor Mulryan then asked if that meant a Municipal Services Tax would not require 2/3rds vote, but the Lighting Act would? Ms. Nicolai stated negatively, that the Lighting Act would not require any vote, but would need to be purely advisory, because they would need to go through an assessment district process. She stated that the Municipal Services Tax, depending on how it is worded, is what determines whether it is a 2/3rds or majority vote. If the Council, as part of the wording of the ballot measure, specifies what it will be used for and restricts the uses to certain catagories, it becomes a special tax automatically requiring a 2/3rds vote. If the Council states it will be a general tax, but the City is really serious about getting the Capital Improvements done, and that source of revenue is primarily going to that, it would be a general tax and require only a simple majority vote. SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page Councilmember Shippey asked if it were correct that the wording of the ballot measure could be done in a non-specific way, but the campaigning could be very specific. Ms. Nicolai answered affirmatively. He also asked about an issue that did not appear in the final report, that of parking fees and parking fines. He noted the State (MTC) appears to be recommending that everyone charge for parking and he wondered if the City could get a jump on this issue. Also, he asked about an IJ article which highlighted the efficiency of the City in collecting parking fines, and wondered if they could take advantage of some low fine structures that are in existence and perhaps raise those. Would this be an area where a significant area of income could be raised? Mr. Coleman answered that the parking tickets were raised from $7 to $10 and it probably raised approximately $100,000. Mr. Shippey then commented that even if it was raised higher, that still would not be enough. He then asked about the State's recommendation on parking. Mayor Mulryan stated that the State met with much resistance on this. He stated the public has been communicating to him their dissatisfaction with parking tickets. He did state that even though a $10 ticket is not the same level as other cities, the public still does not like it. Mr. Shippey stated he realized that, but did it translate to action at the ballot box. Mayor Mulryan responded that he was not sure of that, but primarily it does not raise enough money and the City should keep its fines current with inflationary costs, but they needed to get serious about using a whole different scale of revenue in this meeting. Mr. Shippey then asked if it was still valid to restrict the City to one revenue source, because they are facing all the needs listed. Mayor Mulryan suggested using one source is valid, because he thinks they need to make a very clear statement to articulate the needs of the City, to encourage the voters to agree with the one chosen to really get specific things done. Councilmember Boro stated that in order to decide whether to put something on the June ballot, the first thing that needed to be done was to have the Finance Director take the City's current level of expenses and project 1991 through 1995 with the inflation and known wage increases that have been contracted for and see what the potential shortfall is and operating expenses. With sales taxes going down potentially and that being the City's primary source of revenue, this could be a potential problem. He stated that it was stated there was $172 million available and about $20 million has been addressed which leaves approximately $150 million, and approximately $50 million may come through a new source of Redevelopment. Mr. Boro brought up the subject of unfunded issues, for example the jail bookings, noting even though this may have been covered with the Property Transfer Tax, there is also a severe need in our Park and Recreation support maintenance. Then he commented on the possibility of what can be cut in the budget. Mr. Boro questioned how efficient the City's services are; including what level of service the City is providing. He also commented on the ballot language, noting the Council should look at the language closely toward a majority vote. He noted that the reaction of the voters in the County and State from the last election shows the public's feeling towards more taxes and that they do not want any more revenue increases. He also stated that whatever is put on the ballot should be strong enough to withstand any tests from different advocacy groups that will probably appear when this comes out. Mayor Mulryan stated that he agreed with Councilmember Boro's comments and asked staff to bring more detail on how each of the choices and the consequences of them. He suggested they make a decision to have staff go forward in working up some more detail about the ballot measures, the shortfall and the financial impact, what each of these measures could go for and the degree they can be covered in relation to other sources. A decision could then be made on which one to go for of the three, after receiving this information. Councilmember Breiner questioned whether or not the Committee should have one more meeting and give some feedback on their recommendation, in view of the fact that it is likely utility and energy costs will be going up. She questioned if there would be some psychological disadvantage to pushing one of these issues as opposed to what the environment might have been several months ago when the costs were not so high. Ms. Breiner stated she has very serious concerns because we are in the middle of winter with high utility bills coming up, noting she was trying to decide between the Municipal Services Tax and Utility Users Tax. Mayor Mulryan asked the Chairman of the Committee, Maynard Willms, if they could meet again and get back to the Council is soon as possible. Mr. Willms answered affirmatively. ;ouncilmember Boro stated that feedback from the Committee would help in deciding how o approach the public with this project. He then stated that staff should look at roposing a sunset clause, that every so many years, this would come back to a vote y the public. SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 6 Ms. Nicolai stated that it was the recommendation of the Committee that this would be done for four years and it would be renewed then. Councilmember Shippey asked if the Municipal Services Tax could be administered on a monthly basis rather than on a yearly basis. Mr. Coleman stated that staff could do it themselves, but it would be an administrative headache. Mayor Mulryan suggested paying it twice a year. Councilmember Shippey went on to state that the services the City is now providing need to be prioritized. Staff should look at what services could be cut in order to get the budget back in shape. Ms. Nicolai asked for ideas. Mayor Mulryan asked if there are cutbacks on, for instance, a fire station or a police beat, what will this do to the level of service? Councilmember Boro stated what the Council needs is some recommendation as to how secure the staff feels about the efficiency level of this City, and secondly, in the event there are choices that need to be made, what the staff's priority would be in that regard. Ms. Nicolai stated they would look into this. Councilmember Thayer asked Ms. Nicolai about the Landscaping and Lighting Act. She stated that it seems to be, by definition, a very narrow form of taxation with regard to the uses. Ms. Nicolai stated that if they wanted to consider the Utility Users Tax as a last option, part of it depends on what the Council considers to be the atmosphere in the public. It is an option that is very focused. Ms. Nicolai stated that some of the unmet needs were street tree maintenance, open space maintenance, and park maintenance, all of which could be funded out of this. Sidewalk repair would reduce the City's liability. She stated there is a whole program that staff could develop to be funded by this that could be an improvement over what they currently have. She stated it should be an option that should remain on the table and be weighed as to what the Council thinks the community would buy into. She commented that it was not the more ideal from her point of view because it lacks the flexibility, but if they were to take the $200,000 a year they are currently funding in street lighting costs and maintenance of street lights, and move that into this to be funded as a component, then you have flexibility on that $200,000 to do something else such as fund a Capital project or do something different with it in the General Fund. She stated that the projects which are currently being done should not be shifted into this option. Councilmember Thayer stated that even though it probably does not require a ballot measure, she feels they should probably have an advisory vote. She also asked from a dollar point of view, which of the taxes is most equitable to those who pay the taxes. Ms. Nicolai stated that that depends on an individual's point of view. Whatever projects are being decided on are benefiting the community as a whole, but the property tax system historically has been based on assessed valuation and people with more expensive houses paid a higher dollar amount than the people with the lower value houses. She stated if they wanted to transfer that theory that the ability to pay has any relationship to an equitable tax, the Utility Users Tax most closely matches that. Mayor Mulryan stated that if you excluded the Lifeline Service, that would exclude people whose principal asset is their home and who have no other outside income. Councilmember Breiner asked about the Utility Users Tax in relation to the larger homeowners being able to afford the larger utility charges. She wondered about the older large homes, could they afford it? She asked whether other places have had a "cap" on this Utility Users Tax, or staggered costs after a certain point. Ms. Nicolai replied that the "cap" usually relates to very large office complexes that are a single user and will be hit harder than any single residential user, especially the dollar amount. She stated that the Utility Users Tax most closely equates to what the Property Tax, by assessed valuation, does. Ms. Breiner stated that she was looking for ways to structure this so they can get the most people accepting it. She stated the City may gain support by capping it. Ms. Nicolai stated that what they needed to do was follow-up on some of the ideas with the utilities. Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. Nicolai to explore this option more fully. Councilmember Thayer stated she thought that as important as a cap is, it was important to look at people who are on very limited fixed incomes in this process. Ms. Nicolai stated that this is what the Lifeline rate is geared for. Councilmember Shippey stated he was worried about the cap affecting a very few large industrial users and this was the sort of thing that can hurt in a campaign when the opposition starts saying this is a fraud and will not benefit anyone. He also stated that a Utility Tax is something the user has some control over, in deciding to use fewer utilities or to insulate better, whereas, with the Municipal Services Tax, they have no control over this. SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 7 Councilmember Boro asked that staff give them more detail on the advisory ballot approach on the Landscaping and Lighting Act because there will probably be much confusion about that, noting in the last campaign he experienced alot of negativism on this approach. City Manager Nicolai stated that it might be best to go through the Assessment District process in advance and then at the end of the process have the Advisory vote. She noted to some extent it should be done to know what will be put on the ballot. She stated that the process, itself, could be developed so that it would be more educational, noting this would give the City the opportunity to get more people involved. Councilmember Boro stated that the schools last year passed a parcel tax. He asked if the Municipal Services Tax was similar to this. Ms. Nicolai answered affirmatively. Mayor Mulryan then asked for public comment. Harry Winters stated he had a letter that the (West End) Neighborhood Association had written recommending that the City have an independent audit of its current operations, to assure the public that the City is being well run and the current revenues are being used in the most efficient manner. He stated that, in his opinion, the letter stated that the Neighborhood Association would not take a position on supporting a ballot measure unless an independent audit of the City's operation is done. He also stated that this letter was written three or four months ago and was not mentioned in this meeting. Mayor Mulryan answered that he remembered the letter, noting he thought that one of the purposes of the revenue options study was to enable the people in that study to learn about the operations of the City and that if you cut back on positions, this would be no where near the scale of what they were talking about. Mr. Winters stated that his question came up during the Neighborhood Association's Board of Directors' Meeting and they asked him to tell them what went on in the Committee. He explained to the Council that the letter was the result of his explanation. Councilmember Thayer asked what the difficulty would be of having an independent audit of the City. Ms. Nicolai stated it would cost the City about $200,000. Mayor Mulryan stated that there might be a League of California Cities' study or something like that to measure our City with others in terms of efficiency at a relatively low cost. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, commented that it has been stated a number of times how heavily the city is dependent on sales tax, noting the City has just raised the business license fees and now the discussion is on a Utility Users Tax. She stated it appears that the heaviest impact of a Utility Users Tax would be on businesses. She asked that the Council consider the fact that businesses would be affected and not use big industrial users to pay what is needed. Linda Bellatore asked Ms. Nicolai about the State charges. Mayor Mulryan answered that the State has authorized the County to charge the City for jail bookings and property tax handling and this will cost the City around $400,000 a year. Councilmember Breiner pointed out that there was an article in the Chronicle that shows that this State is not the only State having this domino affect. There is one Eastern community where they have had to eliminate the lights on a parkway because they need the money. Mayor Mulryan asked for a further report from the staff, and adjourned the meeting at 6:45 P.M. � JEANN 1. LEONCINI, pity Clerk Q%� by SUZANNE M. DRAKE, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1991 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special Workshop Meeting) 12/4/90 Page 7