03-09-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WP' ^ m::. Mayors, Managers, Clerks Page 2 February 25, 199 It is, of course, rather unlikely the legislature won't enact legislation correcting the problem resulting from the Governor's line item veto. But it could happen. Or, more likely, the programs the trust fund could be shifted around so less of the trust fund money would fund county programs. What would the countj s fcv out, or continue their support of optional sales tax oo that city property tax relief program.; continue? Should the Legislature fail to adopt a new trust fund distribution foraula this year, we would expect many counties to rescind the local option tax and the whole trust fund concept to collapse. However, there is a danger that some counties could act to rescind the tax,' even if the legislature passes a new distribution formula which is satisfactory but not ideal from the county standpoint. In view of this hazard, I encourage city officials to take these actions: 1.Ur^^e your legislator to support a lew trust fund distribution formula which maintains the integrity of the trust fund. 2.officials to cr ^^.inue to support the trust fund ana the 1/2 cent local option tax, provided the legislature passes any fairly reasonable trust fund distribution formula. Ask them to be careful that any resolution regarding rescinding the l^al option tax be applicable only in the event that no new 'distribution formula is passed in the 1992 session. 3.Point out to your county officials their action to rescind the could be negated by adoption of resolutions by SSnty'a po^?atioS? « "ajority of the boiM^forLl!rn.H“?= K powerful impact on city finance that ®i9ht join with city councils representing a majority of rhe SvUve * population to reverse any county government decision to revoke support of the I/2 cent local optional sales tax. Tfryi.:-.-