Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 3 <br /> STAFF REPORT Report Number: 9 2-3 q 6w5 <br /> CMOS <br /> 11111( <br /> ° Report Date: 10-1-92 <br /> AGENDA SESSION DATE October 5, 1992 <br /> DISPOSITION <br /> Item Description: NSP Franchise Fee <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> - No comments to supplement this report <br /> - Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) <br /> SUMMARY• <br /> Representatives from NSP, the businesses and residential <br /> community and City Staff met this Wednesday (September 30th) to <br /> discuss possible options to the straight percentage franchise <br /> fee. <br /> Discussions centered on the following topic areas: <br /> * Status of 1993 Budget needs <br /> * Short term solutions and long term problems <br /> (1993 needs and beyond, LGA cuts, declining <br /> property values, etc. ) <br /> * Revenues through property tax versus franchise- <br /> fee/user tax <br /> * Ramifications of 8. 32property tax increase, no <br /> alternative revenue source, potential 1993 <br /> LGA cuts <br /> * Disparity of use among commercial/industrial and <br /> residential parties <br /> * Unit rate pricing <br /> * Sunset clause of 3 , 5 and 10 years on franchise tax <br />--The group felt sLtong-ly—that—a-ny—franc-ise tax t-i-at—w-ou-1d be—im-po ed — <br /> should have a sunset clause. The concerns were that when the golf <br /> course and the business park comes on line, revenues should be <br /> sufficient to offset the franchise fee. <br /> The following alternatives to the straight percentage tax were explored: <br /> 1. A maximum dollar cap on the amount any resident or business <br /> would pay, i.e. , a cap of $300 was suggested by Charles Hall <br /> of the Mermaid. <br /> (continued on next gel—. <br /> _.. <br /> R.F,C.Q2DIF ATION: 1 !sem 7 -c(.. i <br /> (lTin a Orduno, City Ainistrator <br />