Laserfiche WebLink
ORD. NS-1029 <br />UTILITY USER TAX <br /> <br />UPON THE USE OF ELECTRICITY, <br />AND SERVICES. <br /> <br /> Council considered the second reading <br /> and adoption of ORDINANCE NS-1029 <br />PROVIDING FOR UTILITY USER TAX <br />GAS, TELEPHONE, AND WATER FACILITIES <br /> <br />The following spoke in Opposition to the adoption of Ordinance NS-1029: <br /> <br />James Gilmore, 1405 S. Garnsey, President of the Industrial Development <br />Association of Greater Santa Ana; <br />Nancy Holsinger, 326 N. Mountain View, Secretary of the Southwest <br />Homeowners' Association; <br />Robert Fair, 1425 Standard, representing the Orange County Apartment <br />House Association; <br />Bryn Evans, President of the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce; <br />Buford Gibson, 12962 Browning, representing Santa Ana-Orange-Tustin <br />Board of Realtors; <br />Dorothy Brady, 1002 W. Occidental, who presented a petition containing <br />approximately 215 signatures, which was ordered filed, on motion of <br />Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Markel and unanimously <br />carried; <br />Wanda Simcar, 806 S. Citrus Drive, President of Southwest Homeowners' <br />A s sociation; <br />Carol Brandl, 1130 Douglas; <br />Janice Boer, 912 N. Lowell, President of the Property Owners Protective <br />League, Inc., also speaking for her neighbors; <br />Alex Acevido, 3392 Ponderosa Drive; <br />Andrea Vanderpool, 1931 W. Washington; <br />Frederick Rash, 213 N. Cubbon; <br />Mel Jordan, 2405 S. Shelton; <br />Edward Jillson, 3015 S. Rene Drive, President of the South Main Improvement <br />A s sociation; <br />Shirley Redding, 3117 W. Adrian Way; <br />Wes Vanderpool, 1931 W. Washington; <br />MaryE. Ross, 933 E. Brook; <br />Raymond C. Perez, taxpayer; <br />Peter J. Vogel, 2215 N. Ross. <br /> <br />RECESS <br /> <br />At 9:30 P.M., a five minute recess was <br />declared. The Council reconvened at 9:40 <br />P. M., with all Council members present. <br /> <br />ORD. NS-1029 (Continued) <br />UTILITY USER TAX <br /> <br />Council continued its deliberations on <br />adoption of Ordinance NS-1029. <br /> <br />Councilman Patterson stated that although he believed long-term financing was the <br />best way to finance capital improvements, bond issues consistently failed to pass <br />when put to the voters and that after looking at all of the possible means of revenue, <br />he felt the utility user tax was one of the fairest means because it was spread out to <br />all of the community; that the average charge would be $2.00 per month per household; <br />and that he did not feel there was any other alternative at this time. Councilman <br />Herrin stated he had studied very carefully the priority list of unfunded capital <br />improvements and that he felt the only very important projects were the drainage <br />projects and possibly police radio equipment; and that he thought the timing of the <br />utility user tax ordinance was bad because of the poor economic situation. Councilman <br />Markel expressed his opposition to the tax, stating he was opposed to it for many <br />reasons; for one, he thought it was an attempt to catch up with the tax reductions the <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-256 - <br /> <br />September 8, 1970 <br /> <br /> <br />