1990-12-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

109 APPROPRIATION: CDBG REPROGRAMMING - FIFEVILLE Mr. Hendrix explained that the appropriation would shift funds previously programmed for curb and gutters to complete the sidewalk and walls on Dice Street. On motion by Mr. Vandever, seconded by Ms. Slaughter, the CDBG Reprogramming for Fifeville was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. RESOLUTION: ADOPTING LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE Mr. Gouldman presented a revised version of the proposed legislative package which contained the following changes: 1) remove of endorsement of the entire VML program; 2) section on finances and taxes added to State Mandate section 3) housing section from portions of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Package added; and 4) changes in solid waste section. Ms. Waters stated that she had some difficulty with the section on State imposed mandates and expressed concern about endorsing local option income taxes unless it is done on a State-wide level. Ms. Slaughter recommended that the language be amended to say some mandates are excessive and the burden for funding should not be shifted to localities. Ms. Slaughter indicated she continued to be interested in pursuing the real estate assessment cap. Mr. Vandever stated that he was not anxious to call for additional taxes at the State or local level. Ms. Waters made a motion to substitute the following under State Imposed Mandates: State imposed regulatory and statutory mandates can often be excessive. Some should be reduced or, in some cases, repealed. Mandated state programs affected by recent state budget cuts should be suspended indefinitely until they receive full state funding. For those mandates which are continued, or newly created, ~full funding should be made available. During times of financial hardship in the Commonwealth, the burden of paying for vital services should not be shifted from the state to the local level where revenue raising options are limited and generally regressive. The state has varied and progressive options for raising additional revenue to fund the educational standards of quality~ social services and other mandated programs. Mr. Vandever seconded the motion. Mr. Toscano made a motion to amend the motion to include that consideration be given to an upper income tax. Ms. Waters did not accept Mr. Toscano's amendment. Mr. Toscano stated that he would vote against Ms. Waters' motion because he did not think it addressed the issue of equity in taxation and felt upper income persons could pay more taxes. Ms. Slaughter expressed strong concerns about the waste management tax and felt it was important to have a fee to support waste management at the local level. Ms. Water stated that the issue of waste management tax was not included in her motion. Ms. Waters' motion was approved by the. following vote, Ayes: Rev. Edwards, Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Toscano.