The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-25-1975 Minutes2 7. MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED MEETING CALL TO ORDER: MARCH 25, 1975 Meeting called to order at 8:00 P.M. by the Honorable Donald Linton, Mayor. ROLL CALL: By Leo Olney, Director of Finance. Councilmen present were: S.K. Adams, M.R. Denney, Donald Linton, Billie Sargent, Al Schor, Jan Tidrick and Bill Wilkins. Also present were: Harry D. Kinzer, City Manager; Patrick Roach, City Attorney; Leo Olney, Director of Finance and James Ajax, City Engineer. MAYOR LINTON DECLARED THE RECONVENED MEETING OPEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING GAMBLING ISSUE AND INVITED COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL AND AUDIENCE: Councilman Wilkins opened meeting by stating that the City had an Ordinance which could be used and would allow maximum taxation because he was opposed to present "No -Gambling" Ordinance. Councilman Denney asked if an Ordinance was legal based on future happening;i,further, is it good legislation? The CityAttorney replied no to Mr. Denney's first question and commented that legislation is the Council's policy. Mr. Schor moved to adopt an Ordinance which permits gambling under State Law, taxed to the maximum that the County -permits, allowing the City to set base for card rooms. Seconded by Mr. Wilkins. (Discussion) Mr. Denney stated that if we allow cardroom gambling in the City of Pasco, we could collect no tax whatsoever because the County deliberately made card room gambling tax free. The City Attorney replied, "if the -County in their Ordinance considered taxing cardroom gambling and they stated no tax, the City cannot tax; further, the City is only authorized to tax the same level as permitted by the County." Mr. Denney questioned legality of passing an Ordinance based on future happenings and opposed passage of such an -Ordinance for the•)following reasons:: Mr. Denney had occasion to attend a meeting of the County Commissioners and felt they gave no consideration to the -City in spite:of .the fact.that.90% of•the gambling is done inside City limits. The County.is completely absolved of the enforcement of such an activity and they gave us the grand sum of $700 last year and they have no intention of giving anymore this.year unless they;are 'forced to do it. At the ,-Public Hearingclast.year, they cut us .94%.and.left the City with 6%. Mr. Denney cited further reductions and descrepancies of County Public Hearing. Mr. Denney charged that the.County.tax was•illegal and in -direct violation of the Tax Commission. He stated:.the Commissioners knew this but passed it anyhow in an effort to see if they could get by with it. He said that the Law states the taxes must be uniform and cited differences between several local taverns. Mr. Denney further charged that "there was a conspiracy between the tavern owners -and County Commissioners to charge less than they could legally charge, to charge a license when a license could not be legally collected nor could it be passed in an Ordinance. He. stated.that he felt the County had no,•intentioh 'of =rais rig -taxes any more than a token -amount. ILast : year when - the County 'should+ have^co1'lected 22:-,,O 00of o:*r1fpynch155afd.§� and pu11:.`tabs, -they actuallyccollected $1,400 and the lowest tax in the State. Mr.. Schor felt uncomfortable as "defender of gambling." In fact, at the polls, he voted against gambling; however,--he-felt obliged•to fulfill wishes -of -people who had voted favorably for it. He felt the key issue was number of times people had indicated their desire for gambling.' -..Subsequent to -Advisory -Ballot, the majority of councilmen who had been in opposition started addressing themselves to taxing. Taxing did not surface until after. -the advisory ballot,'it had never been an issue and he felt the County Commissioners_had.been.unjustly intimidated. He felt the key issue was that this was what the.people wanted and we should set-aside our personal feelings.. He -called attention.to.30-40�hours of -valuable workshop time being spent on this.issue and slighting other important matters. Mr. Wilkins reaffirmed support in Mr: Rogers'.(County Commissioner) statement that they were doing.something.about the tax structure. Mr. Rogers made no committment but Mr. Wilkins was confident he would. He further stated he wanted to run for City Councilman again to serve the people, and if the people who voted him into office voted that they wanted gambling, if they are big enough to vote for me, they are big enough to know whether or not they want gambling. 21.6 MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED MEETING MARCH 25, 1975 Mrs. Sargent stated she had been against gambling which was no secret; however, she 5had,i`ndicated her willingness to abide by the advisory ballot and taxing will come later. She called attention .to the fact that she had met with the County Commissioners on the taxation subject and was confident that an equitable solution could be worked out. Mr. Adams, stated that his obligation was.to the people.of Pasco - we indicated we would abide by an advisory ballot, there was no mention of taxation as a condition on the ballot and I think we should fulfill our obligation at this time and vote for gambling as the people want. Mr. Denney reminded that Council that even though we had approximately 90% of the gambling in the City limits, the County never consulted the City on a fair assessment figure, they just went ahead and assessed us 2/3 of 1% and let it go at that. He further stated that County Commissioners Rogers and Whitemarsh had made a statement they weren't going to do anything-aboutttaxation and if we adopt this Ordinance, the figure can change at their public hearing. At this time, the City Manager requested permission to read Section III of proposed Ordinance: "9.28.030 Persons Subject to Tax -.Tax Rates. A tax is hereby levied at the highest rate established by Franklin County upon all persons, associations and organizations conducting or operating within this jurisdiction any of the gambling activities listed above or permitted within the City of Pasco; said tax is to be paid to the City of Pasco, Washington; a tax is hereby levied on card playing in the amount of percentage of the gross receipts received as fees charged persons for the privilege of playing in card games." Mr. Linton asked Mr. Schor if he addressed 20% to be inserted in blank space. To this, Mr. Schor stated he gave no amount but believed 20% was legal State maximum. Mr. Linton replied that Seattle and Tacoma did have 20%, they were the two highest. Mr. Schor added that we had better fill in the blank and recommended 20%. Mr. Denney asked if it was Mr. Schor's intent to amend proposed Ordinance. Mr. Schor replied that the issue was to adhere to publie,,w±shes - which is gambling as the people have asked for.. Discussion ensued on Ordinance No. 1700 which was defeated by 4 - 3 margin on February 18, 1975. Council concurred that figure of 20% on cardrooms had been inserted in that Ordinance. The City Manager clarified that Ordinance No. 1700 had percentages allowed by the State. Mr. Denney reminded his collegues that if we pass this Ordinance, the County is under no obligation to increase tax rate. He still charged that their,.Ordinanc6.was illegal and felt the City was placing themselves in jeopardy. The City Attorney reiterated that Ordinance No. 1700 which the City Manager read is an illegal Ordinance because the rates were higher than C6unty had set and the City is not authorized to set rates higher than the County. Mr. Roach stated that proposed Ordinance, labeled "4-b" was a legal Ordinance and encompassed what Mr. Schor's main motion was. In his opinl6n, the.Franklin County Ordinance, as drafted, was illegal due to certain terminology. He further reported that the County Commissioners were in the process of re -drafting Ordinance to insure legality. Mr. Schor asked for an Ordinance number for "4-b" and insert figure of 20% on cardrooms. His second, Mr. Wilkins, concurred with percentage figure. ORDINANCE NO. 1703: eting) AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO GAMBLING, PROVIDING FOR, AND LEVYING, A TAX UPON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE CONDUCT OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES; PRO- VIDING FOR NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH TAX; PROVIDING FOR THE -EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND AMENDING PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.28 BY AMENDING CHAPTER 9.28.010 and 9.28.020 AND BY ADDING 9.28.030, 9.28.040, 9.28.050, 9.28.060, 9.28.070, 9.28.080, 9.28.090, 9.28.100, 9.28.110, 9.28.120, 9.28.130, 9.28.140, 9.28.150, 9.28.160 AND 9.28.170 AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1683. (Continued next page) MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED MEETING Ordinance No. 1703 - Continued: MARCH 25, 1975 Ordinance No. 1703 was read by title only. Mr. Schor moved that Ordinance No. 1703 be adopted. Seconded by Mr. Wilkins. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. YES: Adams, Sargent, Schor and Wilkins. NO: Denney, Linton and Tidrick. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned to Workshop Session at 9:10 P.M. Donald D. Linton, Mayor ATTEST: Leo E. Olney, Director of Finance and Ex -officio City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this_1day of 1975. 1 1