OCR Text |
Show Council Looks At Sales Tax Plans As Well Beer Tax Studied To Improve City's Revenue Picture I - ,i'm 'I: - ...,.,:mv , jtrf''" JX i. ; " AsV"" The City Council is seriously serious-ly considering imposing a tax on retail beer sales in Park City that could increase the cost to consumers up to ten cents a bottle or can. The option to tax beer has been available to Utah's cities and towns since prohibition was repealed in the early 1930's, yet no communities have taken advantage of the option. Park City officials say the city has for some time been searching for ways to raise more revenue without increasing in-creasing the heavy burden already felt by property owners. According to City Manager Arlene Loble, the beer tax is being considered for Park City because the brunt of the tax will be born oy tourists who, on a per capita basis, consume the greatest amount of beer particularly during the heavy winter season. Loble said revenue from the tax would help offset the cost of providing city services to tourists above those demanded de-manded by Park City's 3,500 full-time residents. Loble added those services would include additional police protection, snow removal, and all the other extras that make Dark City a competitive redistribution plan was approved, Loble said. To protect Park City's current sales tax revenue, the city is proposing the Legislature raise the sales tax level a quarter of a percent, with the addition only being redistributed to Utah communities with large populations and low retail sales. "That would at least allow us to keep what we're now getting" Loble said. As a means of generating additional sales tax dollars. Park City is also proposing a differential sales tax option for resort towns. If approved by the Legislature, the option would allow Park City to charge and retail an additional one percent tax. According to Loble, items not associated with tourism could be exempt from the tax, so as not to place Park City businesses in a competitive competi-tive disadvantage with nearby near-by areas. For example groceries could be exempt to keep residents from shopping in Salt Lake and lumber and hardware could also be excluded as an example, Anderson Lumber could be . placed at a competitive disadvantage with Summit County lumber, which is nearby, but out of the taxing jurisdiction of Park City. "Besides," said Loble, "lumber is traditionally not a high-demand tourist item." She emphasized the additional addi-tional revenue would go toward offsetting the cost of providing additional municipal munici-pal and special services to tourists. "We can't continue to expect property owners to pay for the expanding level of services in Park City so we have to either find additional sources of revenue or think about cutting back those services," she said. Suds and money: Beer tax tickles City Council's fancy less for the brew. To combat the potential competitive problem, all communities in Salt Lake County have now joined together in proposing the tax. During recent discussions, the City Council was considering consid-ering a tax of three tenths of a cent per ounce to be paid at a retail level. Salt Lake County communities are now proposing a tax of .05 or a half of a cent per ounce and Park City is expected to follow suit. "We want our ordinance to be compatible with Salt Lake County, so retailers are not dealing with a number of different ordinances," Loble said. The proposed tax would add an additional six cents to the cost of a 12 ounce can or bottle, 36 cents to a six-pack and $1.44 to a case. in Park City. Of that amount, Park City only gets back one percent and a quarter of that amount must go towards the city's transit system. Loble said the three quarters of a percent left over doesn't come anywhere near covering cover-ing the additional services the city must provide tourists. Loble said, ideally, sales tax revenue should cover the difference between services demanded by Park City's 3,500 base population and those that must be made available to tourists. Vail, Colo, charges a nine percent sales tax, and a local option ruling in that state allows the resort community to retail six percent of that tax, according to Loble. Lobel adds Sun Valley, Idaho, charges 10 percent sales tax and keeps most of the proceeds. mately $,1900 for a total of $8,156 a week. During an assume! four-month long peak winter season over $120,00)) could conceivably be gent rated by the tax. In addition to the increased prices resulting from Park City's tax, the cost of a beer could soar even higher if the state adopts a proposed three tenths of one cent per ounce. The state tax is being recommended by a panel studying Utah's drunk driving driv-ing problem as a means ot funding rehabilitation and educational programs for potential offenders. The Utah Beer Wholesalers Assocation is strongly opposed op-posed to the local tax because it is excessive compared to other states. The association also contends con-tends the resulting price hikes could encourage bootlegging boot-legging and drive beer drinkers to cheaper hard destination resort. Although Park City's base population hovers between 3,000 and 4,000, the city must provide services for as many as 12,000 people during peak winter season months, she said. Loble said Park City's annual budget is higher than many communities with base populations above 9,000 and adds the city's $500,000 public safety (police) budget is higher than any community commu-nity in Utah on a per capita basis. "If we decide we want to be a competitive destination resort, then we have to provide the additional services, ser-vices, and we can't expect taxpayers to continue to pay the entire freight," Loble said. Park City is also proposing legislative actions that would give the city a greater percentage of the sale tax dollars collected locally, in addition to the beer tax. As it stands now, Park City's decision to move on the beer tax is closely tied to whatever action Salt Lake County communities take on a similar measure. Earlier this year, West Valley City proposed a tax on beer sales. However, since West Valley City is only one of many adjoining communities in Salt Lake County, retailers feared they would be at a competitive disadvantage should the tax be adopted. Consumers in that city could in some cases walk across the street to another community where a beer tax was not imposed and pay Standard kegs, which traditionally tradi-tionally hold 16 gallons would generate $10.24 in tax revenue. Last week the Park Record quoted Budweiser distributors distribu-tors who maintained they would be distributing 400 kegs and 1,500 cases of their product a week in Park City during the peak winter season. If the figures are accurate, "Bud" sales alone would bring $6,256 a week in tax revenue during those peak periods. Assuming Budweiser now enjoys around 70 percent of the Park City market, competing brands would add approxi- She claims Utah's reluctance reluc-tance to give more sales tax revenue back to jommunities has put Park City in a competitive disadvantage as far as other resort towns are concerned. Adding to Park City's problems, there is a persistent persis-tent movement afoot in the legislature to redistribute sales tax dollars statewide on a base population basis, she said. Since Park City generates high sales tax dollars, but has a low comparative population, the city would receive even fewer sales tax dollars from the state if the liquor. Besides the beer tax, Park City is considering a differential differ-ential sales tax option to generate more sales tax revenue for the city and a sales tax redistribution plan that would protect Park City's sales tax dollars from being turned over to populated popu-lated areas with no sales tax base. Both measures require action ac-tion by the State Legislature and both will be pushed by Park City when the session convenes in January. Currently, Utah collects a tax of 5.25 percent on sales |