New tax could be closer to final OK after Champaign study session
CHAMPAIGN — The proposed 4 percent package liquor tax will face another trial when the city council meets this week.
The new tax on retail liquor sales could be nearer to final approval after the council meets for a study session on the topic at 7 p.m. on Tuesday in the Champaign City Building, 102 N. Neil St.
The council has already given tentative approval to the theory of the package liquor tax, but this week, members will be faced with a draft ordinance of the real thing.
Last week, several liquor store owners attended a public, informational session about the new tax. They said such a tax — and the higher alcohol prices that would come with it — would chase business away to Savoy, and the city should not be focusing its charge on one specific industry.
The package liquor tax applies only to alcohol meant to be consumed off the seller's premises, so the vast majority of sales at bars and restaurants would not be affected.
Under the proposed ordinance, the 4 percent tax would go into effect Aug. 1, and the city would give businesses until Sept. 20 to make their first payment.
City officials expect the tax would raise about $580,000 this year and roughly $700,000 in subsequent years, according to city documents.
Council members hope the new revenue would restore some of the services they planned to cut earlier this year as the city budget grew tight.
What exactly it might pay for has yet to be decided. Council members have already said that they would like to use some of the money to save three jobs at the police department's front desk at a cost of about $200,000 per year. Where the rest of the new revenue would go is still up in the air.
If they support the proposal this week, the council would still need to give their formal approval during a later meeting. Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing last week said that her city may consider imposing the tax, too.
In other business, the city council will consider designating Baytowne Drive from Boardwalk Drive to Prospect Avenue as honorary "Clint Atkins Way."
Mr. Atkins was 65 years old when he died of a sudden heart attack in April. He owned The Atkins Group, was a partner in Fox/Atkins Development and was directly involved in building many subdivisions and shopping centers in Champaign.
His family has also expressed an interest in naming a planned Olympian Drive bridge over the Canadian National railroad in his honor, according to city documents.
The details of that proposal must still be worked out between the cities of Champaign and Urbana and Champaign County.
While I'm not commenting on the wisdom of this package liquor tax or its amount, it is misleading to say that "bar liquor sales are not being taxed". The city already has a Food & Beverage tax on top of the sales tax which applies to bar liquor sales--I believe it is 0.5 percent. Package sales are currently excluded from this tax. Maybe a fairer option would be simply to include package sales in this existing tax rather than creating a new one.
I'm unclear a couple of things on this proposal. First, if the city needs $200,000 to save the police night desk, why isn't the increase being discussed in the 1 1/2% range rather than 4%? It's difficult to agree with increased taxes in the first place, but to state, "What exactly it (the excess) might pay for has yet to be decided," is just bad policy.
Secondly, why doesn't the Champaign simply increase the fuel tax by 2% as Urbana did? This would not only raise probably over $1,000,000 annually, but also put Champaign on a parity with Urbana. Since Urbana instituted the fuel tax, I haven't noticed any real disparities in fuel prices between the two cities. Taxpayers will, however, see a disparity in pricing of package liquor in Champaign, and if Urbana follows their lead and takes their own 4% "bonus bucks," package liquor sales will most certainly be driven to Savoy and other areas. This proposal is for a regressive tax which should be defeated.
They pulled the 4% figure out of thin air and hastily adopted the plan because it is the most safe politically to increase tax on package liquor.
Cowards and manipulators they weren't honest during the campaign and didn't talk about new taxes at all. Gerard got around the question on how to fund his pet issue by promising that highly paid city employees would take a "voluntary" pay reduction.
I just don't trust the guy.
This is a tax looking for an expense instead of the other way around. One can make the argument that Council already decided on their priorities with regard to the desk and the fire station. The new mayor seems eager to help his unionized friends at the expense of the taxpayer. This will very quickly become partisan politicsS
The Olympian documents alluded to in this article should be made available to the public as a matter of the freedom of information act. Here is a clear-cut abuse of power by One driver leading
a two-horse wagon over a rail line to the tune of 16 million wasted dollars of taxpayer's money.
Travesty.
To tax one type of business to shift business from package sales to bar sales clearly is to push alcohol consumers from their homes, (Where they are safe from DUI), to putting the public at risk by causing these potential drunken drivers to publicly again drive while intoxicated or up to and beyond the legal limit. So any one involved in an accident with someone under the influence will have mayor Gerard and his war chest banker, (Bar Owner), have to thank for their demise, up to and including permanent disability and or death in order to promote the businesses of this bar owner and to also employ a few overpaid police staff that can and should be discontinued and that adjustment absorbed by the all powerful big brother in the sky that would otherwise pursue you to an arrest should you choose to freely acquire evidence of their incompetence while excelling at police brutality. The people have, should and must continue to watch, record and pursue due diligence while watching over the big brother shoulder as genetics clearly demonstrates that when big brother or sister is given trust they will abuse it to quench their own greed at the demonstrable expense of those which they serve and will continue their abuse until called and held accountable. Clearly, mayor Gerard does not have the public safety and well being as a priority above and beyond those entrusted to serve, it is wrongly the other way round.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.