Meeting on new liquor tax set in Champaign
CHAMPAIGN — Champaign officials are hoping a public meeting regarding the proposed 4 percent tax on package liquor this Monday will provide business owners with more information about the surcharge.
The city council has informally supported the new tax which, if approved this summer, is expected to generate $700,000 per year and save city services like those performed by the police department's front desk staffers.
At least a few business owners have begun expressing disapproval of the new tax, which Sun Singer Wines owner Mark Yarbrough said developed very quickly and without input from the local liquor industry.
The informational meeting is scheduled for Monday at 7 p.m. in the Champaign City Building, 102 N. Neil St.
Yarbrough feels like the tax is an attempt to "cherry-pick the liquor industry."
The new tax "is senseless and doesn't take into consideration what it does to me personally and the retail liquor industry in Champaign," Yarbrough said.
Council member Karen Foster was the first, at least publicly, to suggest the city council consider the package liquor tax as a new source of revenue to save jobs at the police department's front desk as a tight budget threatened their existence. She said she supported the tax, which would apply only to retail liquor sales, after learning about it "from some information we received" from city administrators.
"I wanted to find a revenue source that we could keep the front desk open 24/7 and bring back the front desk positions," Foster said. "So with that revenue source, I would be able to do that."
Mayor Don Gerard, whose recent campaign was run partially on saving those jobs and other city services, said it is not an ideal situation, but he is most comfortable with the liquor tax compared to the other revenue generators that were presented to him.
"I'm not happy to tax, and unfortunately we were put in a position where we had to find a revenue stream," Gerard said.
And since a lot of police issues are related to alcohol, he said, it seems like an appropriate place to leverage the charge.
He said he hopes the business owners understand that it is a privilege to sell liquor in Champaign and that it is a small amount to give back. He would like to see some of the balance of the estimated $700,000 go back to the businesses in the form of economic development activities.
"We're put up against a wall," and the city had to find the revenue to save or restore some city services, Gerard said.
The estimate of how much revenue would be generated is based on the 4 percent liquor tax in both Bloomington and Normal, because city officials have no way of knowing how much package liquor sales actually occur in Champaign every year.
The $700,000 expected to be created by the liquor tax is more than the $210,000 that would be needed to save three front desk jobs at the police department, but Foster suggested the rest could be used for, possibly, avoiding the shut-down of a fire engine at one of Champaign's six stations.
"It will be revenue, so it could be used for anything," Foster said.
But there are holes in the numbers, Yarbrough said. Both Bloomington and Normal use the tax, but locally, Urbana does not. And Friar Tuck in Savoy gives Yarbrough's potential customers another option five minutes away from his business.
He has already seen a 20 percent dip in business since the recession set in, he said, and any more would be tough for him to handle. It is not worth losing business to Savoy and Urbana in order to help finance city council members' "pet projects," he said.
"They say, 'OK, here's where we might create some revenue,' and they all get their hands in," Yarbrough said.
Foster said it is not her intention to hurt any business' cash flow, and the idea is still in its infancy.
"I'm hoping that the revenues that have been realized in Bloomington-Normal are similar to what can be realized here in Champaign and that their fears will be unfounded," Foster said. "Of course, with every new thing, there's always a fear of the unknown. And if need be, maybe we can make adjustments."
MoreI really don't see keeping the front desk open at the police department as a "pet project". Of course, I'm not a retailer depending on sales to keep my business running. But I am a purchaser and consumer of beer and wine, and it seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me. I'll still buy in Champaign, why spend the gas money to go an extra five miles?
First we were told that the budget woes would be solved by a 10% pay reduction of the top earners in the city administration. I don't think anybody seriously believed that nonsense but it got Gerard out of having to discuss tax increases as a way to raise the revenue.
Then we are kept in the dark about who Gerard got money from until 2 weeks after the election. That turned out to be the owner of campus bars who gave him $12500.
Now we learn that only package liquor sales of alcohol will be taxed. I thought the bar owner who gave Gerard all that money was on Gerard's transition team also.
It just doesn't pass the sniff test. Why is only package liquor to be taxed? Is it that somehow if drinking is done at a bar it doesn't require increased policing? I would argue that it is the bar drinking that leads to more police calls.
The bar owner who gave Gerard all that cash during the election really shouldn't be in the midst of this.
You expect all citizens to attend city council meetings just for this?
All this ideally should have been discussed in the recent mayoral campaign. But no, Gerard pretended that no new taxes were in store.
It angers me that politicians just lie during the campaigns.
Yeahokay you must be a politician or activist of some sort to be attending the city council meetings. But thanks for the information about city taxes on poured liquor. You obviously have a soft spot for the bars.
I you plan to tax the electorate, say it up front and have a discussion about it before the election.
I looked it up.
Beverages sold for immediate consumption have a higher tax.
But even groceries are taxed by the city.
Yeahokay you are a politician who thinks it is OK to spin to support your position.
It is a flat out lie that packaged liquor isn't taxed at all by the city.
So the city wants to save a few secretaries' jobs by taxing liquor stores? Welcome to Champaign.
Local liquor stores are already facing a tough time against gas stations and supermarkets which undercut them significantly.
You're welcome Savoy and Urbana.
Of course, the giant hazardous potholes all over the city are of little concern. Who cares if a pothole destroys someone's suspension or tires? Oh right, it's probably a different budget. Hey I'm also glad we built a brand new library in these troubled economic times. It's important that homeless people will have a nice play to relax while reading books in giant open spaces, since the last library was so "small." Oh right, it wasn't aesthetically pleasing, so we'll tear it down and drop a couple mil to build a new one, so we can be "modern."
No I'm not bitter. Just embarrassed.
The fact that you disrespect the job that the Police Service Representatives by calling them secretaries proves that you have no idea what they do for you and the rest of the community. This may not be the best way to bring in revenue, but the fact that you're willing to throw mud at what they do to make your point is disappointing. Furthermore, your post insinuates that gas stations and supermarkets would be immune to the price increase that comes with the tax, which makes no sense. If the price goes up at the local liquor store, it goes up at the gas station too. If the local stores are struggling, they should find ways to be more competitive, as that's how the free market works.
Personally, I think it would be nice if people did not post anonymously, regardless of their background. It could be said that anyone who uses an online pseudonym is choosing, on some level, to hide their real identity. Yet, even making use of a name that one uses offline can be interesting. For instance, I've had the experience of meeting people who assumed that I was a male simply because I use the nickname "Marti". Marti is actually derived from Martha :D
People have a choice in regards to how they present themselves online, and I have chosen to use my name. On the other hand, it's kind of hypocritical that you accuse another poster of being a politician, tell him/her to be transparent, while remaining anonymous yourself. It's similar to the politicians who run for office on the platforms of family values, while screwing around behind the backs of their spouses.
While I may state a preference for people to be more transparent, that is simply a preference. However, I also understand that people have their own reasons for being anonymous. It would be disrespectful for me to tell posters to use their real names, and I have no desire to do so. But if anyone chooses to slam me or my opinions, while hiding behind a pseudonym, then that person should not expect for me to take him/her seriously.
Instead of picking on liquor and tobacco, which are primarily consumed by the lower working classes, why not impose a 70% sin tax on all political contributions? Before the demise of Saddam Hussein, people who were executed in Iraq had their families billed for the cost of the execution. The police spend way more time watching bars and their patrons then they do chasing violent criminals. Every time if read about the latest bar sweep, the paper also has second page stories about someone being attacked in campus town. Why should the bars have to pay any tax over the normal sales tax to pay the police who are trying to destroy them.
Who picks up the bill for refuge in the streets, and on the sidewalks? Who pays for the random acts of vandalism? Who pays the cost of injury, or death because of a D.U.I. driver? The bar owners will raise the price of drinks to cover the tax. The owner of another business is not selling a product that impairs the senses. If you look at the time of day, or night when campus town attacks take place; you have to wonder why someone would be walking in some areas at that time. The municipalities are cutting back on public safety personnel unless the citizens raise enough cane over the lack of protection as in Urbana. If their were more police on the streets, the violence would diminish. If the police were allowed to handle things as they were handled in the past, most of these criminals would relocate to where they came from. You can have public safety; but there is a cost for it.
Not everybody who gets a DUI is impaired. If you think that the government is really concerned about public safety, you are mistaken. The state has created an industry out of criminalizing things. Look around walmart or Mcdonalds and see how much trash there is. As far as safety is concerned, impaired drivers are equal to people talking on the phone, texting, eating, putting on makeup or driving their SUV like a bully. I for one do not want to be on the interstate when a semi driver has a Mcheart attack from junk food. It is all about money folks.
Yes; it's about the money. Your correct. The reason for the tax increase is about the money. Money that can be used for public safety. I cannot understand your logic in comparing D.U.I. drivers to the other categories. When someone is arrested for a D.U.I., they are driving under the influence of alcohol. They are tested to determine if they are over the limit defined by law. They are driving impaired. I don't want to be on the rode with them on the rode also. I, also, don't want to be on the road with someone texting, or having a heart attack on the road at the same time. The cost of alcohol will go up in Champaign. People can still buy it; but the price will be higher in some places.
Whether someone is called a secretary or "police service representative" or receptionist, it does not matter. These people, from descriptions, largely do secretarial work. Another point is that they really cost $70,000 each. Sure, one can act like the real story is salaries are only $33,000-$38,000 and the $30,000+ difference is made up of "pensions, training, and equipment" (which is insulting that the benefits and equipment cost as much if not more than the people), but in the end, the cost is $70,000 per employee. One can slice the numbers and pick out figures, but $210,000 for three employees is $70,000 for each position.
But, let's act like the city of Champaign is really "up against the wall" and must raise taxes to drain money from the citizens of Champaign. Notwithstanding the lost opportunity costs (e.g., the money could be spent at other businesses, invested, or used for other productive endeavors), Champaign City Council is simply lying. Recently Champaign put up $150,000 for a youth summer work program. Regardless of the merits or demerits of the youth program, this is obviously not the actions of someone so broke that they cannot find a way to keep the police front desk open. Money can be found for pet projects while at the same time bemoaning that public safety is threatened. There is no way to reconcile the logic that states this: "We have to hurt public safety because we have no money but we will also spend an extra $150,000." I just wish I was this broke!
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.