Loading...
20130108 Late CorrespondenceCity of Rancho Palos Verdes Legislative Meetings,Sacramento,CA January 8,2013 Protect Local Collection of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) -Fact Sheet and Talking Points Background (not intended for discussion with Legislators) ~TOT is a tax that is levied on the consumer (not a hotel)as a percentage of the full room rate charged. ~More than 400 California cities and 55 counties levy a local TOT. ~RPV TOT rate is 10%.TOT revenue for RPV is about $3.2 million (or about 13% of total General Fund revenue). ~In .accordance with the City's Reserve Policy,TOT is transferred to the CIP reserve for projects.This represents the single largest source of capital project funding for the City. ~Based upon Staff's understanding of the current industry practice (described below),online travel company sales result in less tax being remitted to the City: o Online company has arrangement with hotel to purchase room rentals at a discount.Arrangement is unknown to consumer. o Consumer books a hotel room for $300.Rather than paying a specific amount identified as "TOT"for $30 (based upon the 10%rate),the consumer pays a lump sum for "taxes and fees"that may be something like $38.50. o The online company may send the hotel only $250 for the room,based on the discount arrangement noted above.The online company will also send $25 for the tax (based upon the 10%rate). o The core issue is that the tax is levied on the consumer,not the hotel.If the consumer pays $300 for the room,then $30 should be remitted for tax (not $25 in this example). Talking Points for Discussions with Legislators ~TOT is an important source of revenue to RPV,as it is used for infrastructure projects. ~Any loss of this revenue will affect the City's ability to maintain its infrastructure. ~The City requests that the legislature ensure that no state law shall be enacted that would reduce the TOT that should be collected from the consumer. RECEIVED FROM..L.;d.l¥-/!JIJ.~~..J.il!i~1 AND MADE A PART OF HE REC D AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF';w\.3)£013 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK City of Rancho Palos Verdes Legislative Meetings,Sacramento,CA January 8,2013 State Budget &Potential Threats to Local Revenues -Fact Sheet and Talking Points ~Highway users tax: o The State's allocation formula is complex. o This revenue source is vital to California cities responsible for maintaining streets other than California highways. o The City of RPV spends a range of about $3.7 million to $6 million annually maintaining the public right of way. o The City's General Fund must pay for about %of this cost. . 0 The City's allocation of HUTA is only about $1.1 million annually,and must be retained to ensure the safety of public streets. ~COPS: o The City receives $100,000 annually from the Citizens Option for Public Safety fund. o This funding pays for close to %of the cost of a special policing team that focuses on juvenile crime and drug abuse prevention. ~Sales tax collection for online sales: o Online sales are growing,and both the state and cities continue to lose sales tax dollars. o State legislators should continue to enact legislation that would ensure that California collects its fair share of sales tax and continues to pay the allocation due to cities. ~State mandated cost reimbursements: o The City currently has over $900,000 of unpaid claims going back to FY02-03. o The State must resume greater e payment of state mandated cost reimbursement claims to cities when fiscally possible. o The costs of these programs have taken City General Fund money away from important local services such as public safety and infrastructure maintenance. Public Records Act Requests There has been a dramatic increase in Public Records Act (PRA)requests received by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes over the last five years as reflected below,with PRA requests almost tripling in that time period. Year No.of PRA requests 2012 63 2011 60 2010 44 2009 45 2008 24 PRA requests range from fairly straight-forward requests for which records are readily accessible to those which ~equire an enormous amount of staff time,effort,and expense as staff searches for and reviews records for responsiveness.The more time consuming PRA requests require staff members to redirect their attention from their regular workload and projects to search for records.Unfortunately, little or no reimbursement is recovered by the City for the time spent on PRAs.The City Attorney has observed that PRA requests are being used by litigants,rather than the discovery process pursuant to court rules,because PRA requests are essentially free and can have broader scope.One of greatest frustrations is when a PRA request is submitted,the City notifies the requestor that the records are ready for pickup and payment,and the City never receives a response from the requestor.The City currently has 7 requests that fall into this category. In August 2011,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes received two PRA requests from a resident,the first regarding storm drainage channels near her home and the second request for information regarding a proposed project to be constructed on City property.Due to the voluminous nature of her second request for records which spanned over 3%years,it took months for staff to gather all potentially responsive documents from staff and Council Members,several more months over which the Ci.ty Attorney's office reviewed the documents for production,with the final production of documents being made in June 2012.The requestor made one visit to City Hall to review a portion of the documents she had requested,and picked up and paid for several pages of documents and 4 CDs.The City continued to produce documents and CDs pursuant to her requests,and the requestor never reviewed,picked up or paid for any of the additional materials that were produced.In the end,the City produced the following additional documents that were never reviewed or picked up -two Banker's boxes of documents,five additional CDs,.and six Mylar maps.Staff sent numerous emails and letters to the requestor;had one response from her in May 2012 they she was quite busy with an urgent matter;and has heard nothing more from her in over eight months. On August 27,2012,the City received a PRA request regarding information pertaining to environmental issues related to a large senior residence/facility in the City.Again Staff worked for approximately a week searching for and pulling together potentially responsive documents for review;the City Attorney's office spent numerous hours reviewing the documents produced by staff;and on October 4,2012 the City completed its collection and review of documents and notified the requestor.On October 9,2012, the requestor responded that he was canceling the PRA request as his company closed the project. The City was unable to receive any reimbursement for the time and expenses incurred for the PRA request.