Agendas and Minutes

Citizens' Budget Committee (View All)

Transient Occupancy Tax

Minutes
Tuesday, January 20, 2004

These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council.

Transient Occupancy Tax
Sub-Committee
Draft Minutes
January 20, 2004 12:00pm
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way

Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 12:12 pm.

Roll Call
Council Present: Cate Hartzell, Chris Hearn, and Kate Jackson
Staff Present: Mike Franell, Gino Grimaldi, Bryn Morrison, and Lee Tuneberg
Others: Paul Nicholson, Sandra Slattery, and Mary Pat Parker

Approval of Minutes
Approval of previous sub-committee minutes dated: January 5, 2004

Council and staff agreed to change the minutes. On Page 2, Tuneberg stated that the demographics page did not gather the information needed in the past. On the page 3, Jackson was not prepared to take public input at the next meeting. Hartzell suggested having the grantees, OSF and the Chamber meet at a separate meeting, not the one mentioned previously. Parker stated that she thought that inviting the public would diffuse the sub-committees goals. Nicholson commented that the transient occupancy tax percentage would not be lowered. Hearn agreed that is what he meant; the percentage of the tax that is promoting tourism would not be lowered.

Hearn/Jackson m/s to accepted minutes as amended.

Transient Occupancy Tax
Committee discussed the need to have an initial product to take to Council by early March, before the grant applications are processed. It was determined that by February 3, the committee will have a report back from the Chamber and Tuneberg to discuss after their meeting. It was proposed to meet on Tuesdays pending other conflicts and to use the schedule mentioned in the agenda. Hartzell reemphasized the need to include the grant recipients in future agendas.

Discussion continued regarding the grant application. Tuneberg asked if Finance should send the grant application out with the changes the sub-committee will make. He proposed refining the application with the information that will be available and distributing it, but Finance should have the acceptance of the application by full Council before the funds are allocated. He would like a directive from Council for the budget committee to follow. He added that the meetings could be in April instead of March to allocate the funds and that there is one amount for the granting based upon the resolution; the Budget Committee determines the amount to each grantee. It was determined that changes will be made to the application as presented. Question 5 will ask the applicant what percentage was allocated in own use. It was suggested to define small cultural organizations, and that tourism is 50 miles away or someone who spends the night. It was determined that there is a need to show how the statute has changed and define it. Hartzell suggested including in Question 6: tourism as defined. Tuneberg stated the grant application actually had not changed much since the previous year and it was pointed more in the tourism area. Question 8 was discussed and Slattery spoke to the history of the grant and that it was never meant for long term support. The committee was concerned about businesses using the grant for longer than the intended start up costs. They discussed the possibility of the grantees becoming self-supporting. Hearn suggested using that as one of the criteria to consider in allocating funds. It was suggested that Question 8 reads: How are you working to develop other sources of revenue? Tuneberg suggested asking directly what they are doing to be self-supporting and how much support from the City will they continue to need? Discussion continued to Question 12. It was suggested to ask the grantees for a budget of the other funding sources that they receive compared to the budget of the funds received from the City. Jackson added that Question 8, 9, 12, and 13 belong together. Tuneberg added that they can look at how many times each grantee had applied and been granted funds, unless it is a new program that the grantee is starting. It was suggested on Page 6 to include in Question 4: traveled more than 50 miles and how many people stayed overnight. Committee and staff agreed to remove Point of Entry from Client Demographic Profile and to change the Client/Patron Residence to Ashland, Rogue Valley, and over 50 miles. Committee and staff will continue with the agenda at section B in the next meeting.

Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:28 pm.

Respectively submitted,
Bryn Morrison
Administrative Secretary Finance Department

End of Document - Back to Top


Ashland 24/7

Pay Your
Utility Bill
Connect
to AFN
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Apply for
Building Permits
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2017 City of Ashland, OR | Site by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

Email Share