|These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council.|
Transient Occupancy Tax
February 24, 2004 12:00pm
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Call to Order
|00||The meeting was called to order at 12:09 pm.|
|00||Council Present: Kate Jackson, Cate Hartzell, and Chris Hearn|
|Staff Present: Mike Franell, Gino Grimaldi, Bryn Morrison, and Lee Tuneberg|
Approval of Minutes
|00||Approval of minutes dated February 10, 2004.|
Hearn/Jackson m/s to accept minutes as presented. All Ayes.
|00||Approval of minutes dated February 18, 2004.|
Jackson revised the minutes on the last page to when Copeland stated how OSF could show support: contributions for OSF were coming from local memberships support. On question of what the state hoped to achieve with new law: Jackson replied that the state has a marketing program and it would market the state as a tourism destination. Graham Lewis stated that he liked the idea of partnering for the Chamber instead of appreciated.
Hearn/Jackson m/s to accept minutes as corrected. All Ayes
Determination of "tourism" component of July1, 2003 budget:
Jackson spoke to the 12% of the funds that go to the smaller organizations and they will not analyze them. She spoke to the letter that OSF presented on 2/10/04 and that 3% of the brochures that they spend their granted funds on, stay in the community. She stated that she believes that the funds that are granted to OSF are used fully for promoting tourism. Hearn agreed.
Jackson spoke to the meeting from 2/23/04 with Lee Tuneberg, Sandra Slattery, Cate Hartzell and herself. She said that the Chamber board approved and Slattery presented that of the $242,800 that was granted from the City last year, 80% was for promoting tourism outside 50 miles and 20% was for local promotion. Jackson stated that they cover most of the resolution goals with the funds spent. Jackson prefers to look at the City's contribution as a portion of the Chambers overall budget instead of being specifically for tourism promotion. She also stated that Slattery had presented the Chambers budget previously, that the City's contribution is approximately 35% of the Chambers budget.
Jackson referred to the option of taking the 80% out of the VCB Budget, as having been spent outside the 50 miles, and that equals $208,725. She spoke to Tuneberg and Franell's emails regarding a proration of the total amount budgeted for Chamber. Dividing the VCB budget by the Total budget to obtain percentage. Hearn asked to clarify the email. Council and staff presented:
|Total Budget||$680,900||208,725 = 30.7%|
|000Inside 50 miles||34,075|
|000Outside 50 miles||208,725|
Please see attachments: Emails.pdf
Jackson stated that Franell advised committee and staff to use the 30.7% as tourism promotion. Hearn asked to clarify the Chambers total budget is either 30.7% or 35% that is spent on tourism and that portion of the City's money goes to tourism promotion. Tuneberg responded that the key with the states legislative action is what does the City spend on promoting tourism. He asked Franell previously if it was acceptable to look at a proation for the amount of money given to identify how much the City spent on tourism. He responded that with the information provided we could focus on the 30.7% as tourism promotion. Jackson asked if we state that as a dollar value spent on tourism. Tuneberg answered that they would probably want to identify that as a baseline and then it may increment with growth over the years but they will have to consult the legal department. Hartzell asked about the money that the Chamber and OSF gave back last year. Tuneberg responded that it is not seen as spent because it never left the City.
Bryan Holley stated that the City would like to be legally defensible if asked. He feels that they need to identify all the other costs related to tourism, that the City money spent that may relate to tourism. Tuneberg responded that they raised that question earlier in the process and found it difficult to relate those to the Transient Occupancy Tax.
Mary Pat Parker asked to clarify the 30.7%. Committee and staff presented:
|30.7% x $242,140=||$74,325|
|112,332||OSF granted 03-04|
|proposed total OSF and Chamber
amount as the state definition of tourism
Hearn asked if the states new statute does not allow the percentage or the dollar figure to drop. Franell answered it was the percentage.
Hartzell asked if the 30.7% is an accurate and fair number. Tuneberg responded it is. Franell thought that the appropriate number to use is $186,657. Hartzell proposed that either Franell or Tuneberg write up the rational presented. Jackson asked if council needed to endorse the numbers presented. Franell answered that council needs to adopt what staff does to make a permanent record. Hartzell asked what the full percentage was of the TOT. Tuneberg responded it is 14.23% of the budgeted total TOT revenue for 03-04. Franell stated that they could come back when the actual figure is available in August and adjust it because the state law says actual. Tuneberg explained that the dollar number will not change; the $186,657 will not change. Franell added that the dollar amount will not change but the percentage will change.
Hartzell/Hearn m/s to forward to council for the report to state to use the $186,657 as promoting tourism and that staff will present to council the actuals. All Ayes
Consideration of changes to resolution
Jackson spoke to the possibility of changing the resolution. She proposed that they could change section 3.Hartzell asked if they change the resolution if they would have to change the application and asked if the applications were sent out. Staff responded that the applications have not been sent out yet. Jackson wanted to go to council in early March and wants to look at section 2 differently. Hartzell stated she would like to create a process either annually or semi annually for what they want from the Chamber, the who, how to leverage services, programming services, partnering, and local buying. She would like to set services that the grantees could apply for in a simpler way. She suggested contract revision. Jackson does not want to specify in the resolution what she would want each year from the Chamber, she would rather refer to it happening but not freeze it in the resolution. Tuneberg stated that the specificity in the contract will be resolved this year. Hartzell stated that she would prefer the resolution to be more specific towards a set amount towards tourism, a set percentage towards cultural development, and a set percentage towards economic development. Hearn agreed. Hearn asked what the purpose of the resolution was originally. Hartzell responded that was to try to get rid of the small vs. big organizations and that it has calmed the process.
Hearn asked if category A in the resolution was tourism promotion. Jackson answered yes it is. She added that she would like to create flexibility within the resolution to define the needs of the City. Hearn clarified that it would be instead of section 2. Hartzell would like the language of the process to determine the function each year. Tuneberg added that they have to calculate the revenue and then appropriate the grant. Hearn asked if the subcommittee would need to make a recommendation to Council or only present suggestions. Jackson would like to go to Council with a recommendation.
Staff and Committee decided to meet again to decide on a recommendation before presenting to Council. Hearn would like to review history of TOT before next meeting. Morrison will provide minutes to Hearn.
|00||The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 PM.|
Administrative Secretary Finance Department
End of Document - Back to Top