C I T Y  O F  B U R B A N K

Financial Services Department

DATE:            September 12, 2006

TO:                  Mary J. Alvord, City Manager

FROM:            Bob Torrez, Financial Services Director

                        By:  Cindy Bloom, Administrative Analyst

SUBJECT:     Request for Council to Place a Transient Occupancy Tax

                        increase measure on the April 10, 2007 General Election

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to request that the City Council place a ballot measure on the April 10, 2007 General election asking the voters to approve an increase in the City�s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).  General Fund expenditures are outpacing ongoing revenues.  In addition, the City has not been able in recent years to adequately fund infrastructure maintenance, repair and construction.  An increase in the TOT would help offset the $4 million gap between annual expenditures and revenues that is projected to occur in Fiscal Year 2011, and could also help fund the City�s growing infrastructure needs.

BACKGROUND

The TOT, or �bed tax,� rate is currently 10 percent.  The tax is applied to the room rate paid by those who occupy a room in a hotel, inn, motel, tourist home, or other lodging facility within the City�s limits.  It does not apply to persons who use the facility as their residence, or stay in the facility for a calendar month (30 consecutive days) or more.  It is a general tax with the revenues placed in the City�s General Fund to pay the cost of general governmental services, such as Police, Fire, Library, Public Works and all other general municipal services. 

The TOT was initially adopted in 1964 at a rate of 4 percent, and increased over the years to 10 percent in 1983.  It has remained at 10 percent since 1983. 

Burbank�s history of the TOT follows:

• July 1964 - established at 4 percent.

• January 1968 -   5 percent.

• January 1978 -   6 percent.

• September 1983 - 10 percent.

TOT revenue is estimated to total $4.8 million for Fiscal Year 2006-07 (FY 07), which is a slight increase over the $4.6 million estimated actual amount for FY 06.  It has been a steady source of General Fund income.  Nonetheless, it is sensitive to changes in the economy.  You may recall that, throughout the nation, hotel occupancy rates plummeted right after �9-1-1�, and it took several years for the industry to recover.  City TOT revenues experienced a corresponding drop and gradual recovery. Occupancy is currently at approximately 80% to 87% for Burbank hotels.  Given the relatively high level of occupancy, a significant increase in TOT revenues due to higher occupancy may not be a reasonable expectation.  Also, as occupancy rises, room rates may rise to some extent, although it is important to understand that market forces also come into play with regard to room rates.  The local hotel market is very competitive.

The following table provides historical data on annual TOT revenues:

Although the graph reflects the growth in TOT revenue in recent years, essentially since �9-1-1�, it does not reflect the cyclical nature of this revenue which could be illustrated from data over a longer timeframe.  From time to time, the industry experiences a down cycle, with a corresponding drop in City TOT revenues.

NEED FOR RATE INCREASE

In October, 2004, staff requested that the Council consider raising the TOT from 10 percent to 12 percent.  Council action at that time was to note and file staff�s request.  However, during FY 06, Council renewed its interest in re-evaluating increasing this tax as a way to generate revenue to cover expected budget shortfalls.

The General Fund is or may be impacted by three potential situations or events:

1. Operating Budget Gap � As discussed during the annual budget workshops and hearings, General Fund revenues are experiencing steady but moderate growth. Overall, revenues are projected to grow by an average of 3.4% per year over the next five years.  This growth estimate includes assumptions for tax dollars generated by new development, such as the recently opened Home Depot and the CarMax development scheduled to open during FY 07, as well as the new Marriott Hotel which recently broke ground.  However, expenditures are projected to grow by an average of 4.2%; the forecast does not include the final costs of the Burbank Fire Fighters MOU, which is currently under negotiation.  As a result, if left unchecked, a gap of $4 million between expenditures and revenues may occur by FY 2011.

2. Infrastructure Deficit � Also discussed during the budget hearings was the existing gap, or deficit, between the City�s infrastructure needs and available funding.  Preliminarily, that deficit is estimated to be in excess of $200 million.  In response to this concern, Council created an Infrastructure Subcommittee to assess the City�s needs, identify funding options and to develop recommendations for Council consideration.  The Committee is charged with returning to the City Council in February with its recommendations.   The Committee still has much to do before the February date.  However, it is likely that the final estimate of the City�s infrastructure gap may be much larger than the preliminary $200 million estimate.  Included in the City�s needs are the  repair of the public safety facility; construction of the Community Services Building (CSB) to provide adequate offices for employees now housed in trailers; a new central library, which was to be funded from Proposition 81 bond proceeds, which was not approved by State voters; and, many other needs throughout the City.  Potential funding sources include General Fund revenues and reserves; RDA revenues, reserves and restricted bond funds; CDBG; bond financing; assessments; etc.

3. Legislative/External Factors - General Fund revenue is also at risk due to outside pressures including recent Federal action which could potentially impact the City�s ability to continue to impose and collect the Utility Users Tax, or UUT; State legislation (AB 2987) that could immediately reduce City cable franchise fee revenue and could potentially result in the loss of the $1.5 million cable franchise fee revenue altogether;  and, Federal legislation that could also result in the loss of the City�s cable franchise revenue.

The incremental revenue generated by the increase in the TOT rate could be used to help offset the projected gap in the General Fund operating budget; to cash fund and/or to support the financing of needed City infrastructure upgrades and construction; and, to help cover the loss of annual revenues due to State and Federal legislation should that occur.

Moreover, should pending legislation in fact be enacted and result in the reduction of City revenues, the City would only have one opportunity prior to 2009 to increase the TOT.  Due to Proposition 218, adopted by the voters of the State of California in November 1996, tax increases may only be voted upon as part of a regularly scheduled general election.  If this proposal is not placed on the April 2007 ballot, the next opportunity to place a tax measure on the local ballot would be April 2009.  Missing this opportunity now places the City at risk should pending State and Federal legislation be enacted and should that result in a loss of City revenue, which staff fully anticipates may occur.

The following chart illustrates the projected gap between recurring revenues and expenditures:

PROPOSAL

Staff is proposing that the City Council consider placing a measure on the April 10, 2007 ballot that would ask the voters to approve increasing the TOT rate from its current rate of 10%.   Of the TOT rate, each 1% generates approximately $482,494.  Therefore, an increase of two percentage points to a new rate of 12% would generate $964,988 in additional revenue, and an increase of four percentage points to a new rate of 14% would generate approximately $1.9 million in additional revenue.

In recent discussions, the Chamber of Commerce and representatives of several Burbank hotels indicated that they would not support a 14% TOT rate, due to concerns that increasing the rate to the 14% level could be detrimental to their ability to attract visitors, in particular with respect to group bookings, which is a very competitive market.  Their preference would be, should the Council place a TOT measure on the ballot, that the proposed rate be no more than the average of comparison cities, or 11.1%.  Survey data on California cities� TOT rates is provided in the next section of this report.

In addition, Vice Mayor Marsha Ramos has suggested that the Council consider earmarking 0.25 percentage points of the rate increase for City arts programs.  This would result in approximately $120,623 for arts programs.

AREA TOT RATES

Cities with Transient Occupancy Taxes were surveyed in order to provide the City Council with comparative data. The following lists city survey results:

* Comparison� cities are those cities Burbank uses routinely as benchmarks for various comparisons (salary, tax rates, etc.) due to their similar demographics, size, and so on.

Burbank�s TOT rate of 10% falls in the lower end in all categories, as noted below:

TOT Average

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS (PROPOSITION 218)

As indicated earlier, Proposition 218 (Prop. 218; Article XIII C & D of the State Constitution) is the relevant law regarding local government tax increases.  Under Prop. 218, there are two categories of tax increases:

1. General Taxes � revenues used for any governmental purpose.  Majority voter approval required.  

2. Special Taxes � revenues used for a specific purpose.  Two-thirds voter approval required.

In addition, Prop. 218 stipulates that local governments may only place tax measures on the ballot when the measure is consolidated with the agency�s regularly scheduled general election.  The next regularly scheduled City election is April 10, 2007.

Staff�s proposal to raise the TOT rate for general governmental purposes would require only majority voter approval.  The funds generated by the rate increase would not be earmarked for any specific purpose; the funds would be used to pay for services throughout the City.   

On the other hand, Vice Mayor Ramos� proposal would earmark a portion of the tax increase for a specific purpose - City arts programs.  Should the Council include this proposal as part of the ballot measure, then two-thirds voter approval would be required for the entire rate increase. 

The following page lists several options for structuring the ballot measure.

Ballot Measure Options

1. General tax increase - funds used for general city purposes.

1. Majority voter approval required.

2. General tax increase

1. During the annual budget adoption, Council may include an allocation for City arts from general City revenues.

2. Requires majority voter approval.

3. Increase the tax with 0.25% for arts programs

1. Requires 2/3 voter approval.

2. 2/3 vote more difficult to achieve.

The following table illustrates the additional revenue generated by TOT rates of 11% up to 14%:

TIMELINE

There are several key deadlines that must be met to place the TOT rate increase on the April ballot, as noted in the following table.

POLLING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPONENT

Many cities and counties that have been successful in achieving voter approval for tax increases have, early in their processes, retained the services of a consultant to conduct community surveys, or polling, in order to gauge the level of support that might be expected for the tax measure.  Should Council support the need for a TOT rate increase, staff recommends that the Council consider directing staff to retain a consultant to survey the community.  The costs of this effort have not been determined, but staff estimates it to be in the neighborhood of $25,000 or less.

In addition, there are restrictions imposed by Prop. 218 with regard to campaigning.  Elected officials may campaign or advocate for or against any ballot measure.  Staff may not advocate; however, the dissemination of information is allowed by Prop. 218 so long as it is balanced (includes the pros and cons of the measure) and so long as it is educational in nature.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact on the City�s General Fund of a TOT rate increase ranges from $482,494 in additional annual revenue at an 11% TOT rate, to $1.9 million at a 14% TOT rate.  Council may also opt to phase in a rate increase, in which case the increase in annual revenues during the phase-in would be less.

The impact to hotels would be an increase in TOT paid by their customers.  According to information provided by the Chamber, the average starting room rate for Burbank hotels is approximately $131 per night.  If the hotel rates at the higher end of the scale are excluded, the average room rate is $116 per night.  Increasing the TOT rate to 12% to 14% would add $2.62 to $5.24 to customers� costs at the $131 room rate, and add $2.32 to $4.64 to the customers� costs at the $116 room rate. Burbank hotel representatives have indicated they would support a TOT rate that reflects the average of comparison cities, which would be a rate of 11.1%.

There may be other indirect impacts.  Those impacts have not been identified.

CONCLUSION

During the FY 07 budget deliberations, City Council requested that staff explore options to diversify and increase City revenues.  An increase in the TOT rate would provide   additional annual revenue to help offset the growth in future costs that has been projected.  It is critical that funding options be identified, and put in place, that can be used to pay the growing costs of City services.  Staff has projected that a deficit of up to $4 million may occur by FY 11.  In addition, the City�s infrastructure deficit exceeds $200 million and cannot be funded with current cash or revenues.  Beyond that, losses of revenue due to State and/or Federal Legislation continue to be a concern; we must develop and implement plans now to offset those potential losses.

Further, the Transient Occupancy Tax is paid by visitors to Burbank who stay in City hotels, and who use City services.  It is perhaps unreasonable to expect that the citizens of Burbank subsidize all the costs of services and infrastructure due to visitor use of services, streets, public works, etc. On the other hand, it is reasonable that these visitors help pay for the services they use.

It is recommended that the City Council provide direction as to which Transient Occupancy Tax rate increase they prefer, and to approve an appropriation for $25,000 to hire a consultant to poll likely voters.

Attachment:    A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRING A CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT POLLING AND PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES FOR A POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE REGARDING THE CITY�S TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX

C I T Y  O F  B U R B A N K

Financial Services Department

DATE:            September 12, 2006

TO:                  Mary J. Alvord, City Manager

FROM:           Bob Torrez, Financial Services Director

                        By:  Cindy Bloom, Administrative Analyst

SUBJECT:     Request for Council to Place a Transient Occupancy Tax

                        increase measure on the April 10, 2007 General Election

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to request that the City Council place a ballot measure on the April 10, 2007 General election asking the voters to approve an increase in the City�s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).  General Fund expenditures are outpacing ongoing revenues.  In addition, the City has not been able in recent years to adequately fund infrastructure maintenance, repair and construction.  An increase in the TOT would help offset the $4 million gap between annual expenditures and revenues that is projected to occur in Fiscal Year 2011, and could also help fund the City�s growing infrastructure needs.

BACKGROUND

The TOT, or �bed tax,� rate is currently 10 percent.  The tax is applied to the room rate paid by those who occupy a room in a hotel, inn, motel, tourist home, or other lodging facility within the City�s limits.  It does not apply to persons who use the facility as their residence, or stay in the facility for a calendar month (30 consecutive days) or more.  It is a general tax with the revenues placed in the City�s General Fund to pay the cost of general governmental services, such as Police, Fire, Library, Public Works and all other general municipal services. 

The TOT was initially adopted in 1964 at a rate of 4 percent, and increased over the years to 10 percent in 1983.  It has remained at 10 percent since 1983. 

Burbank�s history of the TOT follows:

• July 1964 - established at 4 percent.

• January 1968 -   5 percent.

• January 1978 -   6 percent.

• September 1983 - 10 percent.

TOT revenue is estimated to total $4.8 million for Fiscal Year 2006-07 (FY 07), which is a slight increase over the $4.6 million estimated actual amount for FY 06.  It has been a steady source of General Fund income.  Nonetheless, it is sensitive to changes in the economy.  You may recall that, throughout the nation, hotel occupancy rates plummeted right after �9-1-1�, and it took several years for the industry to recover.  City TOT revenues experienced a corresponding drop and gradual recovery. Occupancy is currently at approximately 85% for Burbank hotels.   Please note that, according to industry planners, hotel occupancy rates are near their practical peak of around 90%.  Therefore, a significant increase in TOT revenues due to higher occupancy may not be a reasonable expectation.  However, as occupancy rises, room rates generally will rise to some extent as well, although market forces also come into play with regard to room rates.

The following table provides historical data on annual TOT revenues:

NEED FOR RATE INCREASE

In October, 2004, staff requested that the Council consider raising the TOT from 10 percent to 12 percent.  Council action at that time was to note and file staff�s request.  However, during FY 06, Council renewed its interest in re-evaluating increasing this tax as a way to generate revenue to cover expected budget shortfalls.

The General Fund is or may be impacted by three potential situations or events:

1. Operating Budget Gap � As discussed during the annual budget workshops and hearings, General Fund revenues are experiencing steady but moderate growth. Overall, revenues are projected to grow by an average of 3.4% per year over the next five years.  This growth estimate includes assumptions for tax dollars generated by new development, such as the recently opened Home Depot and the CarMax development scheduled to open during FY 07, as well as the new Marriott Hotel which recently broke ground.  However, expenditures are projected to grow by an average of 4.2%; the forecast does not include the final costs of the Burbank Fire Fighters MOU, which is currently under negotiation.  As a result, if left unchecked, a gap of $4 million between expenditures and revenues may occur by FY 2011.

2. Infrastructure Deficit � Also discussed during the budget hearings was the existing gap, or deficit, between the City�s infrastructure needs and available funding.  Preliminarily, that deficit is estimated to be in excess of $200 million.  In response to this concern, Council created an Infrastructure Subcommittee to assess the City�s needs, identify funding options and to develop recommendations for Council consideration.  The Committee is charged with returning to the City Council in February with its recommendations.   The Committee still has much to do before the February date.  However, it is likely that the final estimate of the City�s infrastructure gap may be much larger than the preliminary $200 million estimate.  Included in the City�s needs are the  repair of the public safety facility; construction of the Community Services Building (CSB) to provide adequate offices for employees now housed in trailers; a new central library, which was to be funded from Proposition 81 bond proceeds, which was not approved by State voters; and, many other needs throughout the City.  Potential funding sources include General Fund revenues and reserves; RDA revenues, reserves and restricted bond funds; CDBG; bond financing; assessments; etc.

3. Legislative/External Factors - General Fund revenue is also at risk due to outside pressures including recent Federal action which could potentially impact the City�s ability to continue to impose and collect the Utility Users Tax, or UUT; State legislation (AB 2987) that could immediately reduce City cable franchise fee revenue and could potentially result in the loss of the $1.5 million cable franchise fee revenue altogether;  and, Federal legislation that could also result in the loss of the City�s cable franchise revenue.

The incremental revenue generated by the increase in the TOT rate could be used to offset the projected gap in the General Fund operating budget; to cash fund and/or to support the financing of needed City infrastructure upgrades and construction; and, to help cover the loss of annual revenues due to State and Federal legislation should that occur.

Moreover, should pending legislation in fact be enacted and result in the reduction of City revenues, the City would only have one opportunity prior to 2009 to increase the TOT.  Due to Proposition 218, adopted by the voters of the State of California in November 1996, tax increases may only be voted upon as part of a regularly scheduled general election.  If this proposal is not placed on the April 2007 ballot, the next opportunity to place a tax measure on the local ballot would be April 2009.  Missing this opportunity now places the City at risk should pending State and Federal legislation be enacted and should that result in a loss of City revenue, which staff fully anticipates may occur.

The following chart illustrates the projected gap between recurring revenues and expenditures:

PROPOSAL

Staff is proposing that the City Council consider placing a measure on the April 10, 2007 ballot that would ask the voters to approve increasing the TOT rate up to a rate of 14%, from its current rate of 10%.   Of the TOT rate, each 1% generates approximately $482,494.  Therefore, an increase of four percentage points, to a new rate of 14%, would generate approximately $1.9 million in additional revenue.

The Chamber of Commerce supports an increase in the TOT rate to 12%.  In addition, the Chamber has also proposed that a portion of the tax increase be earmarked for promotion and marketing of the City.   According to the Chamber, this proposal is supported by Burbank hotels. The Chamber�s proposal would earmark 0.5 percentage points of the rate increase, or approximately $241,247, toward a new marketing program to be administered by the Chamber.  The details of this proposed marketing program have not been worked out.  Should the Council be interested in considering this proposal, staff suggests that the Chamber be requested to provide a preliminary marketing/business plan.

A third proposal,  suggested by Vice Mayor Marsha Ramos, would earmark 0.25 percentage points of the rate increase for City arts programs, with the Chamber�s share of the rate increase reduced to 0.25 percentage points.  This would result in approximately $120,623 for arts programs and $120,623 for City promotion and marketing.

In meetings with the Chamber and hotel representatives, it has been suggested that neither the Chamber nor the hotels would support anything less than 0.5% earmarked for promotion and marketing.  Further, while they are in support of increasing the TOT rate to 12%, they may not be in support of an increase to 14%.

AREA TOT RATES

Cities with Transient Occupancy Taxes were surveyed in order to provide the City Council with comparative data. The following lists city survey results:

* Comparison� cities are those cities Burbank uses routinely as benchmarks for various comparisons (salary, tax rates, etc.) due to their similar demographics, size, and so on.

Burbank�s TOT rate of 10% falls in the lower end in all categories, as noted below:

TOT Average

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS (PROPOSITION 218)

As indicated earlier, Proposition 218 (Prop. 218; Article XIII C & D of the State Constitution) is the relevant law regarding local government tax increases.  Under Prop. 218, there are two categories of tax increases:

1. General Taxes � revenues used for any governmental purpose.  Majority voter approval required.

2. Special Taxes � revenues used for a specific purpose.  Two-thirds voter approval required.

In addition, Prop. 218 stipulates that local governments may only place tax measures on the ballot when the measure is consolidated with the agency�s regularly scheduled general election.  The next regularly scheduled City election is April 10, 2007.

Staff�s proposal to raise the TOT rate up to a rate of 14% for general governmental purposes would only require majority voter approval.  The funds generated by the rate increase would not be earmarked for any specific purpose; the funds would be used to pay for services throughout the City.   

On the other hand, the Chamber�s proposal would earmark a portion of the tax increase for a specific purpose - City promotion and marketing.  Vice Mayor Ramos� proposal would also earmark a portion of the tax increase for a specific purpose - City arts programs.  Should the council include either or both of these proposals as part of the ballot measure, then two-thirds voter approval would be required in order to increase the tax rate to 14%.  Staff is concerned that a 2/3 voter approval may be difficult to achieve.

The following lists several options for structuring the ballot measure.

Ballot Measure Options

1. General tax increase to 14% - funds used for general city purposes.

1. Majority voter approval required.

2. General tax increase to 14%

1. During the annual budget adoption, Council may include an allocation for City arts and/or promotion and marketing from general City revenues.

2. Requires majority voter approval.

3. Chamber concerned that funds would be subject to annual appropriation process.

3. Increase the tax to 14% with 0.5% for promotion & marketing

1. Requires 2/3 voter approval.

2. Chamber supports this option since it provides secure source of funding for City promotions.

3. Staff concerned that 2/3 vote difficult to achieve.

4. Increase the tax to 14% for general governmental purposes and earmark 0.5 percentage points for promotion and marketing via a second, companion advisory vote. 

1. Measure A:  �Raise TOT to 14% for general governmental purposes?�

2. Measure B: �If TOT increase approved, shall 0.5 percentage points be used to fund City promotion and marketing?�

3. Majority voter approval required for both measures

4. If �A� approved but �B� fails, TOT increase goes into effect

5. If �A� fails but �B� approved, neither measure goes into effect

6. Measure B is not legally binding (a moral obligation of the City)

7. Staff supports this approach should Council wish to earmark a portion of the TOT increase.

For Options 2, 3, and 4, the Council may also include the earmarking of a portion of the increase for City arts.  In addition, Council may also choose a lower tax rate, below the 14% rate proposed by staff.  The following table illustrates the additional revenue generated by TOT rates of 11% up to 14%:

TIMELINE

There are several key deadlines that must be met to place the TOT rate increase on the April ballot, as noted in the following table.

POLLING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPONENT

Many cities and counties that have been successful in achieving voter approval for tax increases have, early in their processes, retained the services of a consultant to conduct community surveys, or polling, in order to gauge the level of support that might be expected from the tax measure.  Should Council support the need for a TOT rate increase, staff recommends that a consultant be retained to survey the community.  The costs of this effort have not been determined, but staff estimates it to be in the neighborhood of $25,000 or less.

In addition, there are restrictions imposed by Prop. 218 with regard to campaigning.  Elected officials may campaign or advocate for or against any ballot measure.  Staff may not advocate; however, the dissemination of information is allowed by Prop. 218 so long as it is balanced (includes the pros and cons of the measure) and so long as it is educational in nature.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact on the City�s General Fund of a TOT rate increase ranges from $482,494 in additional annual revenue at an 11% TOT rate, to $1.9 million at a 14% TOT rate.  Should the Council agree to earmark 0.5 percentage points for City promotion and marketing and/or City PerformArts programs, the net increase to the General Fund would be reduced by approximately $241,247.

The impact to hotels would be an increase in TOT paid by their customers.  According to information provided by the Chamber, the average starting room rate for Burbank hotels is approximately $131 per night.  If the hotel rates at the higher end of the scale are excluded, the average room rate is $116 per night.  Increasing the TOT rate to 14% would add $5.24 to customers� costs at the $131 room rate, and add $4.64 to the customers� costs at the $116 room rate.   Burbank hotel representatives have indicated they would support a TOT rate of 12%, so long as 0.5 percentage points were earmarked for City promotion and marketing.

CONCLUSION

During the FY 07 budget deliberations, City Council requested that staff explore options to diversify and increase City revenues.  An increase in the TOT rate would provide up to $1.9 million in additional annual revenue.  It is critical that funding options be indentified, and put in place, that can be used to pay the growing costs of City services.  Staff has projected that a deficit of up to $4 million may occur by FY 11.  In addition, the City�s infrastructure deficit exceeds $200 million and cannot be funded with current cash or revenues.  Beyond that, losses of revenue due to State and/or Federal Legislation continue to be a concern; we must develop and implement plans now to offset those potential losses.

Further, the Transient Occupancy Tax is paid by visitors to Burbank who stay in City hotels, and who use City services.  It is perhaps unreasonable to expect that the citizens of Burbank subsidize all the costs of services and infrastructure due to visitor use of services, streets, public works, etc. On the other hand, it is reasonable that these visitors help pay for the services they use.

It is recommended that the City Council provide direction as to which Transient Occupancy Tax rate increase they prefer, and to approve an appropriation for $25,000 to hire a consultant to poll likely voters.

Attachment:    A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRING A CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT POLLING AND PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES FOR A POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE REGARDING THE CITY�S TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX

go to the top