HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2005-10-24 #T 6 537
City of Seal Beach
Agenda Report
Date: October 24, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: John B. Bahors
City Manager
Subject: Transient Occupancy Tax Ballot Measure
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Ad Hoc Street and Storm Drain Committee submitted a report to the City Council on
the condition of the streets and storm drains within the City and financing scenarios to
increase the level infrastructure improvements. If approved by City Council, the attached
resolution will place a ballot measure on the March 2006 election to increase the
Transient Occupancy Tax from 9% to 12 %.
BACKGROUND:
The Ad Hoc Street and Storm Drain Committee labored for numerous months attempting
to develop a financing package that would help provide funding to undertake street and
storm drain upgrades. One of the more modest proposals was to increase the Transient
Occupancy Tax from its current rate of 9% to 12 %. This increase would generate an
estimated $200,000 per year that could be targeted to make these needed infrastructure
repairs. The Ad Hoc Street and Storm Drain Committee believed that the Transient
Occupancy Tax along with a combination of other revenue sources could generate
sufficient funds to begin a modest improvement program.
On August 8, 2005 the Ad Hoc Street and Storm Drain Plan was brought forward to City
Council for consideration. The Council voted to direct staff to return with a proposed
ballot measure and information on what activities the City could permissibly undertake
with regard to ballot measures. Attachment A is the resolution ordering that a proposition
to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax be placed on the March 2006 ballot. In addition,
Attachment B is the list of permissible activities that the City may engage in with regard
to a ballot measure.
Placing this measure on the March 2006 ballot will allow the voters of the City to
determine whether the rate should be increased from 9% to 12 %.
AGENDA ITEM
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to placing this item on the ballot.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution ordering the Transient
Occupancy Tax be placed on the March 2006 ballot.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution No. ordering that a proposition related to the City's Transient
Occupancy Tax be submitted to the voters.
B. List of permissible and non - permissible activities related to ballot measures.
ATTACHMENT
A
RESOLUTION NUMBER � 3 WI
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH ORDERING THAT A PROPOSITION
RELATED TO THE CITY'S TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 28, 2006
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DOES RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council has previously called and given notice of the
Regular Municipal Election to be held in the City on March 28, 2006, to be
conducted by mailed ballot.
Section 2. The City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does
hereby order submitted to the voters at such Regular Municipal Election the
following proposition:
Shall Ordinance Number 1541 which YES NO
increases the transient occupancy tax
from 9% to 12 %, be adopted?
Section 3. The text of the proposed ordinance to be submitted to the
voters is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and
content as required by law.
Section 5. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure
and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed, matter and all supplies,
equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and
lawfully conduct the election and is authorized to canvass the returns of the
election.
Section 6. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall
be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
Section 7. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby
given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or
additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution and shall enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal
Beach this 24th day of October , 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number
on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of
October , 2005.
City Clerk
•
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1541
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
INCREASING THE CITY'S TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX, REVISING THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
ORDINANCE AND AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE SEAL
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Increase of Tax. § 4.35.010 of the Seal Beach Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"§ 4.35.010 Imposition.
A. Rate. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is
subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of 12% of the rent charged by the
operator."
Section 2. Amendment and Repeal. Notwithstanding California
Elections Code Section 9217, without a vote of the people, the Seal Beach City
Council may do any of the following: (i) repeal this Ordinance; (ii) reduce the rate
of the transient occupancy tax below twelve percent (12 %); (iii) increase the rate
of the transient occupancy tax to twelve percent (12 %) if it previously has been
reduced below such rate; or (iv) amend the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance
in any other manner that does not increase the rate of the transient occupancy
tax in excess of twelve percent (12 %). In no event shall the Seal Beach City
Council increase the rate of the transient occupancy tax in excess of twelve
percent (12 %) without approval by a majority of voters voting in an election on
the increase.
Section 3. Findings and Intent.
A. This Ordinance was proposed by the Seal Beach City Council
through the adoption of Resolution Number g4 by the affirmative votes of
not less than four of its members as required by California Government Code
Section 53724(b).
B. Section 1 of this Ordinance is intended to increase the transient
occupancy tax to a rate of twelve percent (12 %) and thereby authorize future
collections of the tax at such rate.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for
any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The people of the
City of Seal Beach hereby declare that they would have passed each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 5. Execution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the
adoption of this Ordinance by signing where indicated below.
I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED
and ADOPTED by the people of the City of Seal Beach voting on the 28th day
of March , 2006
Charles Antos, Mayor
ATTACHMENT
B
LIST OF PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES
The City may:
• Draft the ballot measure
• Commission a poll to determine whether a measure should be
placed on the ballot
• Provide impartial information about the measure
• Enact a program encouraging voter registration
• Spend -funds to encourage voters to register and vote
• Distribute impartial materials concerning pending elections
• Distribute impartial information concerning the measure
• Schedule public hearings for City Council meetings
• Adopt a resolution in support of the measure
• Formally take a position in support of the measure
• Fairly present facts in response to a citizen's request for
information
• If requested by an organization, authorize employees to present the
City's view of a ballot proposal at a meeting of the organization
• Spend public funds on purely "informational" materials, provided
that the materials give "an accurate, fair, and impartial presentation
of relevant facts to aid the voters in reaching an informed judgment
regarding the ballot measure"
• Prepare materials such as a fact sheet, question and answer sheet,
or a newsletter concerning the pending election, provided each of
these fairly and accurately describes both sides of the issue
LIST OF PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
The City may not spend any public funds to:
• Expressly advocate passage of the measure
• Urge a particular result in the election in any materials distributed
(In the Irvine case, Irvine's "Vote 2000" program did not
unambiguously advocate opposing the El Toro airport)
• Promote a partisan position
• Purchase bumper stickers, posters, radio and television spots, and
similar promotional materials
• Disseminate campaign literature
• Use6ity personnel to promote the campaign employees may
not promote passage while on duty)
• Require City employees on duty to advocate a position
• Pay for advertisements in media sources
POTENTIAL LIABILITY
As noted in the accompanying memorandum, we must emphasize that
whatever course of action the City chooses to take, Councilmembers could
potentially face personal liability if a court concluded that they used public
funds for a partisan campaign. The Stanson opinion concluded that public
officials "may properly be held to a higher standard than simply the
avoidance of `fraud, corruption or actual malice' in their handling of public
funds." Instead, public officials must exercise 'due care,' i.e., reasonable
diligence, in authorizing the expenditure of public funds, and may be subject
to personal liability for improper expenditures made in the absence of such
due care." If the City were to launch a voter registration campaign that
conveyed a partisan slant, a court could conclude that the Councilmembers
failed to exercise this due care.