HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/06/05 Item 11CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT
SUMMARY
The City of Chula Vista approved the formation of a Tourism Mazketing District (TMD)
in July 2009. The TMD proposal originated with the Chula Vista Hotel/Motel
Association and is funded by a 2.5 percent assessment on local room rents. The
Management District Plan that governs TMD activities specifies the funds are to be spent
on operation of the Chula Vista Visitor Information Center, and on advertising and other
activities to promote the city as a meeting, event and tourist destination to increase
hotel/motel occupancy. The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce administers the TMD.
In response to a citizen complaint, the 2011/2012 San Diego County Grand Jury
evaluated TMD operations and finances. Initially, the Grand Jury was concerned that the
City had not established sufficient oversight of TMD operations. There was no contract
between the City and the Chamber, no requirement for an independent audit, no
measurable performance objectives, and insufficient hotel/motel representation on the
TMD Board. Further, the Grand Jury questioned the TMD accounting practices, and
whether some expenses were consistent with the Management District Plan mandate.
Since the Grand Jury began its investigation, the City and the Chamber entered into a
formal written agreement. This contract, adopted by the City Council in March 2012,
remedies many of the deficiencies the Grand Jury identified. However, there are
outstanding issues. The TMD should standardize its accounting practices in accordance
with Government Accounting Standazds Board rules. The TMD Committee should
establish measurable performance goals to ensure funds are spent in accordance with the
Management District Plan.
INTRODUCTION
The Grand Jury received a citizen complaint about potential misuse of revenues
generated by Chula Vista's Tourism Marketing District. After making initial inquiries,
the Grand Jury decided to investigate the TMD and its relationship with the City of Chula
Vista.
PROCEDURE
The Grand Jury interviewed representatives of Chula Vista city government and TMD
members, and examined TMD and Visitor Information Center financial statements. The
Grand Jury also reviewed reports to and minutes of Chula Vista City Council meetings
where the TMD was on the agenda. Finally, the Grand Jury read meeting minutes for the
TMD Board of Directors and the Chula Vista HoteUMotel Association.
1
2011/2012 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND NRY (filed May 23, 2012)
~~-~
DISCUSSION
Historically, the City of Chula Vista budgeted an annual grant of around $150,000-
$200,000 to support the Chula Vista Convention and Visitors Bureau (CONVIS - a
division ofthe Chamber). The City also passed to CONVIS a $45,000 grant from the San
Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), which funded the Chula Vista Visitor
Information Center. The City ended the general fund grant in March 2008 due to
declining revenues, and the Chamber assumed responsibility for funding CONVIS. The
Hotel/Motel Association of Chula Vista (part of the Chamber) then proposed a Tourism
Mazketing District to be funded with a 2.5 percent assessment on hotel/motel room
rents.
TMDs are authorized by the California Streets and Highways Code (section 36600 et
seq). They may be operated by a private non-profit organization under contract with a
city. The law requires annual reports to the City showing proposed activities and budget
for the coming year.
The City Council approved the TMD and the Management District Plan that governs its
activities in July 2009. The Chamber administers the TMD, with their Chief Executive
Officer responsible for day-to-day operations. The City collects the 2.5 percent TMD
assessment from the hotels/motels and sends a check to the Chamber. The revenues
support the Visitor Information Center as well as sales and marketing programs to
promote the city as a tourist, meeting and event destination to improve hotel/motel
occupancy.
The City did not have a contract with the Chamber covering the TMD until Mazch 2012.
Consequently, the only accountability in the first two years was the annual report to the
City Council. In addition, the TMD gives regular status reports on their budget and
marketing efforts to their Board and that of the Hotel/Motel Association.
As the TMD was preparing its 2010-2011 annual report to the City, concerns were raised
about the lack of a formal written contract governing TMD activities. During Fall 2011,
city staff worked with the TMD Boazd to develop such an agreement, which the City
Council approved in March 2012. That agreement addresses many of the issues the
Grand Jury identified. However, measurable performance objectives still have to be
developed and there are questions remaining about TMD spending and activities that do
not appear to be consistent with the Management District Plan.
The March 2012 agreement requires annual independent audits beginning with the 2011-
2012 fiscal year. In the absence of audit reports for the previous two fiscal years, the
Grand Jury examined TMD fmancial statements.z From its formation in July 2009
' This is in addition to the existing 10 percent Transient Occupancy Tax on room rent, which goes to the
ciTy's general fund.
s Some TMD financial statements examined accounted for revenues and expenses on a cash basis (i.e,
assessments received from the CiTy before the June 30 end of the fiscal yeaz) and some were on an accrual
2
2011/2012 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND NRY (filed May 23, 2012)
11-2
through June 30, 2011, TMD income from the assessment was $693,487. During that
period, the TMD spent $681,869 as follows:
$489,331 (72 percent) for staff expenses;
• $99,628 (15 percent) to recoup legal expenses to form the TMD ($26,000) and to
partially reimburse the Chamber for Visitor Information Center operating costs
from January 2008, when City funding ended, through June 2009, when the TMD
was established (see further discussion, below);
• $69,345 (10 percent) for marketing;
• $18,941 (3 percent) in administrative expenses (janitorial services at the Visitor
Information Center, outside bookkeeping, and office supplies); and
• $4,625 (1 percent) for consulting services.
Chart 1
TMD Revenue and Expenses
July 2009 -June 2011
Formation &
-~'"~-' Reimbursement
$99,628, 14%
~ ~;
Staff ' '
^~
$489,331, 72% _.~-~c ~ ~
~ Marketing
;;= $69,344,10%
_ t~Administrative
.~ ~ .~
_
;
-~. ~ ~~' $18,941,3%
..
_ _ ~ ..
.,,~.,~ ~..G, ,~ R: °:
Consultant
:-~~=?h~,. $4,625, 1%
Total revenue: $693,487 Total expenses: $681,689
For the first two years, the Chamber Executive Committee also served as the TMD
Board. This resulted in some blurring of responsibility and accountability, which was
noticeable in spending, advertising and operational decisions.
The Management District Plan specifies that TMD services:
...are tailored not to serve the general public; but rather to serve the specific
lodging businesses within the District, e.g., the proposed activities are specifically
basis (included the June assessment, which was not received until July). The Grand Jury based its
evaluation on the cash accounting.
3
2011/2012 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (filed May 23, 2012)
11-3
targeted to increase room nights for assessed lodging businesses..., and aze
narrowly tailored.
At the May 2009 City Council meeting where the TMD was first proposed, a
representative of the Hotel Motel Association told the Council that Chula Vista's primazy
tourism markets are Los Angeles, Arizona and Nevada. Most of the TMD marketing
efforts to date have promoted spending locally in two local publications -The Star News
and My Hometown Chula Vista. The Grand Jury does not believe these advertisements
are narrowly tailored to increase lodging occupancy.
Another spending issue relates to the formation and reimbursement expenses TMD pays
the Chamber to cover legal fees and the cost of operating the Visitor Information Center
from January 2008 through June 2009. These total $219,000, and the TMD budgeted
$49,628 in 2009-2010, and plans to give the Chamber $50,000 in each-succeeding year
until fully reimbursed. The Grand Jury could find no record of the City Council
discussing this reimbursement during subsequent budget approval, nor was any
breakdown of the costs included in the $219,000 in any TMD fmancial report.
The TMD Board approved the formation and reimbursement budget at their January 6,
2010 meeting -six months after the City Council approved the TMD and its proposed
first year budget (which included a single line item of $50,000 titled "Repayment of
Formation Expense"). At least one TMD Boazd member expressed concern about a
possible conflict of interest because the people voting represented both the TMD and the
Chamber.
Other TMD financial issues regarding reimbursement for the Visitor Information Center
costs the Grand Jury identified are:
• The Visitor Information Center is funded entirely by the TMD. Their financial
reports supporting reimbursement include only expenses, and do not show any
revenue from sales.
• The Visitor Information Center expense report for January 2008 -June 2009
shows $167,043, yet the TMD Board voted to reimburse the Chamber $219,000
for that period (including $26,000 in legal fees).
• Nine percent of the Visitor Information Center expenses are for employee "auto
allowance" and "phone allowance" ($14,260 and $1,080, respectively). There is
no discussion of why these expenses are necessary, to whom they were paid, or
how they were arrived at.
• As a new program, the TMD hired staff, but the TMD Board never discussed
what expertise should be sought, nor did they approve the payroll costs and
subsequent pay raises. Also, TMD staff is also shown as Chamber staff on the
Chamber's web site.
4
2011/2012 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND NRY (£ded May 23, 2012)
11-4
• There are two accounting reports for operation of the Visitor Information Center -
one for the TMD and one for CONVIS. These should be consolidated.
The March 2012 agreement between the city and the Chamber requires a new TMD
Committee with eight hotel/motel owners or operators (elected by representatives of all
the Chula Vista hotels/motels) and seven Chamber Executive Committee members. This
newly constituted TMD Committee will be the primary decisionmaking body for TMD
activities and finances; they need to ensure that programs and finances are targeted to
TMD goals and they should develop performance measures to ensure progress in meeting
those goals.
FACTS AND FINDINGS
Fact: The Hotel/Motel Association of Chula Vista (part of the Chamber) proposed a
Tourism Marketing District to be funded with a 2.5 percent assessment on hotel/motel
room rents.
Fact: TMD activities are governed by a Management District Plan.
Fact: The Management District Plan specifies that TMD services must be narrowly
targeted to increase room nights for assessed hotel/motels.
Fact: TMD advertising in the first two years was primarily in local periodicals and
featured local dining, shopping and lodging options.
Finding Ol: Many TMD activities are not in compliance with the Management District
Plan.
Fact: There has not been a clear division of funding and responsibility between the
Chamber, CONVIS and TMD.
Fact: TMD staff members are shown as part of the Chamber Team on the Chamber Web
site.
Fact: Neither the staff positions nor their salaries and benefits were ever approved by the
TMD Board.
Fact: The TMD is reimbursing the Chamber for costs of operating the Visitor
Information Center from January 2008 through June 2009.
Fact: Neither the reimbursement itself nor its component costs were approved by the
City Council.
5
2011/2012 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND NRY (filed May 23, 2012)
11-5
Finding 02: The blurring of accountability and responsibility makes it difficult to
determine how staff and funding are allocated among the Chamber, TMD and CONVIS.
Fact: Some TMD financial statements are prepared using cash accounting and some use
accrual accounting.
Finding 03: The TNID's varied reporting of its revenue is confusing to observers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2011/2012 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends the City Manager of the
City of Chula Vista and the Mayor and City Council of the City of Chula Vista:
12-36: Closely monitor implementation of the March 2012 contract between the
City and Chamber for TMD operations and the independent audit it
requires to ensure the finances and activities are targeted to the purposes
required by the Management District Plan.
The 2011!2012 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends the Chula Vista
Tourism Marketing District Committee:
12-37: Require the TMD staff to standardize its accounting methods in accordance
with Governmental Accounting Standards Board rules.
12-38: Require the TMD to provide an itemized accounting for the $219,000
reimbursement expense (in the Visitor Information Center expense report
for January 2008 -June 2009) and present it to the City Council for formal
approval.
12-39: Establish goals and performance measures consistent with the
Management District Plan.
12-40: Adopt written personnel policies and procedures, including performance
evaluations and salary review.
REQUIREMENTSAND INSTRUCTIONS
The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has
reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge
of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under
the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the
Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case
of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or
agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such
comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy
sent to the Board of Supervisors.
6
2011/2012 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY (filed May 23, 2012)
11-6
Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in
which such comment(s) are to be made:
(a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate
one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding,
in which case the response shall specify the portion of the
fmding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of
the reasons therefor.
(b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall
report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary
regazding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a time frame for
implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an
explanation and the scope and pazameters of an analysis or
study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the
governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation
therefor.
(c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected
officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors
shall respond if requested by the grandjury, but the response of the Boazd
of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters
over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the
elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings
or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal
Code §933.05 aze required from the:
Respondin¢ Aaencv
Chula Vista City Manager
Chula Vista Mayor
Chula Vista City Council
Chula Vista Tourism
Marketing District Committee
Recommendations Date
12-36 8/21/12
12-36 8/21/12
12-36 8/21/12
12-37 through 12-40 8/21/12
2011/2012 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND NRY (filed May 23, 2012)
~~-7