The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1978/06/20 Item 23 —� ��'` ' , CITY OF CHULA VISTA : COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMEiVT �tem No. Z� For meeting of 6/13/78 ITEM TITLE Ordinance�l��l � Revisin9 Business License Fees SUBMITTED �.`�irector of Finance t�� ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES ^ NO X ) In accordance with City Council action on August 9, 1977, a Business License Review Committee was established with the Mayor selected to represent the Council at all meetings of the comnittee. The committee represented a broad cross-section of all business interests within the City. The following businessmen volunteered their services and were appointed to serve: Name Business Representing Will T. Hyde City of Chula Vista City Council Travis Reneau South Bay Chevrolet Chamber of Commerce & The Broadway Association Glen Youmans Certified Public Accountant Bonita Business and Frofessional Association Neil Haas Radio Service Company, Inc. Broadway Association Bob Renneisen Rohr Industries , Inc. Industry and the Chamber of Cortanerce Standlee McMains Standlee's Cake and Party Town Centre Business Shop and Professional Assn. Ron Floyd Realtor Chamber of Commerce Bud Isham Bud's Athletic Supply Chamber of Comnerce EXNIBITS Agreement Resolution_ Ordinance X Plat_ Notification List_ Other xX ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT �'•� ��P � 8 �0i1 � p ` !%•' �� '�� _ Ci� Ea�_;e�l , a� STAFF RECOMMENDATION (��, �r;��, ��?�?�=�ia rja�ee,,:::,..��.-':._��..-..��'.............._..� Approval . BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At the Mayor's Economic Advisory Committee meeting of Apr_i.l_12, -1978,�the attached-business license fee schedule was approved (6-1 ) with the �fo.11oviing recommended_ amendment:� "Coin operated'-vending machines - Relevant companies in this area be licensed quarterly by class and number of such machines in the coirnnunity. It would,be required that each machine be labeled with the vendor' s name, address and telephone number."- (See enclosed excerpt from minutes of January 25, 1978. ) COUNCIL ACTION Qol , Item No, z3 Date 6/13/78 Supplemental page No. 2 On October 12, 1977 the committee was formed and began meeting on a bi-weekly basis. Each member was given a packet containing the license ordinances of the following cities to study and evaluate: Chula Vista, Oceanside, Escondido, E1 Cajon, San Diego, La Mesa, National City, Santa Barbara, Santa Ana, San Bernardino, Norwalk, and Stockton. These particular cities were chosen because of their size and proximity to Chula Vista, and also because of recommendations from the League of California Cities. Early 1n the process of reviewing various ordinances and sumnaries , it was determined by the committee to retain our present flat-rate method of fees. The gross receipts method of taxing businesses was not acceptable to the committee as they felt it was an unnecessary invasion of privacy and tended to be confiscatory in nature. Once the two principle methods of business license taxation were rev9ewed and analyzed by the cormnittee and a decision reached, we began examining in detail and comparing our present ordinance and fee schedule with ordinances represented by the cities previously indicated. The attached schedule of present and proposed business license fees indicates the various classifications which are recortunended for an increase and the amount of that increase. You will note on this schedule that many classifications are not recommended for an increase. Over all the committee felt that the base fee of $12.50 for businesses with a fixed location in the City was unrealistic and should be increased to $25.00, especially in light of the fact that this fee has not been changed since 1954. They felt our present $3 per employee charge was fair and should not be changed, but did however, recommend that our present 50 employee maximum should be eliminated. They felt this ceiling was discriminatory against smaller businesses and gave an unfair advantage to larger businesses. The base fee for non-resident solicitors and all other non-resident service businesses were also increased proportionately with no change in the employee charge. They felt this was also consistent with changes made for businesses located within the City. The base fee for retail route deliveries was increased from $40 to $50 and no change recommended for employees. The apartment classification was changed from a base fee of $12.50 to a new base fee of $10. The employee charge was eliminated and a fee of $1 per unit over 3 units was established. Our former fee was considered punitive in nature for smaller apartment owners and unrealistic for larger apartment complexes. A charge per unit was considered the most fair and equitable for apartments rather than an employee fee. Most other city ordinances the com- mittee reviewed were also using a base fee and per unit method for determining apartment license fees. The fee schedule was increased for coin operated vending machines and also fees established for new vending machines and vending vehicles not previously classified. The manufacturing schedule was changed in base fee and also the amount charged per employee. The base fee was increased from $12.50 to $25.00 and a graduated schedule of fees was established for employees. The maximum limit of 150 employees was eliminated and replaced with a schedule of declining fees per increased employees. Local solicitors were increased from $5.00 per year to $10.00 per year and non-local solicitors wer.-e increased from $25 per year to $50 per person per year. ge\ � , . Item No. z3 Date 6/13/78 Supplemental Page No. 3 All professional classifications were increased from $25 per person to S50 per person including real estate brokers. Real Estate salesmen were increased from $10 to $15 per person per year. In the professional category the license fee is levied only for each professional and classified in the same manor as the State of California licenses them. The staff of the professional is not charged on an employee basis. All other classifications except a few miscellaneous categories are not recommended for change. These include the following classifications: Ambulances Pinball Machines Amusement Arcades Dance Halls Auctioneers Handbill Distribution Billboard Advertising Food Vending Machines Bowling Alleys Junk and Second Hand Dealers Card Rooms Pawn Brokers Circuses , Carnivals, Tent Shows Pool Rooms Amusement Machines Taxi Cabs Music Machines Trailer Parks After several months of working on the various provisions of our business license ordinance and establishing a new fee schedule, meetings were scheduled to explain the new ordinance with as many different business groups in the City as possible. Presentations were made by various members of the cormnittee to the Town Centre Association, the South Bay Board of Realtors, the Bonita Professional and Businessmen 's Association, and the Chamber of Comnerce. All of the above organizations voted to unoppose the new ordinance. The Chamber of Corrmierce voted to endorse the tax only if 75% of the total revenue were earmarked for promotional activities. The South Bay Board of Realtors opposed earmarking any money for a special purpose but heartily endorsed using the increased fees to stimulate new business and industry in Chula Vista. . The Broadway Association voted to oppose any increase in the present business license ordinance. Mr. Bob Rennison represented industry on the committee and indicated no formal opposition to the new recommended fee schedule. The biggest impact on industry would be represented by Rohr Corporation whom he indicated would go along with the proposed changes. The estimated revenue for 1978-79 in the preliminary budget for business licenses is $187,500. This amount includes the recomnended new fee schedule. Revenue from the present ordinance is estimated to be $125,000 for 1977-78. The following schedule is a breakdown of the various classes changed and the artaunt of increased fees they represent: Type of Business Amount of Increase General Business with a fixed � location in the City $28,900 General Business with no fixed location in the City 13,240 Professional Classificatidn 10,150 Apartment Rental Units 6,070 Real Estate Salesmen 1 ,100 Solicitors 860 Manufacturing 2>180 �� Total Estimated Increase $62,500 �b Item No. 23 • Date �ri3/7� Supplemental Page 4 In conclusion, the Business License Review Committee felt the proposed changes were reasonable and necessary, and provided a moderate increase in business license revenue. Improvements in the wording of the ordinance were made by the City Attorney to better conform with present day legal requirements. �u� I � ' -2- ��3 EAC . , ' ,�I25•I7S upon businesses in general , and Rohr in particular, than erould be tne case if they vrere located else��ihere in the County. There followed questions from I•tembers Crane and Creaser r2garding fees in the professional category and a brief discussion ensued. There were also inquiries as to the rationale for the fee and the impact this �•iould have on contingent charges being made by the Downto�an Improvement District. In this area, assessment was mad� for promotione activities and was based uoon matchina the amount paid in business license fees. Mr. Slijk responded by saying that the Improvement District �•!as created under State enabling legislation (AB 103) and that it was a voluntary association of businessmen which had iegal authority to assess fees. Mr. Grant stated that the revenue taroet in the oast has been some 55,000-57,000 annually and that the City has merely acted as a collection agent. Any assessments must result irom a vote of the District h?embers and the initial motivation for forming the entity �aas to require chain store outlets to support local business activities. Questions and discussion followed on fees for carnivals and restric- tions upon gara9e sales. The consensus was `that both of these areas • were difficult to enforce and subject to abuse. l�lith this in mind, higher fee schedules might be considered. Vendino t•iachine, Member Bell questioned the reasoning of the Business License Corunittee Charges : relative to vending machine charges. Such fees are difficult to regulate and collect, as viell as a nuisance to correnercial operators. Originaliy the fee was designed to regulate and control criminal in- trusion into this market but he felt this was no longer a problem. It �•�as suggested that, instead of having z license per machine, a ftat rate be utilized based upon average number of machines in the jurisdiction. Piember Creaser felt ihat fees in this area might be too low to cover enforcement costs and both Committee members believed something could be done to make administration easier. Both tdr. Grant and Mr. Slijk reported that the Town Centre Commitee had supported the proposed fees and that the Broadway Associaiion had opposed them. The Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors approved a proposal that resulting revenues be earmarked 75% for economic activities and 25% to the General Fund. If revenues in the economic activity area were not utilized, the City Council could transfer this money to the General Fund upon a 4/5ths vote. Promotion of Member Campbell asked how the City would oromote the business communit; Business Corrmunity: and questioned the viability o` direct involvement in this area. �4r. Slijk indicated that the Council viould merely resoond to proposed uses for the funds , such as previous appropriations approved for the Vistors & Convention Bureau and the South Bay Economic Develoomen� Corporation. Piember Bell stated that it �aas his impression that tne City would prefer not to earmark the funds and that staff �•iould sooner receive revenue from this source than lo�•rer its income in anticipation of increased sales tax or otner revenues. Both 14r. Grant and hir. lJittenberg pointed out that the City Council has been resistant to specifically designating uses for particular revenue sources and that this has not proven- advisable in tne long run. I�o l ' scur.uui.i: or rr,r.srrn nnn ranru;r.0 uu:;uu_..:, i.i�:r.nsr. rr.es LXIIIQIT I Gr.ncr.l Rates: Ih'i�,ent I_nt.c I'rnpnti�_d 11�ite I:lasSificalion Pri_r.nt Rat= I'roposr.J Rzte � flusiness with fi�r.cl locntion � in CitY . Ilasc f'cr.: S 12.50/Yr $ 2S.OU/�r bLisic Idaciiinc $ lO.fID/ca/qlr Semu Cmployr.c f,liar��r. $ 3.U0/Yr �+��r: Pinboll Pi�chin�, $ 15.(1U/en/qtr Same 14dxinuuu f.mpinyr.r. 50 4ldximum No 4laxinium - Wholr.salm�s Dancc P� Dancc IInIL^ Ho fixed Location V�:�' I.or.ation 8 50.00/qtr Samc 6ase rec g lo.na/v�• S 2n.00/rr Ilandbill flisCriLution $ 12.50/qt.r Samc ' Empinyce Chargc t!o I�Iar.innun $ 70.00/ea Samc Ilandbill Dis[ribuLion 8 1.00/day/person Eliininate . Retail Coute f)elivcries Icr. Crcam Carls, Ila9ons 8 6ase Fec Y. no.on/yr , 50.�)0/yr I"ond Vendinp Vr.hir.lr.; $ 50.00/qlr/vchicic Same Gnploycc Chor��r. $ 1;i.Uii/ca Snnic � Jwik 8 Secondhnnd Ucaltn; $IUU.UO/Yr Same Aparlinenls 6a5c 8 12.50/Yr S lU.UO/yr r �� ' Cmployec Chargc 5 3.On/yr 5 I.00 per �'tanu(acLUring ' 19aximum $ 12.�0/Yr ` 2�.00 UaSic unit nvcr 3 f:mployce, 1S0 $ 1.OU/person , 2.00 �1-50 1 1.OU �1-100 A7l Other Scrvice RclateJ b .SO 101-1000 Ilo fixed loca[ion in City 5 .25 overl W� �asc fec S 25.00/yr $ 50.00/yr Pawnhrokers 8200:00/yr/person Same Employec Charge 5 G.00/yr Same Pr.ddlcrs, SolitiLurs, � Classi(ir.ation Tr�n;icnL I4crchanls fixed Lucalion on City Taz n��Nt;rers R othc�• devices for Rnll $ 5.00/yr/person 5 70.D0/yr/person announcing or advcrlisin9 �b 5.00/day Samc IW fix.r.d LocaLion on City Pcr Vr.hicle Tax Roll $ 25.00/yr/person 5 50.OU/yryper;on Ambulanccs 4 50.00 Inves�iqatimi Poalrooins, fiilliard Hoom , Fee $�2.00 per Ariver Same [pch I.ocatiun $ 2(1.U(1/yr Same etass n - n�eua�ecr b 25.0(I/yr Samr. f.ach Tablc 3 1'1.0U/yr Sanic Class A R � Auclioncer $100.00/yr Sainr Professions $ 2;.OU/yr/person ' S SO.00Jyr/person Class A R C Auttioneer FA00.00/yi• Samc Uillboard AAvertisin� Real Cstate BroF:er 5 25.00/yr/�rerson 5 50.00/yr/person � 5 G0.00/yr Sumc Rcal f.stale Salr.sman 3 10.00/yr/person 5 15.00/yr/person in excess of 2 b G.00/en Sanic 6owling Allcy b 25.OU/yr $ame Anw,emcnC, 1lrcade, Shonting Each f7o�oling lanc $ 16.G0/Yr $,mc Gallr.ries b100.00/Yr/lncation Sanic ' Card Rooms - L'.�di SeV�ratc lable 5 30.00/mo Samr. lari Cabs. Vchicles for Ilirr. $ Z5.011/ql.r Sanic CirCUSes. Carnivals, lr.nt ;hOws 8'1.50.OD/day Sainr. L•ailer ParY.; (pS0.0U 14in) g l .!i0/pr/;pace Sdmr. $I�il.r. Pcc - I1nsiC $ 'l.!i.OU/Yr Sai�u. Coin Opr,ratr.d Vendin9 Flochines Plus Pcr Sp�ir.c Chtu�ge S Z.OU/Yiyspace Sanic � OperaLes fm• lt $ .50/yr $ 2,0(i/yr__ C;crutCS fni' S: 8 1.00/Yr ' '-'._. $ b.UO/.�r P1i;ccllanr.nus P�•^�.. ,._' ."' __'_' O�rrates for 1�; � !' � Changr. ol' Ilanic or I.or,ntion�� £ 1.OU� $ 5.00 � . f S "L.O0/Yr• 8 i.UO/.Yi. Operatcs for 2!iC $ 3.!��!/yr $ R.nn/yr UuulicaLc I.icr.nsc S 1.00 � 5.00 � Operates for• ovr.r 51.00 Not CovereA g lO.aU/yr InvestiguLion fees 8 3.50 5 10.00 • Stamp Itacliines 5 7.U0/ca/yr 4 2.00/ca/yr Llosin9 OuC Sale 5 25.00 Same �-- Garage Salc 0 5 2.00/ea fmuaement or 11eehanical � Play hlar.hines 8 7.�0/%a/qLr S�mc ' � O° �nULn Y1S�r1 U�I.AiI$!UL . L:.CU�lU71;U LL U�JU�� $f�'; Ui;:GO LA Ci$il ILVIO�Ii,L CIi . li'�ERAL DUSIpESS ' • . . . „�I,:';: — ---- - � -- . ' 'i� . -1XE0 IOC�T1077 525.00 + 53/cach Gro,s Rr,�r.1 �15 Gro;; Ilr.telf�CS $15/yr + t7/cach 52; + S2/cmpl�oyce 25 /yr + S2/caGh Gro51 Rccel'ph emploYec (NO Max.)' (�r��i��lly . . � (�nnuallY) cmploycc c,�ploYCe (Annually)• '•C FIY.CD LCC�TIOI� . . . � • ,,��, ::holrsalcrs 320 + gto/c�n lo ee E20/yr + f,2/eng�loyc� Gross Reccipts . E30/yr + gq/each 550 � b4/crployee S5Q/YCar Locat•Gross Reo �:ec—ail—kou[es + emp oyee " �bqU/y�si vchicic- employcc tlon-Local•Yol. � ca, aJditional • car by classlf vchicic-3/5 of ls ' � tton .'�i� :_I Cthcrs 50 + 6 em 1 Sec Special �I'ces . ' � , � �=�Cil,L LLASSIFIChTI0t7 , • '�i � �,"7LIFIERS E ADVERT. SS/day per vchfcic S10/quartcr 410/day (55/Aay 1f ' S10/day � S50/ycar�. -- ' (Scarch 1lghts ' li[en;cd) ' ' S50/ r �F.nihlElliS 510/yr + g�,00 per • 1/uni[/yuarLCr -- 315/yr + 52/en:p• 510-573 (by units) Gro55 Rctetptf unit over 3 (avcr 3 units) , (ovcr G units) '�CTI0:15 L AUCTIOt1EER 1-5;0/ C L•ss-A $2;/yr - person � -- Gross Recct ts � Ycar .;t� ;• Class-� L A . � 5100/yr - applicant E50/da P . 550/yr - Class A 0-510/day , rless-C L d Y . S10/JaY 515/day + $2/enP• 575/Yr - Class C SSO/Year C-S50/YCar + SS( i:00/yr -, appllcant Annual Gro;s Itecr.ipb -- initial invest�� CiLLCOAA� ADVERT151tlG SGO/yr - applicant $7.5 up to 5 boards/ $50/ycar $50 cach loca N on; $50/ycar 510/servtcc vchl + SG/yr 'ea. si9n quarGcr; S10 cach $15 coch addlGional S50 per side ovcr 2 addi[ional sirin _�oca.ticn pBl' vear 'G:LI��G A�LEYS C25/yr. - localion -- . Gross Reccipts $15/yr + q2/cripl. $12/SA per a11cy 5100/y_ar . 55/ i S1G/yr per lanc S15 15t 0112y � allcy/quar[cr ...ED f.GO'15 $3D/n�,onth - tablc -- . -- -- 5G0/quar[er - table not allo��:ed � :IPNSES, CAPJIIVAI 5250/day - applicant Lircuses - E100/day � 550/da� . 6ascd on capaeity S25/day Carntvals- $1D/dav 5100/ddy :�1��-oa Io�CNtrES • . • • A'� 1t :..,, 42 / year / macMne ' � none licensed � � • - 5: � ' b5 / year / machine , none litensed � SEE: Oased on Gross 1J_ $5 / year / macMne SGS/qu,irter up lo . none 1lcensed General Ousiness Fecelpts + S10/ .'S1._:_ b8 / year / macMne 50 mochlnes; 50: . � none licensed servfce vChltle _Over.,51.00�__ • S10 / year / machine for eath machine� ' . . NnusemenC,Mech.:Play ' 51.50/qtr/ machlne over 50 $3.50/mo./iwchlne ' ,'s :'usie Czchines S10/qlr. / maclilne , q10/yr/maciifne; 5100 S3/mo./inachine 52.50/Seni-Annually , ��° ' Fcs.e;c C,:[hlnes $2 / year / machine minfmum _ L'onc litcnscd � • . ��i,, 1f ' EXHIBIT II ?'`�� ' ' ��(', . - � � �Esf:�� ; . � : I,�; : . � ;��.. ; a �'t.;�, . i: _ . - - , ,,. ' � CIIULA VI;iA OCE�NSIDE CSCO�lOI[JO � EL CAJOt7 �5l��7' �iEGO lA t'ESA t1ATI0Nl�L�CITY , I i; .. ��;':' 'F.CIlII CLASSiFICATION Cuntinucd � � ;li�l��;•4' . — .{_�_�� , , � � ',::CE N�D DlJICE H�LLS S50/quartcr/locatlon y15/quartcr b2�/Ycar b50-S200/ycar 5150/q[r (four + S10 + S50/ycar S]00/yr; Sl0/qt�- ' dancc;/wccl:) ' S10 ♦ S20/ycar occas. ; �I).5/nt9h � ' • . 570/qtr ([hrcc or S50/qtr-lessrthan ' lcss dancr,;/mccY. 5 ntgh[s '�'��,`""' ��:lG31LL D15T�16UTIOI! 512.50/qtr-business -- SS/day 52/crnploycc; camp�- 512.50/quartcr � not allowed _. +!�?' � nv- 30 + q cm 1 . = CP.:�:1 CFRTS L � S50/qtr/vahlcic S00/ycar/cart Grn;s � 1'ixed - E30 + Eq/employcc . __ " ii,';;, .E::OfAG VEHICLES , ' S50/yr + .��,/�ddt_ S50/year . 590/ycar,�y,. , ' ' tional vcliicic �1� �.� _ �: L SECO1fD H!J!D 5100/yr/appltcant S15/quarter Grox Rr.celpts S25/yr + b2/empl• 540/yr + S�/e�:�t�. S10/year peA on arq;s�re ';L'F;,CTURIGG . g2'' 00 � si + 520/ycar/onc anpl . Gross Reccipts E15 + E2/employce $25/yr � 52/empl,. S10/yr + S1/empl. 8ased on gross rc . 1-�0 emp�.=�2/empl. 2-10 cinpl.=$.5/mnpl. ' S1-100 empl.=S1/empl. 11-20 emp.=$2/crr.pl. ' � 'ii � ,?t,:�; . 101-1000cmp1=50Qemp1. 21-200 Cmp.=S1/Cmpl �� ;;'�i� � 1000overempl.=25CemP� 201+ en�pl .-50C/empl ' ' ' ' . i': >':3F0%ERS $200/year person 430/quartcr S50/ycar . 525/quarter�' 5100/SA 10 vr + n:, ,. -��-��. � HS S10/quarter, -- E2/day per employce $7.50/qtr. ,mcrShant � �Fir.ed Location $10/year/person � � . � on foo[ (515/wrt � b5/qtr.; S1C/day ::o-Fixed Loca[ton $50/year/person � � $10/year/pers. cranstencs � � 510/SA faod/car[ , �;�+, ' S1;/Sn food ca'r' �� • � S2U/ycar /location S1/qtr tst table + 5100/year S12/table per ycar 512/SA per table 5100/year + 52/ta �Stz/vc,r /cabic ;3/add.tantc/�cr. $25/lst table per rronth �J�ESSIUt4 550/year/person ;50/yea�yperson or Gross Recei ts � P S15/year + S2/empl . 52;/ycar + 52/empl, 535/year' • based on 9ross rec. $25/year .:•o<LL I:LLHIIIES -- -- Gross RcccipLS S.3/month/ma[hinn _4�L5 _o * � ' .=,_ ES7;,TE �CG'ER � y50/year/person -- Gross Iteteipts q15/ycar + 52/enpl , SEE:. Professlona7 S10/yr + S1/er. 1. <Z�;•�,r � -`�'iSi�lE S?LES 515/year/person -- Gross Reccfpls q15/ycar i $2/enipl . � - � S70/yr . $1/crol , <��_,� _Jtlr;G G-LLERfES 8 SI00/year/loca[1on y5/qtr; !GS/qtr. to $25/month 51,/year + S2/empl. 530/SA; $12.50/qtr, no[ allo�:ed 5100/y^ar � gross, . c:';'f FLCi•.LES SO�machlnes _�3�month /machlne recel ts ' ��I Cr� L VEHICLE :25/q[r/ vchlcle -- $SO/ycar l;G vchlcic 5115 lst 7 cabs; $50/yr tazfs;arbul c-o Fi�� 5100/ycar 5450/yr r.11 taxts p i?.0/ya�r/odd.vrhicle C1 r.ar.h add. cab 550/yr i SC/aC�t`�� lL=?, CLL'RT 51.,0/pear [rail.,p. $1/qtr. ea. space Gross Recetpt, -- ' Under Housin9 Perm. 2. gross recetp.s Gross Receip[s, ta:e Fcc (5�0 mintmum);• $25/ . � �•� ycar + Sl ca. loC � ' ;' � , ' � ' . . ' . . i � ��li' :I " 4 , I . . . ' . . �� I . . ' . �,�aJ�.. sN' 'I . ' . . � ., ,I . ' � � . . ' :,i�i'� y�i:., . . f.r;. . �. . . 4i; . • 'r`r.';I ' � ' . . . . `p`�vil� , . ' ' , ' • . �;7�%' I�� ' ' ' . . \ � ,iY:••nI ..1 0 � �� `- -- CI!UL� VISTA OCEAl1SI0E F.SCOIIDIDO - EL CAJ011 SA�I DfEGO LA NESA II;,TILCl.I CIT'/ ' 'SCELLA"ECUS FEES �---� — -- � •?'li�;';:'; %,'.G= OF LCC4TIOtl $5 per change -- sl pr,r chan c $1 -- 9 per ch�npc S1 per chan9c 52 per thac5: CS1:lG GU7 SALE 525, per loca[1on S25/daY 550 up to GO doy;; ar ' • .�S'/6o `/NyJ 4� �n: f r/G 525 c�. addi. 2; days -- Gross Ccretots' ,:LE7Y'AT PUELIL 5100 per loca[ion -- SEE: �UCTIOf;E[R 5100 for 60 days -- $10 + 6ond Gross Recefpts� - AUCTIOA � ' � 'LiCdTE LILEGSE 85 per copy __ � S1 per copy ' S1 per Copy -- � , $1 per topy S2 per topy SSkGE PARLORS • SEE: General __ g2,/year' + $5/emD1• 5z5/year + 52/crrpl. 512.50/SA Operator of estab- --- __ _ Dusiness �25/year >>snr.=nt=S1CO tor., Investigation Fces $�p.00 � � � � Inveztigaticn • . Gara c Sale • � . � . S1G0 per ycar; '��'� 9 52.00/each . . , • Technician�S25 tar , . • . . . , lnvestlgation + : ' S25 per ycar . ' �y;• , . � . , ' , • ' . ' , ' � � , � � 11;i . . . ' , . . . , � . . . . • ' ',i :. . . , . , . , . , ' . . ' •r� 1 : , ' . . . . ' ��i,. . . \ . . . . ' . � ' � • . � . �'� . I � � ' ' .. . ' • , .' � v ) . . � . . . . . . . , � . � . • . :�IAI�: ' . . . . yo;'.;. . . , ' , , ' - r�. . . . ' � • � . . . . � . ''i•' ' . . .. . . '�Y . . . � ' • ' � ' n . :.� ' . ' � ' .. . . ' ' , . � ' ��}, • .. . , , ''tl �,+ . , ' ;�ye,`' • t,��,' � . . . �1r�' • �.. . . ' ' . ' 41�;�. ' �i:. � • • � , � �o ,�{;'��, i�.1 � I �• • co*�Su.a�z�-F su�c_�.�Y Ezhibit� III Ot BUST_�aESS T T_CE?�SE D:1T:� SELECTED S�?: DIEGO COD;:T1 CITIES Tne curre,c Busiaess License Ordinance has been in force for more thza t::e^c�• cears. Tne _ee scheduie under the esisti�g o*dinance has re�ained, fo: t'r.e �ost part, ur.chznged. Reveaue from Business License fe=s has ir.cr�ased over the years but *_his is lzr�elti- due to nor�al bus'_r.ess �rocath reiated to populatioa aac �eograpiical �ro:ata. An additionzl iactcr is a �ore active p:ogra� of field ir.speccio:: and en�orce:�ent. Yhe purpose or estaol�shing this co�W±ttee is to studc �oss:Sle chzr.ges ia the currert fee schedule. To assist in the sLUd}•, the Business iicense Ordinances (Fee Schecules) frc:n several of our neighooriag cities, as we11 as ot`�ers withia the State, na�•e been oStzined for co^aparisoa. I� c:ill be noted *_hat t�ro methods of co:�:putia� license fees are used bc tnese various cities. Flat rate computation, suc; a; C:ula ;%is[a cerrer*_lr uses azd �ross receipts co-�putation. T_he flat ra*_e -,etnod of co:�putztion incolces a fixed fee for business classi- fica_ior.s ar.d �enerall�; i.cludes a fee establis�zz oc the .uaoer o* ecolovees. The oLC55 r2C01�C :��eC}:OC� 02 CO:C7�tcilOII� WR1C�P. soa_*_i�=s inciudes ilflC ra*_e fEOS *_OL se-e busir.ess classi_ications, is based oa =he bcsiness aam�al gross receipts. _he ioilo::ing _aSle is a digest of data cox�zrino the eiiects oi the two r.e*_hods previocsly ;eatio�ed as applied te severzl o* OuT neiShDO=iP.o ci=ies: i��?�EB 0£ ,'FTriOD 0: CI'?�" POPuLyTLO?d LICE?�SES iSSti°_D RE?r�\1iE CO)�liT�'?IO\ C�r_ia :'is_a S7,000 4,000 114 ,000 Flat Ratz Ei Cajon o5,000 5,000 1!+�,134 Fla� Rate Escoe:dido 50,200 4,265 310,000 Gross La *!esa 53,233 3,�00 147,300 Fla*_ Rate Sz�ional City 40,600 3,5�0 150,000 Gross Oceanside 60,000 3,19G 219,000 Gross Sz= Diego i°0,000 36,000 1,900,000 Flat Rate Vi,ca 30,200 2,250 137,000 G.-oss In add:tion to teose cities listed in *_!:e a�ove table the ordinaaces oi ei�nt other cit±es are co.densed to the fee sche3ule section and aade available fo* review in the packets provided. S � � `c ' n .'f'. � !'G \ �� Y? SS f Jj (j n �y: '' � � EXHIBIT IV �" �i. \� !I V 'J �� '(P i •C� r n, iJ� � \/� � �� /` O �% A \" \,^. �� ,�' �'J, ' � V �n i1 rj. � �o � a C% �� n � �G O is ��:. -n� a .o � c` .� p• r \�y \ . �P O' .(� Jr v 'i� : ".i \ G `��.4 n i> '.L c�y J` di S�a �l .;J C� �.� PY '� �. i. �� '•i C' ;. co �� '� p \ \ . � C` Ni, �� '^' (` li . �y,. C i � ��l' \ � <^ �a � p� �c� 7 v ,N J ,. q � � C> ��, \ -i ^. 'l' G,� i, a, ':: c` \s �, .o c.� <N �„ �• �.� . :U p l ('+ ?p �'i. � �tv ., \`� p- ..� G v J' . J` � �C� iP �C. ' � � i=• U j• .�' �n • � r. '� ,�, � �� .P ` 'i �J` ar J � . . i`, J`9 J`� � ,jO '� �� . �J'n` S v'' '`P� �.�9 �'� `P-� S� P �, �.J'> J't-� � •� .1` 'fO f \\ O�O 'pO � v,tO\ .O .0 .9 f c' f S p •�O �p � O \ �O ��p O � �p �p �C` •p �p �O , �l.3?G £SDO 5�5 ` 40 �0 `� 31 \ 10 G 3 � 2 ?. 2 � 0 0 �`, L'mps. ,I:inps. fu!ps. � Fmps. C�mp.;. •, f�rnps. , [irips. Linps. Lmps .� fm�s.� f:�nps. , Fmps.\, i�ps . mps. .mps. Ch��ln Vist�t l .fi,'.. SQ 1G2. !ip If�. �;0 ;2.50 �i�. 50 43.5(1 ?.?..5D '1�3.50 15. 50 ln. °_0 �1�1. 50I 1� .50 13. 50 17..50 12.5( +:n Di��o 8.!i�7.00 1 ,f25. p0 I .11!i. 00 10i.00 IL5.�10 F17_Op q!i.00 37_OD 31 .00 2?.OQ �9.90 29.00 27.U0 25.00 25.0� i?ceanside 7_.,'.3;.�0 '�G�.Op �37. �0 105.OQ 105 .00 4G. 00 65.DU h5.00 30.0� 25.00 ?5.00 ?5.00 ?0.00 'L0.00 20.0� EI Ca,jon " E87.U0 1 ,615.00 1 ,105.00 9�.00 9,.U'.; 7% .0� 35.00 27.00 7_1_00 l�.r,p 19.00 19.00 U.00 15.00 15.�( i.a I•icsa �3ng. p0 E'10.0� �5!i';.00 50_00 �D,O`,l n1 .00 Z0.00 1�.00_ 13.00 12.OD 12.00 17. .Q0 11 .00 10.00 lU.Ot CUKRIiNT PGES - PIANUFACPUR1iRS ' $ 774.50 PROPOSfiD NEW PELS - hIANUPACTURERS $2,955.50 �ross Rec;cipCs CUSIPlESS LICF.NSf FEES Cf,ULA '/ISTFl I�L4ilUFACTUREf?� flational CiLy G50.00'" llOULD PAY If� VP,RIOUS SiU� D1Er,0 COUilTY CITIES Car•l.sbad G7 .G97_. 00 Nista 33,902.50 i:scontlido 51 ,245.00 , " �hi�ximum � ;�,.---, � �� ; `�� . I�� .��1 ��3 � CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - -,-- _ :�. June 12, 1978 The Honorable Will T. Hyde and City Councilmen City of Chula Vista 276 Fouzth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mayor Hyde & Councilmen: �,� During the January meeting the Board of Directors of the Chula Vista Chamber of Co�erce approved the proposed increase in the business �icease-taz-wfEh=the=s€ipu3:afion-that 758=of=f}iis-ta�c-be-earmarke�lc s sictly_for.ethe_promo£ion_of=ffie'_befferment=of=the�econvmic�ciimate eff.ChuYa=V.ista� These funds to be placed in a special, designated account. At the end of each fiscal year, the .Council, by 4/5 vote, may transfer any surplus funds of this special account into the general fund for the operation of the city. The'_25.8=of=the�und"—to�+a »Ged for=admini:stration_p�poses=arid-overhead-expenses-to=a�ni�nister-the issuance-of-bnsiness ticenses-aml-for-enforcmient-p�ses. ORIGIN OF TAX - The levy of a business license tax is done under permissive legislation, it is not a mandatory taac the city must collect. In the County of�San Diego for e�cample there is no business license tax. The original intent of the ta�c was to keep outside competition to a minim� and the funds to be used for the betterment of the city's business climate. The original intent has long been forgotten and cities now use this tax to augment the income in their general fund. It should be remembered that this is a discriminatory tax levied solely at business for the privilege of doing business in the coimnunity. There aze no direct or indirect benefits derived from this tax by the business co�uunity. It should be further noted that banks and insurance companies are e�cempt from this tax. REASON FOR BOARD ACTION - The members of the Board of Directors are of the opinion that the City of Chula Vista is not doing enough to advertise and promote the city. In the last five years we have slipped from the mmiber two position in ta�cable retail sales in San Diego County to the fifth position. The Council, through organizations such as the Chamber of Coa¢nerce, should encourage a vigorous promotional campaign to recapture our lost leadership position. Earmarking the business license ta�c income has a mnnber of advantages. 1. These are funds collected from business only, so the general ta�cpayer does not contribute to thein. It is not necessarily a fact that. these tax levies can be passed on to the consumers o� so he or she indirectly pays for them, as stores must be competitive and the stores in the county are not charged this tax. 233 FOLJRTH AVENIIE • CHLILA VISTA, CALIFpRNIA 92010 • TELEPHONE: 42p-6602 - , . . . - i- . _ •- � . ,� ,- The Honorable Will T. Hyde -2- June 12, 1978 & City Councilmen 2. With passage of the Jarvis/Gann Initiative, these funds will be frozen for the intended purpose of the promotion of the business community. 3. The Council will have the final jurisdiction of appropriating these funds based on presentations made to them by non-profit and/or profit organizations and/or individuals. The presentations which will do the most good for the overall business co�nunity will be awarded the necessary funds for implementation. 4. From a public relations point of view, the general public, which is not too favorably impressed by business, and who are poorly educated in the economic facts that by spending money for promotional purposes you create more money and more jobs, would realize that this is the business community's contribution for the overall well being of the total co�unity. OTHER PRECEDENTS - Eazmarking of funds is not uncoicm�on and is done presently in the city of Chula Vista. The parking meter funds are earmarked. The increment taxes in the redevelopment district are earmarked. The extra levy on the business license tax in the Town Centre area is earmarked. These are but a few examples showing that the precedents of earmarking funds does exist in Chula Vista and is used with great advantage. CONCLUSION We respectfully urge you to endorse the Chamber position on this issue. In the event you are apprehensive may we suggest you qualify your recommen- dation by requesting a mi.nimum of a five year trial period after which the Council and the business community can re-evaluate the results and at the same time review and update the business license tax levy by recomnending increases or decreases in the tax structure. ' Sincerely, / �'��<(i(/li��. ��C�"''�� Richard D. Callahan, President Chula Vista Chamber of Co�nerce RDC/bah lg° �