HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/06/13 Item 23 Item No. 23
June 13, 1978
Ordinance 1801
Business License Fees n • .
- �_ ` ' ' , CITY OF CHULA VISTA : ,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. Z'
For meeting of 6/13/78
ITEM TITLE Ordinance�1��1 � Revising Business License Fees
SUBMITTED BY .!�Di� rector of Finance
. �l*��
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 followin9
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
61en 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 Commerce
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 Cortmerce
EXHIBITS
Agreement Resolution_ Ordinance X Plat_ Notification List_
Other XX ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
FINANCIAL IMPACT
�.-. �:,� � 8 � V � p.
r:
J;.
. �`�� b� '�i�
_ Ci� Eau�8i1
, ��
STAfF RECOMMENDATION `(��g �j;���, ��i}io��ia
�a�en,::,....�--...�3..-..��'......._...__..�
Approval .
BOARD/COh44ISSI0N RECOMMENDATION: At the Mayor's Economic Advisory Committee meeting of
Apr_i1 ,12,.-1978,.the attached-business license fee schedule was approved (6-1 ) with the
��following recommended. amendment:` "Coin operated`= vending machines - Relevant companies in
this area be licensed quarterly by class and number of such machines in the community. 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
i . S°�
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 in 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 reviewed and analyzed by the committee 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 recommended 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.
�e\
Item No. 23
Date 6/13/7s
Supplemental Page No. 3
All professional classifications were increased from $25 per person to 350
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 Cortmerce. All of the above organizations voted to unoppose the
new ordinance. The Chamber of Cormnerce 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 cormnittee and indicated no
formal opposition to the new recomnended 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 recommended 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
artrount 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 Classification 10,150
Apartment Rental Units 6,070
Real Estate Salesmen 1 ,100
Solicitors 860
Manufacturing 2,180
���� Total Estimated Increase $62,500
Item No. 23 •
Date �i,Zi,R
��
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. �
�J�
, . • • -z_ ��"3 EAC
� • �/25./73
upon businesses in general , and Rohr in particular, than �•rould be
the case if they o-�ere located else�ahere in the County.
There followed questions from t•tembers Crane and Creaser regarding fees
in the professional category and a brief discussion ensued. There
�•�ere also inquiries as to the rationale for the fee and the impact
this �•iould have on contingent charges being made by the Dovm to�an
Improvement District. In this area, assessment was mad� for promotion�
activities and was based upon matching the amount paid in business
license fees. t•ir. Slijk responded by saying that the Improvement
District �•ias created under State enabling legislation (AB 103) and
that it �aas a voluntary association of businessmen which had legal
authority to assess fees. Mr. Grant stated that the revenue target
in the past has been some 55,000-57,000 annually and that the City has
merely acted as a collection a9ent. Any assessments must result irom
a vote of the District ��lembers 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 garage sales. The consensus oras 'that both of these areas
. were difficult to enforce and subject to abuse. 4lith this in mind,
higher fee schedules might be considered.
Vendina hiachine. Member Bell questioned the reasoning of the Business License Committee
Charqes : relative to vending machine charges. Such fees are difficult to
regulate and collect, as well as a nuisance to co�nercial operators.
Ori9inaliy the fee �•�as designed to regulate and control criminal in-
trusion into this market but he felt this was no longer a problem.
It was suggested that, instead of having a license per machine, a
flat rate be utilized based upon average number of machines in the
jurisdiction. Member Creaser felt that 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
I+Ir. Grant and Mr. Slijk reported that the Town Centre Commitee had
supported the proposed fees and that the Broadway Association 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 �conomic
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 vrould oromote the business communit�
Business Co�nunity: and questioned the viability of direct involvement in this area.
�4r. Slijk indicated that the Council would merely respond to proposed
uses for the funds , such as previous appropriations approved for
the Vistors & Convention Bureau and the South Bay Economic Develooment
Corporation. Piember Bell stated that it �aas his impression that the
City would prefer not to earmark the funds and that staff arould sooner
receive revenue from this source than lo�•ier its income in anticipation
of increased sales tax or other revenues. Both 11r. Grant and
hir. lJittenberg pointed out that the City Council has been resistant
to specifically desianating uses for particular revenue sources and
�that this has not proven. advisable in the lono run.
�a �
� scu�.uui.� or w;r.sr�n nnn raorn;r.0 uusuu:.s i.ici:nsi: rr:i:s LXFIIQIT I
f,r.nCral Rates: Ih•e,ent I:aLC 14•0��o5�_d ItaLe f,la;5ifir.aLion Prr_r,nt RatC i'i'oposCd Ritc
� flusinr.ss with (i,cr.cl lucntian
� in City
Basc fr.r.: S 72.50/Yr S 25.00/Ir 19u;ic IddChinc 8 10.00/%a/qtr Sunic
I.�nploycc Chdrgr, $ 3.U0/yr ���:i�r: PinLall Plar.hine $ 1S.q0/en/qtr $amc
1•iaximum f.mployr.r. JO FId%Illllllp Ilo Idaainunn
. Wholr.salcrs Dancc P� Dance Ilalls
No Fixed Loca[ion per• I.ocation S 50.00/qtr Samc
Dase fcc S 10.00/yr fi 20.W/yr Ilandlrill Uistrihulion S 12.50/qcr Samc
• C.mpinyce Chur9e No I�Iar.immn 5 10.00/ca Saine Ilandbill Dish•ibuLion S 7.00/day/person Eliininate
. ReWil Routc I)elivcrics Icr. Crcam CarL;, Ila9ons R
Uase fec £ 40.00/yr ; 50.UD/yr I"nod Vendin9 Vr.hicles $ 50.00/qtr/vehit7e Samc
Employcc Cliarge $ 15.OU/ea Samc ,lunl: P� SecmiAhand Ur.alr.r; S1U0.00/Yr Sanic
Apartinr.nls [lasc 8 12.SU/Yr 5 10.0U/Yr 4lanufacLm•in9 - Idaximuni q 1'L.50/Yr S 25.00 Uasic
' Cmployec Charge S 3.Of1/yr 5 1,00 ycr f.mployees 150 $ 1 .OD/person 5 2.00 1-50
unil ovcr :1 $ 1.0U 51-100
All Othcr Scrvice RcIaLeJ b .50 101-1000
Ilo (ixed Loca[ion in City 5 .25 over���
�ase fec 5 25.00/yr 8 50.00/yr pavmbrokcrs b2D0:00/yr/person Same
Employcc Char9c 5 6.00/yr Samc
PedJlers, Solicitors,
Classification Transicnt Flerchunls
fixcA Location on City Tax
n���Nt;rers f other devices (or Roll 5 5.00/yr/person 5 10.00/yr/person
announcin9 or aAverlisin9 8 5.00/day Same Ilo fixed Loculion on Cily
Pcr Vr.6icle Tax Roll 8 25.00/yr�/pr.rson S 50.00/yr/person
Ambulanees q 50.OU InvesLigalion Poolrooms, fiilliard Room
, Fee �Z.00 per <h•iver Same Cach Loculion $ 20.00/yr S�mc
Class A - AuCLionLrr S 25.00/;/r $�mc C.ach Tablc $ 12.00/yr Sanic
Class A R fi Auclioncer $100.00/yr Sainc Professions 5 25.00/yr/person ' S 50.00/yr/person
Class A & C Auc[ioneer f�400.00/yr Same
Uillboard AAverti,inr Real Eslate Bro4.cr 5 25.00/yr/person 5 50.00/yr/person
� $ 60.D0/,yr Sanie Rcal CstaLC Salr.mian $ 10.00/yr/person S 15.00/yr/person
in excess oF 2 S G.00/ca Samr.
Oowling Allcy � 25.011/yr Sainc f.nw5cinenL, Arcadc, Shoo[iny
Each Oorrlin9 lanr. $ 1(.GO/Yr Sanm Gullerics 5100.00/Yr/location Sanic
' Card Ronrns - L'uch S�:V,�raLC lable 8 30.00/inn Samr. laxi Cabs. Vehicles (or Ilire 5 Z`.;.00/ql.r Saniu
Clreu5c5. CarniVnlS, lr.nt $how5 $"L50.00/ddy $ainr L�ailcr PuYY,S (a:i0.O0 blin) 4 1 .!i0/yt'/sP�ce SamC
SlaLr. fr.c - Ilasir, b Z!i.00/Yr 5,u,m .
Coin OPr.raLr.A VCn�linq hiaChinCS ('lus Pcr tipacc Lharge b 'L.W/YiysPacc Sunic
Operdtes for 1� 8 .!i0/Yr 8 2.00Jyr._.'
:,ci'ules fa�' S: $ 1.OU/Yi' $ S.UU/�r _.__Pli.^,cr,ll,uir.ous Pr.��- .._"."........ ' "__'
Opr.raLCS lor IqC � $ 2.0(1/Yr ' '-"' $ !i.UU/Yr Chanqc ot' Ilumc or Lor.atien $ 1.00 S 5.00
Operates (or 26t 4 3.!°1/Yr g N.nn/yr [luolicaLC Licen;r. E 1.00 S 5.00
� OPerates fnr over 51.00 Ilot Covr.rcA $ �p,pp/yr Investigat.ion fr.es 8 3.50 5 10.00
- Stamp 14achines 8 1 .U0/ea/yr g 2.00/ca/yr Closin9 Ou[ Sale 5 25.00 S��mc
-- Gara9e Sale 0 5 2.00/ea
AmuSCment or F1CChdnir.al..�
� Play tdachines £ 7.50/%a/qlr Samc
. �
�
� utULn Yi�l�l V�I.�liltilU;. LJCUiIUII:U !.L U�JO�� $f�:l Ui;:GO LA Il;$A IIJ�TIO�;�,L Ci7
:.E:�ER�L 6USItIESS ' � . . •
— •. '� ' 'i,l '•
-1%EO LOCATIOY 525 00 + 53/each Gro:s Rr�r,l �ts Grn:; Ilr.ccl �ts b15/yr + 52/cach 525 + S2/cmploycc 25 /yr + S2/Cach Gross RccClpb.
employee �NO riax.Y �n�,�,�,,,i i
Y � (Mnually� employcc c�ploycc (Mnuall
y) •
� r�r�o �ecnrta� . . —
::!ol•esalers 520 + g10/e�n io ee E20/yr +_f2/eng�loye� Gross Recefpti' b30/yr + b4/each 550 + Eq/erployee �SNYCar Lacal•Grosi Rec�
�:etaii—ftoutes + emp oyee " -EqU%y�st vchicic- employee tlomLocal�Yo1. �
ea. additional • tar by tlaislf
vchicic-3/5 af 1s ' N on '�
;_II CtCCrs 50 + 6 em 1 Scc Special �ices , ' ' , -
'�FC(!.l CLASSIFICIITION .
. .•i' ..
"':?LIFIERS b AD4ERT. SS/day per vehicle S10/quartcr $10/day (SS/Aay tf ' S10/day � S50/year�. -- ' (Scarth 1lghts
.:.ir.kil:El�iS � � ' licen;cd) ' ' S50/ r
b10/yr + $�,pp per , 1/uni[/yvartCr -- , $15/yr + 52/emp• $10-573 (6y units)
. unit over 3 (ovcr 3 units) (ovcr 6 uni[s) � " Grosi Recetpt:
',.L71pt15 L AUCTIOt1EER
Class-� S25/yr - person • -- Gross Recci ts � �-�`0/ycar ��� ,
CI3ss-0 8 A . ;100/yr - applicant S50/day P . 50/yr - Class A S50/ ear 0-510/day
Cless-C L .l 5;00/yr -, applican[ �nnual�Gro;s I2eceipL 510/day 515/day + S2/emp. � $75/yr - Llass C y C-S50/year + 55(
_ ° initial tnvestrt
C(LLCOA�D ADVERT1S1tJG °.GO/yr - apptican[ 57.5 up Co 5 boards/ $50/year $50 cach loca N on; $50/ycar
t S6/yr 'ea. si9n quarte'r; $10 each $15 each �ddltional S50 per side $10/iervfce vehl
ovcr 2 additional sinn _Lo[a.ticn er C'dl'
'C>:LI��G l�LLEYS 525/yr. - location -- - Gross Reccipts q15/yr + t�Z/�mpl, S12/SA per allc 5100/ycar . 55/
� S1Gtyr per lanc Y S�S �St d� �2y � a11cy/GuarCcr
:.�D GG0:15 S30/n,onth - tablc -- __
• -- S60/quartcr - tablc no[ allo.:ed __
:IPNSES, CAPIIIVAI. 5250/day - applieant Lircuses - $100/day � 550/day . �ased on eapaefty 525/da
' Carnlvals- $10/d'ay 5100/ddy Y
>J1'!-OP Fi1CHICES ' ' - . .
---'— ' , . i�r,
1t , $2 / year / machine ' ' none licensed � � � �
Y � ' 85 / year / macMne . nonc lftensed � SEE:
SJ: $5 / year / macMne SGS/quarter up lo none 1lcensed General Ousiness ' Oazed on Gross
,'S:.._'. b8 / year / macMne 50 machlnes; 50� . � none licensed Fecelpts � S10/
_Over.,81.00�__ _ 810 / year / machine (or each mothine� ' . . servi[e vehlele
Amu'semenf,Mech._Play ' 57.50/qtr/ macfil ne over 50 57.50/nio./machlne �
•ii�
:'usit I;zchires S10/qlr. / maclilne t10/yr/machine; 5100 $J/mo./machine 52.50/Sen1-,^mnually , p,!,
- minimum
res:z;� 1'achlnes $2 / year / machine t;one licensed ' ' �
. ,�4..
,; ,
.,.
. . � a3�'..:
� � EXHIBIT II ��,'1''
. . . . . p�P��i'.9
.. . 1���,4 ,
. • II� ,
Pkl•.''i
, ��3 +
. D_ 1iFil�i.1
_ . , - - ;. •:
' ' ciiu�n v�srn ocenrisioe r.scor+n�oo e� cnaou 'snr� otECO �n r�es,� r+nr�o��AL CITY
, ;...,,;.
I . . � � i'{��,,1,��
'F.CIAL CL�SSIFICAi101! Continucd � �� . .���p,��,,�,
.. , '— •�_-------�- '• , � ,� ;��t�'^, ti
',':CE NID DlJICE lIALLS 550/quar[cr/locatlon t15/quar[cr E25/ycar b50-E200/ycar $,1;0/qtr ((our + E10 * SSO/ycar 5700/yr, S70/atr-
' danccs/orecY.) ' S10 + $20/ycar oeeas.; 517.5/nigh
� . S90/qtr (thrcc or 550/qtr-lessi,than
less dancr,;/�ieek 5 ntght5
-:IG?ILL DISTBI�UT101! S12_50/q[r.business -- SS/Jay $2/crnployce; compa- 512.50/quar[er not allowed � _• j{r"���
nv- 30 + q em 1 . "��
:E CP.�F:I CI.RTS L • S;0/qtr/v�htcle S�0/ycar/eart Grn;s + ('ixed - $30 + $q/employce - � � S50/year . 590/yeari�l;;�
.E::Di!!G VEHICLES , ' $50/Yr + q,25/addl- -
' � tional vchlcic . . . ��`��.�
. ,'r; L SECO"D IIlJID 5100/yr/applicant E15/quartcr Gro,s Rr.telpts 525/yr + b2/crtipl. S40/yr + S1/empl'�. �a��/year ,�SeA on nrQS_51�
';GFi,CTURIGG . g2, 00 6ast + S20/ycar/onc empl. Grass Reccipts $15 + �p/emptoyce $25/yr + 32/empl,. S10/yr + $1/empl. Based on gross rc
. 1-5b empi.=�2/empl. 2-10 empl.= 5/cmpl.
' 51-100 empl,=$7/empl. 11-20 em ' . ri ��`?��%��
, 101-1000anp1=50temp7. 21-200 emp.=51/empl . � . .
� ��ii,�.�7:
' 1000overempl.=25�emp1, 201+ cinpl .-SOQ/cinpl ' �:i ' ' F" �
:':3F.pY,ERS 5�00/year persan $30/quarlcr �50/ycar ,
_ S25/quarter�• 5100/SA '� 10 r + r- „rr
�� �"'� � ks --- S10/quartcr, -- $2/day per employee $7.50/qtr. ,mer4hant SS/qtr.; S1C/day �
Fir.ad Lott[ion $10/year/person , � . � on foot (515/cart) tranilent5
;:o-Fixed Locatton $50/year/person , S10/SA food/curt $�0/year/pers. , ,
' ' ' 315/SA food ca'ri � �
� • � 520/year (location 17/t�tr ls[ Wble + �100/year S12/table per year 512/SA per table 5100/y^ar � S2/[a
�S1z/ycar /cabtc ?7/add.�a��tc/qcr. $25/lst table vcr Roncn
�JFESSIUI+S g50/year/person ;50/yeaiyperson or Gross Receipts E15/ycar + $p/empl. 525/ycor + 52/empi. e�25/year 535/year"
� • based on 9ross rec.
.:,ZILL �1LCHIIIES -- -- Grnss Rccclpt5 43 mont machin=_47gLS b ' '
.=_ ESIATE �LG'ER � §50/year/person -- Gross Itecclpts S15/ycar + 52/empl , SEE: Professlona7 S10/ r + 51/ec 1 . �gsL,�,,r .
-"��ST�IE S��LES $15/year/person -- Gros; Reccipls 415/ycar + �2/cni�l . � -- � S10/yr + 5�/rr.�l , <�n�_.�
:;;ilr;G C-ILER[ES d $100/year/locatfon b5/qtr; !G5/qtr, to $25/monLh 51,/year + $2/emp1. $30/SA; 512.50/qtr, not allo+red 5100/y=ar � gross
, =f,';Y FF.CG.L:S SO�machtnes <3/month /mnciiine recel ts
' �!I,C.° L VEH[CLE :25/qtr/ vehicle -- S;0/year l;t vehlcle $ll5 lst 7 cabs; 5100/year 5450/yr ,�11 taz15 S�0/yr ttzls;arSu1
'r.:CE p j20/Yr.ar/add.vrhicle ql car.h add, cab 550/yr ♦ 54/aC�i .�.
=!l:' CCCRi 51.;0/pear trail „p. 51/qtr. ea. space Gro;s Receipts -- � Under Housin9 Perm. 2: gross recetpts Gross Receipts
::a.e Fce (5�0 minimum);• $25/ , . � �;� '�
, ycar + 51 ca. lo[ , � � ,'
. ��M
. . � . , ' , IyYI ��i
�1�
. �tl��
, • , • , „ � ' , I���.�;'i
. . ' . . IiY;'��'.
. . , ' . , ' , . .�h��,�
• . , . . . i 4'�„I
. • �•.��i.�'fl
. . . . . , . ' o ,��4r„�`al
-- .� CI!L'LA VISTA OCEAl151[JE f.5C01;DID0 � EL LAJOiI Sl111 �IEGO LA AESA Iii.TIL';J.l CIT'!
' 'SC:LLA::ECUS FEES �� � �'"'
— . `;i�;; :a'.
�;'•G= OF LCC�TfO�! $5 per change __ __ '��
51 pr.r change E1 per changc SI per ehangc 52 per ehac5^_
CSi:lG GUT SAIE 525, per locatton s25/day 550 up lo GU Jay;; d ' ' •
.+i-�to /yy� a�- �,: r,./c
S25 ca. addi. 25 days -- f Gross Ccre1 [s
',:L:RY�AT PIIELlC 5100 per locaCion -- ' SEE: AUCTIOfJECR E100 for 60 days ' -- . S10 + 6ond Gross Recetpts,
' GULTIO�
�LILdTE LIC:CSE 85 per topy __ $1 per co -_ '
PY � S1 per copy S1 Gcr capy 52 per topy �
SSkf,E PARLORS � SEE: Gencral • -- g25/ycar' + $5/empl. $25/ycar + S2/empl. 512.50/SA ODCrator of estab-
__ ____ _ 6usiness . , g25/y2dr ��shcent=S1C0 for,
Investigation Fees $10.00 � � � � investigaticn ♦ . :+�
- ' ' S1G0 per ymr; ..•�..
Garage Sale 52.00/each ' . ' . ' � . � iechnlcian�$25 ior
, • . . . , lnvesNgation + r
+ ' S25 per yelr
, , . . ,�r-.
. ' . , '.
• . ' , ;:
� . • 2:.
. , , . , . . . � ' .�� i
. , • . . � I��:.,
. , , , , ' . . , � �
. .r . ' . , . , . ,,t .
, • � , . . . . . . , f,�{ i
, ' ' . • . � r�,''.
. . . ' • ' . . . . . ,�, �
• , � , , ''Y� ',
. . � ' n . ,1,�,
, ' . ' l � � 1�4; �
" • �:w', .
i.f ;
'.r_ '
' • ' • . �. ' �i,{t,l ��
. . . ' l5��.i�
• ' ' r��.�11���
. . . � , ' ' , °�','�'
. . . . . , . .�M��.
. . �'�',,
. . . , ' . ' . . — 1��t .c
• • � '.(';,,,�.
,i:,. ,
'• • co�!�:ut.aTZVF s[r.n±a.e� Ezhi bi t� I I I
OF BUSI��ESS LZC°_KSE DyTA
SELECT_ED 5.1.}: DIEGO COU`:T] CITIES
2ne currer.� Busiaess License Ordinance has been in :orce ior r.:ore than
t�e^n• years. Tne fee scnedule under the esisting ordinance nas re*�az,ed, fo:
caz r.ost� oarc, ur.chzrsed. Reve:�ue irom Bus±ness License fees nas ir.creased over
the }•ezrs but *_nis is lar�elti• due to norc:el bus:ness �'TOlJCh reizted to popuiatioa
znc �eograp�icsl �ro:ath. An additio.al iactcr is a more active prograu� of :ield
ir.spection znd eniorce:�ent.
4he purpose of estaolishin� this coc�ittee is to stud}� possible changes ir.
the currer.t fee schecule. To assist in tne scudy, the Business iicense Ordinar.ces
(Fez Schecules) frc:n several of our neighboriag cities, as well as others within
thz State, na��e beea oStained for comparison. I� c;ill be noted that two methods
of computia� licezse fees are used bc these various cities. Flat rate COID�llC2ClOR�
suc'r. a; Chu1a Vista ccrrencly uses and gross receipts coaputation.
The flat rate *:etnod of conputation involves a fixed fee ror business classi-
ficz_ions �nd o0IIET311�.� includes a fee establisned b�• the P.IIIDET OF employees. The
oress receip*_ -ethed of coxputation, which so�_ti�es includes �lzt rate fees ior
se-e busir.ess classiiications, is based oa tne business aanual gross receipts.
_h? *011Otklil� td�J12 1S 2 C1Co`eS� Of data CO�ipdLl.*.o C}]E 2.LL2CCS Of tll2 t4;0
ret'r.od; �TE'::OL'Siy nzntioned as applied to seve:zl oi our ne�ghbo:ino cities:
ivLr�BER OF :'�THOD 0:
CI'!'` PO°uLaS?0`d LICckSES ZSS?�ED REV�\liE CO)�liT?.TIO\
Cnuia :'ista 57,000 4,000 114,000 Flat Rate
E1 Czjon o5,000 5,000 1!+�,189 Flat Rate
Esco�dido 50,200 4,26� 310,000 Gross
La Mesz 53,233 3,�00 147,300 Fla* Rate
Sz�zor.al City 4b,600 3,5�0 150,000 Gross
Oceanside 60,000 3,19G 219,000 Gross
Sa: Diego 790,000 36,000 1,900,000 Flat Rate
VisL� 30,200 2,250 13�,000 Gross
I:� ade±�ion to those cities listed in the above table [he ordinaaces of
ei�ht other cities are co.densed to the fee schedule section ar.d aade available
for review in the p2ckets provided.
s � �
. \ \ •
l� � / J 11� /l \i�
c���� n:. \�\, !?;• �, \ (r �` �,• 'Jt` ' \ln. \i0 �! \i� ��n�/ `° ` EXHI6IT IV
.i i. � \�: ,•` , -Qi ��.' `�� v �? i,
;t 7,. o� ' ,,, � , C' ,a G, r�. �j
�o �• \��y \ : �� O' .(� ��r v '.�� :
� q ,'f •.•J` C� ��. �l
�} • �:�� :� � i� p� 9' � ; � �o
.% �` ���r \'? �c'^ �, � 1N C� ,.. c .)
'r. ce ,�. �\j' \ <. Pf C�� N `J .� �. ('fi
.'' � G
`,`;, /'' � \\�, \ /�' \ 'O C� ' (Nl l��. � //'�p ��Gi.
. .�,
� ��, .J' i' n d ..� �, (�� •, y
✓ C'� �P �C` ' \ � t t V l• .�` �A
, ' `' ..F� i, 'JS �'q� �' AP , AJ' s `� yJ+ �.� .iJ+ AJ. �O '�� �. �.P '
' �� ,O c� f0 \ �p �. S� v_� 'r'� 9 `� c�o P, `� 2� �
s ':.t` J` �O
. ✓ i s
•�O O� � OO � �O `�� �p � OD �OO ,�O Op Op �C, O pO �O
' � �.3?6 E00 5�5 40 � �0 `•,� 31 10 G 3 2 2 2 � 0 0
`, Lmps. .LmF�s. fn!p;. � [mp�. �[inp�. �• fanps. [:mps . Emps. kmps .� fmps .� fmp:;. F.mps .\, mps. mps. .mps.
Chul� Vist� 1G?. 5q lf?.. ;n 1G7.. ;q ;2 .50 C �,Z.50I 43. 50 7.2.50 1�.50 15.�0 14. 50 �1d.50� 1n.50 13.50 17..50 12.5(
S?n Di��o 8,?97.00 1 ,f�75. 00 I ,11!i.QO 10i.00 1(J5.00 t37.!10 4!i.00 37_00 31 .90 2?.OQ 29.09 29.00 27.00 25.00 25.0!
_ _i__i
pceansicle 7.'3'._.00 5G�.00 �37.50 105.00 1�5 .00 95.00 GS. OU �15.00 30.0� Z5. 0� 25.901 25.00 ?O.QO 'L0.00 20.0�
FI Ca,jon 8.6fS7.00 1 ,G15. 00 1 .105.00 9�.00 �5.UQ 77 .00_ 35.00 27.00 21 .00 17.00 13.00 19.00 17.00 15.00 15.0(
�.a tlesa �1.3nr. U0 810.0� 555.On 5�_r,p 5n.p� �I1 .0o 2Q.00 1f.00 13.00 12.Oq 12.Ori 12.00 11 .00 � 10.00 lU.Oc
- - - -- - - -r - -
CURRENT PE:LS - PIANUI�ACTURERS ' $ 774.50
FROPOSFD NCW FEL•'S - PIANUPACTURERS SZ�955.50
:ross Recei�Cs CUSI�9�SS LICF.IdSIi �EES CfIUU� VIST/1 I�1AilUFACTURER�
itat'ional Cil,y G50.00* IlOUI.D PAY IfJ VA,RIOUS SAI� DIEGO COUIJTY CIT1E5
Card.sbad 67 ,G97.. 00
Hista 33,902. 50
fiscondido 51 ,245.00 .
. • .
` .'14axiinum °p
, .. : (C/ „-w
r�=._.--��x-,� ,
.�;�:.E '.�E . • .
�r.i Jk� #�3
; � � '���� CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
;�-- -.�.,
�__.,��'_��
June 12, 1978
The Honorable Will T. Hyde
and City Councilmen
City of Chula Vista .
276 Fourth 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-wsfh=fhe=s€ipulation-that 75$�of=t}7as-taz-be-earmarke�"ic
strictly�foi.-£he_promotion_of=f�befte�ent=o£=the�econ_amic=c3?mate
of�ChtrYa+,Vistaz 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'_258=of=Ehe�.u�n s-ta_be.+used
for_administrationvpm�poses=and-overhead-eapenses-to-a�iirister the
issuance-of-business licenses-a�-for-enforcanentnpurposes.
ORIGIN OF TAX - The levy of a business license tax is done under
permissive legislation, it is not a mandatory ta}c the city must collect.
In the County of�San Diego for example there is no business license tax.
The original intent of the ta�c was to keep outside competition to a
miniminn 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 co�unity. There
are no direct or indirect benefits derived from this ta�c by the business
coimnunity. It should be further noted that banks and insurance companies
are exempt from this tax.
RRASON 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 ntmiber two position in taxable retail sales in San Diego County
to the fifth position. The Council, through organizations such as the
Chamber of Cox�¢nerce, should encourage a vigorous promotional campaign
to recapture our lost leadership position.
Earmarking the business license ta�t income has a number of advantages.
1. These are funds collected from business only, so the general
taxpayer does not contribute to them. It is not necessarily
a fact that- these ta�c levies can be passed on to the consumers
p� so he or she indirectly pays for them, as stores must be competitive
and the stores in the county are not charged this ta�c.
2 3 3 F O LI R T H A V E N LI E • C H LI L A V I S T A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 p 1 ❑ . T E L E P H 0 N E : 4 2 0-6 6 O 2
- , _ . .. : . _
�- .
� . ` , .
. �'
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
co�unity.
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 community 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 coimnunity's contribution for the overall well
being of the total co�unity.
OTHER PRECEDENTS - Earmarking of funds is not unco�non 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 minimum 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 ta�c levy by recommending
increases or decreases in the tax structure.
' Sincerely,
/!�C��G���. (/.��i�2�'''L�E��{/l,
Richard D. Callahan, President
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
RDC/bah
Igo �