HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 3.A 05/17/2010~~>p, L tt~
R~ ~
•Ig"g8
~l ~ . ~ It~~ # 3 .~
DATE: 1VIay I7, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible pirection to Prepare for Submission to the Voters of a
B'allot IVleasure Relating to ari Increase in the ;City's Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT).
RECOMIVI~ENDATIbN .
It is recommended that the City Council discuss and provide staff appropriate direction regarding
preparation for submission to the voters of a ballot measure relatingto amending the City's
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to increase the tax.
BACKGROiJND
The City assesses a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on persons lodging for periods of thirty
consecutive calendar days or less in hotels, motels, and,campgrounds. The tax is assessed to the
paying. guest, and is collected by the lodging operator. The current rate is 10 percent of the rent
charged by the operator. The Council has broad latitude concerning allocation of the tax
proceeds, and may use revenues' from this source for such promotional purposes as it finds will
contribute to, forward, encourage, advance, help, aid and as"sist in the growth, enlargement and
prosperity of the City. City Councils have supported these purposes by allocating TOT proceeds
to the Petaluma Visitors Program and to other non-profit organizations whose activities promote
and encourage tourism. Councils liave also supported these purposes by allocating TOT to City
departments, whose services directly or indirectly support tourism. and promotion and aid and
ass'ist in the~growth, enlargement and prosperity of the City.
An assessment of two (2) ,pereent of the rent charged, by the lodging operator is al'so eollected,
and conveyed to the City. This assessment °is charged pursuant to a Tourism Business
..
Improvernent Area formed by the County of Sonoma in 2004, participation within which was
approued by tlie majority of cities in the county; including Petaluma. These monies are
forwarded ~to the County, and are,used to fund activities of the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau
In Petaluma, these two charges total twelve (12) percent on the rent charged by the lodging
operator. In past years, the City has generated as much as $1:48 million on the 10 percent it
charges and retains, from the seven lodging establishrrients located in the City. Current TOT
estimates are approximately $1_1 million for FY 2009-10; and FY'2010-11. At this level of
Agenda Review: '
Dept. Direct ~ City:Attorney Fii~ance Director~ City 1Vlanag
. (
collections, each percent of TOT levied generates approximatel,y $110,000. Attachment 1
provides a summary of Petaluma's TOT collections for FY's 2000-01 through 2009-10.
Attachment 2 provides a summary of the TOT rates charged by California cities as of August,
2009' .
Earlier this year the Council discussed options for increasing revenues as an alternative to
decreasing expenditures. With respect to creating new revenue options, the most focus was
placed on increasing the TOT, due to recent decreases in the proceeds from that revenue source
and its corresponding effect on funding for the Petaluma Visitors Program, and City support for
parades and special events that similarly promote tourism in the City and the City generally. The
Council made no decision in that regard, but asked rather that the matter be brought back for
further eonsideration within a timeframe that would facilitate placement of a measure on the
November 2010 ballot.
DISCUSSION:
This item is placed on the agenda to provide for further consideration of amending the City's
TOT ordinance to increase the tax.
Although the Council did not define a specifie percentage, a conceptual increase of two percent
on the existing rate was briefly discussed. Staff was requested to identify the amounts that could
be obtained from various percentage increases. Amounts to be generated would be based on
fractions or multiples of the $110,000 per-percent amount discussed in the Background section
(i.e.: '/2`-percent increase equals $55,000, one pereent equals $;l 10,000, two percent equals
$220,000, etc.).
Based on current estimates, a two percent increase would generate approximately $220,000 per
year. With the addition of at least one new hotel, and economic recovery, it is reasonable to
expect in the short term that two percent could generate approximately $300,000 per year. ~
TOT collections have decreased in the economic downturn, so that'the City is collecting
approximately $370,000 less than in 2007-08. Because of that reduction, funding for a variety of
not-for-.profit activities, such as Butter and Egg Days aridthe Veteran's Day parade was
temporarily elimiriated. The only entity currently receiving TOT funds, besides-the City, is the
Retaluma Visitor's Program. In the past, tliis program received as much as $372,000. In 2007-
08 it received $290,000. 'It is expected to spend approximately $100,000 in FY 2009-10.
As indicated, the TOT ordinance provides the Council broad discretion to use proceeds for such
purposes as it finds will contribute to the growth, enlargement and prosperity of the City. If a
TOT increase were approved, the resulting revenue could be used to support the Gity's costs
associated with Butter and Egg Days and the Veteran's Day parade, and to fund the activities of
the Visitor's Program. The two events and the Program bring in thousands of visitors and
potential lodgers to town. Assuming proceeds of approximately $220,000, estimated support
costs for Butter and Egg Days of approximately $26,000 and estimated support costs of
approximately $11,500 for the Veteran's Day parade, support for the Visitor's program could be
~ Information compiled by CaliforniaCityFinance.com from State Controller's data.
~"
nearly doubled from the exisfing level. It would also free up ap;proximately $120,000
prograinined in:201.0-11 for the Visitors Center to other uses. While funding these activities is
desirable, formally dedicafing an increase to only these~uses by ordinance is not recommended.
The Council may at some point want to fund otller similar activities that .eould also increase
vi'sits to and stays in Petaluma or otherwise contribute°to the Gity's prosperity. Also,
legislatively.restricting TOT proceeds to such speci;fied uses wou'ld most:likely at least partly
transform the TOT into a special tax subject to 66-2/3% voter appxoval requirement, which may
be difficult to obtain.
I have, in the past and recently, d'iscussed a potential TOT increase with representatives of our
lodging operators, the Chamber of Comrrierce, and the Petaluina Dowritown Association, for the
purpose of understanding how an iricrease might be structured. I have not found support for
increasing the TOT, as it is viewed as detracting from Business' ability to attraet uisitors.
Hoteliers, :in particular, indicated that increasing the TOT requires they rnust either increase their
rates aecordingly, reducing their competiitiveriess witfi operators in otlier corrirriunities who either
collect a lower TOT or who liave receritly cut rates, or they will need to absorb increases at a
time when they are cutting back on expenses. Representatives ~of these groups have suggested
that City investment in the Visitors; program is more desirable than'increasing the TOT.
However, investment beyond the amount noted earlier in this report is not possible, without
further reducti'on of tfie City's budget and to ~Gity services. ~
Staff checked the rates advertised on the websites of each of our lodging operators for weekdays
and weekend days; and found rates ranging from $39.50 to $319 per night. That review was by
no means exliausfive. It did not examine seasonal fluctuations, special promotions; or rates
available through other internet `booking sites. Staffl s review should, however, sufficiently
identify the potential impact of a 2 percent increase in the TOT. It would, based on the forgoing,
result in increases ranging from 79 cents ~to $6.38 per night. On.a per-percent basis, each percent
would.raise rates from 40 cents to $3.:19 per night, assuming the operator chose to,pass the
inereases on to the customer. ~ ~ .
Whil'e they did not support increasing the TOT, discu"ssions :with lodging operators ~did identify
options associated with an increase that would be viewed_ as ,less undesirable. These are: ~
dedicating the proceeds to tourism or the Visitors Center, and setting a sunset for the iricreased
~amount. As previously indicated, legislafiuely dedicating these funds to specific purposes~is:not.
reeommended, ;EstabTishing a,sunset.date; such.as a sunset date tied to term of"the Visitor','s
C'enter agreement, or. a sunset tied to a revenue-generation,target; are options the Council sliould'
consider: In particular; the opfion of setting the sunset in relafioriship to a revenue. target may ~be
appropriate if tliis increase 1"s viewed as a iiieans of'supplementing existing revenue shortfalls
until such time as the economy impro"ve"s~ and TOT revenues recover to previous collection
levels. A target of at° least $`1.5 million a year is suggested if the Council ~supports this option.
Direetion is sought for the present time as to whether the Council wi11 direct staff to prepare a
measure relating,to increasing the TOT for submission to tfie voters, and if so, at what rate of
increase, and with what associated provisions. The Council should consider an increase of at
least two (2) percent,'to generate revenues sufficient to increase local promotion activities.
~
If Council directs staffto proceed; the intention would be to return at the Council's June 7, 2010
meeting with a resolution ordering for submission to the voters a measure amending the City's
transient occupancy tax ordinance and increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax and providing for
submission of ballot argumerit and rebuttals, for the Council's further consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
As indieated, each percent increase in the TOT is estimated to generate, based on current
collections, approximately $110,000. Election costs associated with the increase, based on City
Clerk estimates, range from approximately $$,000-$15,000 for placing this matter on the
November ballot, based on the amount of space the City's items take up on the sample ballot.
These costs are not currently included in the proposed budget for 2010-1 l, and would be
provided by shifting funds from other accounts. Staffing and legal costs are not expected to
exceed $7,000.
ATTACHMENTS
1. TOT Revenue by Year
2. TOT Rates for California Cities
,, ..
~
TO.T REVENUE BY YEAR . CITY OF RETALl1MA ATTACHMENT 1
'~ nr y ~~~~ ~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~*~ x~ 6 " ,~~F ° ~ d v S~ .,,k ~~~ ;
~~ ear at~uarte~r'~End~` ~ 7GlT~R~uenue Tot~I~F~scai Y~
~~.,..: .... ~~~ .. ~..<.., ~..,,3y~-~ . ...~..~~.s~~....,~d~, .: ~~
~ , ~-~ , . .~.. ~
9/30/2000 $ 279,723
12/31 /2000 $ 1`92, 098
. ' 3/31 /2001 $ 171,443
2000-2D01 6/30/2001 $ 225,079 $ 868,343
9/30/2001 $ 264;974
12%31J2001 $ 157,994
3/31 /2002 $ 131,139
2001-2002 6/3012002 $ 209.,252 $ 763,359
9/30/2002 $ 292,841 '
12/3112002 `$ 191,746
3%31 /2003 $ 170, 386
2002-2003 6/30/2003 $ 232,154 $ `887;127
9/30/2003 $ 356,46'1
12/31/2003 $ 223,835 ,
~ 3/31/2'004 $ 1,84,349
2003-2004 6/3072004 $ 302,239 $ 1,066,884
9i30i2004 $ 386,055
12/31Z2004 $ 254,840
3/31L2005 $ 217,084
20D4-2005 6/3Q/2005 $ 338:,56Q $ 1,;196~,539
9/30%2005 $ 441,4'$4-~
12/31/20'05 $ 29.3,231
3/31/2006 $ 263,544~ ~
20.05-2006 6/30/F2006 $ 374;805 $ '1,373,064
9/30/2006 $ 471,452
. 12/31/2006 $ 318;573
3/31/2Q:07 $ 254;,04'2
2006-2007 6/30Y2007 $ 402,609 $ 1,446,676
9/30/2Q07 $ 508;,1',94
12/31/2007 $ 340,274
3Y31/2008 $ 249,762
2007-2008 6/3'0/2008 $ 383,$8'4 $ 1,482,114
9/30/2008 $ 469,838
12/3~1/2008 $ 282,03~8 ~
3/31/2009 $ 217;974
MAY 13, 2010 ~
TOT REUENUE BY YEAR CITY OF PETALUMA ATTACHMENT 1
'20082009 6/3`0/2009 $ 336',11~9 $ 1,305,969
913;0/2009 $ 403,133'
12/31 /2009 $ 237, 566
3/31/2010 $ 185,020
2009-2010 6/30/2010 $ - $ '825,719 ,(75% Reported)
MAY 13, 2010 ~
ATTAG~IlVIENT 2 ~
Tra~~seent O~ccu~pan,cy T:ax Ra#es -:Ca~li:f Citi'es
So'urce: Com utations b CalifomiaGit ,Finance.com from~State.Confroller data.
R_ Y Y _
, ReV'
~ Aug:15; 2009 ~~
Count 427
~ • Mean . 9:5%
Standard';Deviation 1.;:7%
Median 10.0%
Minimum 3:5%
Maximum 15:0%
53 cities with no TOT
clty cOUnty Rev
Aug 15; 2009
AnaFieim O~ange 1`5:0%d
BeVe~ly Hills Los Angeles 14:0%
Inglewood Los Angeles 14.0%0
Los Angeles Los Angeles 14.0%
San'Francisco San Francisco~ 14:0%a
Sant_a_ Monica Los Angeles 14:0%0
Palm;Springs Rive~side 13.5%0.
Del'Mar San Diego 13:0%a
Garden,:G~ove O~ange 13.0%0
Mammoth L•_akes Mono , 13.0%
_
Barstow
San Bernardino ,, _
12.5%
P.a"sadena, Los Angeles 12;,1%,
Agoura Hills ~ Cos Angeles. 12.0%
Al,hambra Los,Angeles ~ 12:0%
Avalon Los.Angetes 12.0°{0.
Bakersfield Kern, 12':0%0
Berkeley • Alameda 12_0%
Buena Park; Qrange 12.0°!0
Calabasas L'os Angeles , 12.0°/a
Cali'stoga Napa 17:0%
Cit~us Heigh4s, Sacramento 12:0%
Commerce_ Los Angeles 12;0%a
Gulver City L"os Angeles 12:0%
Desert Hot:Sp~ings Riverside- 12~0°/a
EastsPalo;Alto San Ma4'eo 12.0%
Elk G~ove ~ Sacramento 12.0%
Emery"ville ~ Alameda 12,0%
Fresno: F~esno 12.0°Jo
Half Moon Bay San Mateo 12,0°/a
Hawthorne Los Angeles 12.0%
Healdsburg Sonoma 12:0%.
Kingsburg Fresno 42.0%0
Long Beach . Los.Angeles '12.0%
Malibu . Los Angeles 12.0%
,
Monferey PaFk . .
Los.Angeles
12.;0%
Napa • Napa 12.0%d
Falo'Alto Sanfa.Cla~a 12i0%o '
Rancho Cordoya Sacramento 12".Q%a
Rohnert Pa~k Sonoma 12:0%d
Sacramento Sacramento 12:0°/a
SOURCE:.Colerrian Advisory Seryices ~ ~ ~ ~
compuations using State Cont~oller reports CaliforniaCit'yFinance:com
~
Sainf'Helena Napa 12c0%
San Juan Bautista San Benito 12:0°/a
San°:Patilo. Contra Costa 12.0%.
Sanfa Barbara Santa Ba~bara 12;0%
Sausalito Ma~in 12.0°/a
Seaside Monterey 12'0%
Solana"Beach San Diego 1_2:0%0
WesT';Sacramento Yolo 12.0%
NVindsor Sonoma 12:0°/a
Youn4ville Napa T2.0%
Orifa~io San Bemardino 11:8%
West`Hollywood ~os Angeles 11.5°{0
Gathedral-City Riyerside 1,1,.0%0.
Gardena ; Los:Angeles 1].0%
La Quinta Riverside 11.0°/6~
Oakland Alameda. 11.0%0
Riverside Riverside 11.0°/d
Santa.Ana O~ange 1,1_0%
Tor~a_nce Los Angeles 11,.0%0.
Vallejo Solano 91.0%
San Diego San.Diego 10:5%:
Adelanto San,Bernardino 10.0%0
Alameda Alameda 10,0%0:
Albany Alameda 10~.0%
Alfuras ModoC 10:0%
American;Canyon Napa 10:0%
Anderson • Shasta 10-,0%,
Angels Calaveras 10:'0%
Antioch Contra Costa 10:0%-
Arcadia Los Angeles 10:0% '
Arcafa Humboldt. TD',0%
A~royo Grande 06ispo 10.09/a
Arvin Kern 1`0.0%
Atascadero 06ispo 10'OP/o
Baldwin Park Los,Angeles 10;0°fo
Beaumont Riverside 10.0%
Belmoht San Mateo 10.':0%
Blythe RiVerside, 40:0%
B~ea Orange 1:0:0%
BrenCwood
, Gontra Costa
_ 10.0%
Brisbane San Mafeo ' 10:0%
Buelltort Sarita Ba~bara 10.0%
Burbank • Los An eles
9. 1D.0%o
Bu~lingame San Mateo 10.0%
Calexico Imperial T0:0%
Calimesa Riverside '10.0%,
Campbell Santa Clara T0:0%
Canyon Lake ,;__
Rive~side __.
10.0%
Capitola Santa Cruz. 10.0%
Carls6ad' San:,Diego ' -10:0°/a:
Earmel ~ Monterey 10.0,%
Garpinfe~ia Sanfa' Bartiara 10,0%
Chico Butte 1:0:0%
Chino Hills San'Bemariiino 10i0%
SOURCE: Coleman Advisory Seniices
eompuations~using State Controller reports C811fO~t118CItyF111811C@':COfTI' -
~
Chowchilla Madera 10.0%
Chula Vista Sen Diego 10:0°fo
Claremont Los Angeles. 10:0°/a
Cloverdale Sonoma 1;0.0%
Clovis Fresno 10~0°/d
Colton
__ San Bemardino 10:0°Ja,
Concord Contra Gosta 10":0°/d.
Coming Tehama 1b.0% .
Coronar Riverside 1A.0%a.
Corte M'adera Marin 10.0°l0
Cofati Sonoma 10;0;%
Covina Los Angeles 1A:0°/d
C~escent.City Del Norte 10:0%
Cupertina Santa Clara 10.0%
Gypress O.range 10.0%
Daly, City San Mateo 10:0%a
Dana Point O.range 10:0%
Davis Yolo ~ 10;0%0
Del Rey Oaks Monterey 10,0°/d ~
Delano Kem 1;0.0%
Diamond Bar Los Angeles 10:0%
Dinuba Tulare 10.0%
Duarte Los Angeles 10.0%a
Dunsmui~ Siskiyou 10.0%
EI',Gajon San Diego 10.0%
EI:Centro Imperial 10.0°/a
EI~Cerrito Gontra Costa 10.0%:
EI Monte Los Angeles '10:0%
EI Paso De;Robles Obispo 10.0%a
Encinitas San Diego , 90:0%.
Escalon . San;Joaquin 10.0,%.
Escondido San' Diego 10.0%
Eureka Humboldt 10':0%
Fairfax Marin 'T040%
Fairfield Solano 10;0%
Fillmore Ventura 1A:'0%
Fort Bragg Mendocino, 10:0,°/a
Fortuna Fium6oldt 10:0%
Fremont Ala`meda 1.0'0%d
Fullerton O_range ~ 10;0%
Galf Sac~amento 10:0%"
Giendale Los.Angeles 1O;b°/a
Go{eta Santa:Ba~ba[a 10.0°l0
G~ass Vailey Nevada' 40,0%
Grover City Qbispo 10:0%
Hemet ' Riverside. 10.0%'
Hercules Gontra-Costa 10.0%0
He~mosa Beach Los Angeles 10:0%
Hespe.[ia San Bemardino 10.0%
Huntington Beacfi Orange `10.0%0
ImperialBeach • San Diego 10.0%0
~Indio Rive~side 10:0%:
Isleton Sacramento 10:0%;
Jackson Amador 10~0%
SOURCE: Coleman Advisory SerVices
compuations using State Controller reports C811fO~f118CItyF1118f1C@.COlil
~
King City Monterey 10;0%
La Mesa San Diego 1'0:0%
La Puente LosAngeles 10:0%
La'Verne Los Angeles 70,0°fo
Laguna Beach O~ange 10:0%
Laguna Hilis Orange T0:0%
Laguna Woods Orange 10.0%
Lake Elsinore Riverside 10:0%
Lake Forest Orange 10.0%
Lakeport Lake- 10:0%
Larkspur Marin 10.0%
Lincoln Placer 10.0%0
Loma Linda San BeYnardino 10.0%
Lomita Los Angeles 10.0%
Lompoc Santa BaFbara 10.0°/0
Los.Altos Santa Clara 10.0%
Lo§ Banos Merced 10.0%
Los Gatos Santa Glara 10:0%
Manhattan.Beach LosAngeles 10.0%
Maricopa Kern 10.0%0
Marina Monterey 10.0%
Martinez Contra Costa 10.0%a
Marysville Yuba 10.0%
Men_ifee Riverside 1b,0%
Menlo PaFk San Mateo 10.0%
Merced Merced 10.0°/a
MilfValley Marin 10t0%
Millbrae San Mateo 10.0%
Milpifas Santa Clara TO':0%
Monrovia Los Angeles 10,0%a
Monfclair San Be[na~dino , 10:0%
Montebello Los:Angeles 10.0%.
Monterey Ivtonte~ey 10:0%
Moorpark Ven4ura 10:0%
Mo~gan Hill , Santa Clara TA:O%
Morro Bay Obispo 1`0;0%
Mount:Shasta Siskiyou 40:0°!a
Mountain View Santa' Clara 10:0%a
Ivtur~ieta RiversicJe 10:0%
Nationaf City San'Diego 10:0%a
Needles ~ San,Bemardino .10:0%
NeVada City Neyada, 10.0%
Newa~k Alameda ~ 10:0°/a .
Newport Beach ' Orange 10.0%
NonNalk LosrAngeles 10.0%
Novato Ma~in 10.0%0
Oakley Contra Co§ta 10.0%
Oceanside San Diego 10.0%a
Ojai Ventu~a '10:0%0
O[ange qrange 10A%
Orinda Contra'Gosfa 1A,0%
Orland Glenn 10.0%
Oxna~d Ventura 10:0%
Pacific'.Grove INonterey ~ 10.0%
SOURCE: Coleman Advisory Services
compuations using State Controllerreports CaliforniaCityFinance.com
l~
Pacifica San Mateo 10'0%
Palmdale Eos Angeles 1'0:0%
Paradise Butte 10:0%0
Pa~amount • Los Angeles 1A:0%
Perris Riv.erside 10:'0%
Petaluma Sonoma 10.0%
Pico Rivera Los:Angeles 10.0%
Pinole Gontra Costa 10:0%
Pismo Beach Obispo TA:O%
Placentia Orange 10.0%
Placerville EI Dorado Y0.0%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 10:0%
Point Arena Mendocino 10.0%
Pomona Los Angeles 10:0%
Poit Hueneme Ventura 10.0°fa
Poway San Diego 10.0%
Rancho Gucamonga San Bemardino 10.0%0
Rancho Mirage Riverside 10.0%
Rancfio Palos Verdes Los Angeles 10.0%a
Red Bluff Tehama 10.0%
Redding Shasta 10.0%
Redlands San Bemardino 10.0%
Redondo Beach Los Angeles 10.0%
Redwood City San Mateo 10.0%
Richmond Contra Costa 10.0%0
Riiigecrest Kern 10.0%0
Rio Visfa Solano 10.0°/a
Ripon San;:loaquin 10.0%
Rolling HiIIs.Estates Los Angeles 1Q:0%o
Rosemead Los Angeles 10.0%
Salinas Monterey 10,0%,_
San Bernardino San Bema~dino 10.0% ~
San, Bruno San„Mateo 10~0%
San Buenaventura Ventura 10.0%0
San Garlos San,Mateo 10:0%a
San`Clemente Orange 10:0%
San Gabriel CosAngefes 1:0:0°10
San Jose Sanfa Glara 10.0%0
San'_Juan Ga"pistrano Orange. 10.0%
San Leand[o .:
__ _ Alameda T0:0%
San Luis Obispo; Obispo 10.0%
San`Marcos San Diego 1A:0%o
San.Mateo San Ma{eo 1bs0%
SanRafael Marin , 90.0%
Santa Clarita , Los Angeles. TOaO%
Santa Cruz San4a Cruz 10.0%
Santa~FeSprings, Los,Angeles, 1;0:0%
Santa;Maria' SantaBarba~a 1Q.0°/a
Santa'Paula , Ventura, 10.0%0
Saratoga Santa Cla~a 10.0%
Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 10.0%0
Sebastopol Sonoma 10.0%
Shasta Lake Shasta 10.0%a
Simi Vaitey Ventura 10.0%
SOURCE: Coleman Advisory Services
compuations using State Controller reports CaIIfO~I11aCItyF1118C1C@.COfYI
Solvang Santa Barbara 10:0%
Sonoma Sonoma 40:0%
Soutfi Lake'Tahoe EI Do~ado 10:0%
Susanville Lassen = 10.0%
Taft Ke~n 10.0%
Temple.City LosAngeles 10.0%
T,housand Oaks ~ Ventura 10:0%
Tiburon Marin 10:0%
Tracy San Joaguin 10,0°/a
Truckee NeVada 10:0%
Tulare ~ Tulare 10.0%
Ukiah Mendocino 10.0%
Union City Alameda 10.0%a
Upland San Berria~dino 10.0%
Visalia Tulare 10.0%
Vista San Diego 10:0%
Watsonville Santa Cruz 10.0%
Weed ~ Siskiyou 10.0%a
1/Vest Covina Los Angeles 10.0%
WestlaKe Village Los Angeles 10.0%
Westmorland Imperial 10.0%
Wheatland Yuba 10.0°/a
Whitfier Los Angeles 10.0%0
Wildoma~ Riverside 10.0%
Williams Colusa 1,0.0%
Willows Glenn 10.0%
1Ninters Yolo 10.0%
Woodland' Yolo T0.0%
Yorba~;Linda Orange~ t0.0%
Yreka Siskiyou -10.0%
Y,uba City Sutter 10:0%a
Lafayette Contra.Costa 9:5%
Santa Clara Santa Clara 9:5%
Sunnyvale Santa Clara 9:5%
Indian Wells Riverside 9:3%0
Bellflo.wer Los Angeles 9:0%
Benicia Solano 9.0%
Bis6op Inyo 9:0%
Camarillo Ventura 9.0%
Carson; LosAngeles 9.0%
CleaYlake~ Lake 9.0%
Goachella Riverside 9.0%
Dixon, Solano 9.0%
Dpw~ey . Los Angeles 9.0°!0
Fountain`Valley Orange 9.0%
Gil~oy Santa Clara 9.0%
Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 9.0%
La; Mirada Los Angeles 9.0%
Lathrop: San Joaquin 9.0°!0
Lawndale Los Angeles 9.0%
Livings4on Merced 9.0°/a .
Madera Madera 9.0%
Manfeca San Joaquin :9.0%
Modesto Stanislaus 9:~%
SOURCE; Coleman Advisory Services ~
compuations using State Controller ~eports CaliforniaCityFinance.com
6~
Oroville Butte 9:0%
Palm Desert ' Riverside ''9.0%
Portola Plumas 9.0%
Rialto San Berna~dino ' 9:0%
Santa Rosa ' Sonoma 9.0%
Seal Beach O~ange 9:0%
Signal Nill, Los Angeles 9,0%
South San Francisco. San';Mateo 9~0%0
Turlock• Stanislaus 9:0°/a
Twentynine'Palms San Bemardino 9:0%
NVillits Mendocino 9.0%
Hayward Alameda~ 8i5%
Walnut Los;Angeles . 8':5%
V1/alnut Creek Contra Costa. 8;5%
Atwater Merced . 8:0%
Auburn Placer 8:0%
Bell Gardens Los Angeles 8,0%a
Big Bear Lake San Bernardino S.0%
B~awley Imperial 8,0%
Galifomia City Kem 8.0°fo
CaliPat~ia lmperial S 0%a
Chino San Bernardino. 8.0% '
Colfaz Flacer' 8.0%
Colusa Colusa 8.0%
Corcoran Kings ,5:0% .
Coronado San Diego 8.0%
Cudahy Los Angeles . 8.0%
Dublin Alameda 8.0%
EI Segundo Los Angefes 8.0°fo
Ferndale Humboldt 8.0°/a
Folsom Sac~amenfo 8.0%
Fontana San Bernardino 8.0%
FosterCity San Mateo 8.0%
Gonzales Monterey S.0%
Greenfeld Monte~ey 8:-0%.
Hanford Kings; 8.0%
Hollister San'Benito S:0%
Imperial ]:mpe~ial, S;0% ,
Industry Los Angeles' 8:0%
Irvirie Orange 8:0%
La _Falma_ Orange ~8:0%
Laguna Niguel Orange` 8'0% '
Lakewood Los.Angeles 8.`0%
Lemoore Kings ' 8:0%
Lindsay Tulare 8:0%
Livermore Alameda 8:0%
Loomis Placer 8.0°l0
Los Alamitos Orange 8.0% ~
Mission Viejo O~ange 8:0%
Moreno Valley ~ Riveiside 8.0%a
Norco Riverside 8.0%
Patterson Sfanislaus 8.0%
Pitfsburg Contra Costa 8.Q%a
Fleasanton Alameda 8.0%
SOURCE: Goleman Advisory Services
compuations using State Controller reports CaliforniaCityFinance.com
. . ~3
Porterville Tulare '8:-0%
Reedley F~esno 8:0% .
Rio Dell Humboldt 8,0%
Rocklin Placer 8:0%
San Dimas Los Angeles 8.0°/a
San Jacinto Riverside 8:0%
Sonora Tuolumne S.0%
South EI Monte Los Angeles S.0%a.
South Gate Gos Angeles 8.0%
Stanton Orange S:0%a
Stocktbn San Joacjuin 8.0%
Tehachapi Kem 8.0%
1'emecula Rive~side 8:0%
Trinitlad Humboldt 8:OP/o
Vacaville ~ Solano 8.0%
Waterford Stanislaus 8:0%0
1Nestminster . Orange 8'0%
Azusa • Los' Angeles 7,:5%
Gompton Los,Angeles 7;,5%
San Ramon Contra Costa 7:3%
SutterGreek Amador T.3%
Amador Amado~ 7.0%
Gustine Merced: 7,'.0°/d.
Highland San',Bernardino 7:0%
Huron Fresno 7.0°/a
Lancaster Los Angeles 7.0°/a
Oakdale Stanislaus ~ 7:0°/a
V.ictorville San Bemardiho 7`0%
Yucaipa San Bemardino 7.~:0.%
-
Yucca Valley - - ,. _
San Bernardino
~ Z.0%
Danville Cont~a Costa 6~5%
Apple Valley San Bemardino 6:0%
Artesia Los Angeles 6:0%
Avenal Kings 6.0%
Banning Rive~side 6.0%
Cerritos Los Angeles 6:0%
Coalinga Fresno 6i0%
Costa Mesa Orange' 6i0%o
Etria ~ Siskiyou 6:0%
Glendora Los,Angeles 6,0°/a
GPidley Bu4te 6i0%a
lone Amado~ 6'.0°/a
Lemon G~ove ` San Diego 6;0%
Lodi . San Joaquin 6:0%
Mcfarland Kem ~ 6;0%
Plymouth Amador 6^0%0
Roseville Place~ 6:0%
Santee San Diego; 6.0%
Selma Fresno 6:0%
Soledad Monterey 6.0%
Tustin Orange 6:0%
Wasco Kem 6.0°/d
Ceres Stanislaus 5:0%a
Do~ris Siskiyoii 5.0%
SOURGE: Coleman Advisory Services .
compuations using Sfate Controller reports CaIlfOrnlBGityFlnanCe:C0117
~~
Huntington Park Los Angeles 5.0%
Maywood Los,Angeles 5.0%
Clayton Cont~a Costa 4,0%a
Exeter Tulare 4.0%
Firebaugh Fresno 4.0%
Holtville Imperial 4.0%
Riverbank Stanislaus 4.0%
Sanger Fresno 4.0%
Bell Los Angeles 9.5%
Atherton San Mateo none.
Belvedere Marin none'
Biggs Butte none
Bradbury. Los Angeles none.
Grand Terrace San Bernardino none
Hidden Hills Los Angefes, none
Fiillsbo~ough San Mateo none
Fiughson Stanislaus none.
Inniindale Los;Angeles none
Kerman Fresno none
La Canada Flint~idge Los Angeles none
La Habra Orange none
La Hab~a Heights Los Angeles none
Live Oak Sutter none
Los Altos Hilis • Santa CIaPa none
Lynwood Los Angeles none
Nlonte Sere~o Santa Clara none
Moraga Contra Costa none
Newman Stanislaus none
Palos Verdes Estates: Los,Angeles none
Piedmont Alameda none
Margarita Ora~ge none
Rolling.Hills LosAngeles none
Ftoss Marin none
San AnselPno Marin none
San Fernando Los Angeles none
San Marino ' Los Angeles rione
Shafter Kern none
Sie~ra Madre Los'Angeles none
Sopth=Pasadena Los Angeles none
Suisun City Solano none
.:.
Villa Fark _
Oran"ge
, none
Woodsid'e San Mateo none
Aliso'Viejo Orange none;
Blue Lake Hum6oldt none
Colma San'Mateo none
Dos Palos Merced none
Farmersville Tulare none
Fort.Jones Siskiyou . none
Fowler Fresno none
Guadal_upe Santa'Barbara, , none
Loyalton Sier~a none
Mendota fresno none
M'ontague Siskiyou none
Orange Cove Fresno none
SOURGE; Coleman Advisory Services .
compuations using state confroller reports GaliforniaGityFinance.com
~ ~5
Farlier Fresno ~ no~e
Portola Valley San Mateo none
San Joaquin F~esno rione
Sand City Monterey none
Tehama Tehama none
Tulelake Siskiyou none
Vernon Los Angeles none
1Noodlake Tulare none
SOURCE:'Coleman Advisory Services
compuations using,State Controller reports ' CallfOf'1118CItyF111811Ce.C01T1
- ~~