HomeMy WebLinkAboutSB625 Wright - TOT-ADDED TO AGENDA Wimbish, Lori
From: Joe A. Gonsalves&Son [gonsaives@gonsalvi.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:46 PM
To: Joe A. Gonsalves&Son
Subject: TOT Legislation
Attachments: TOT Rev&Tax Members.xls
�,� �,, r.W
�',�� �,�` �',.
� .��, �Tc�� A. ��t�salv�s � Sar�
�,r.• . ,+�ntl�c,�rYy� 1;1. Cis�►n�.+l^�����,
` �E t c � J�t�s�y �„ (i.�i��,.rlvc��
� ����,�, � �.��,�.,�, �;��ti ��� � ��� : �r. .
. .,.
f i�� � �;I"t.. w s:r,t, �� � ,,.s-
t��
�1�rA<7•�,�A' tA.X+�Iti� �Sa�yt
4 ma�.� � �=i r t.u��,e.a:�t
��
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: AIVTHONY,JASON & PAUL GONSALVES
SUBJECT: TOT LEGISLATION
Date: THURSDAY MAY 27, 2010
As you may know, Senator Wright has SB 625, which we expect he will be gutting and amending to address
what they believe to be a TOT/online administrative fee issue. Once amended this bill will likely be referred
to the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee (please see attached committee membership breakdown
by city and T�T).
This afternoon, we met with Senator Wright's chief of staff, Stan Diorio. Stan assured us that he wants to
work with us and does not want to "take a dime from local governments". That said we did agree to work
with Stan and expressed our mutual desire not "to take a dime from local governments".
While the language has not been finalized,Stan told us his desire is to ensure locals are not collecting TOT on
the online reservation company's administrative costs portions of the hotel booking.
We will continue to work inrith Senator Wright's affice, of which we have a great relationship in order to
ensure this legislation does not harm our client cities.
Lastly, we will continue to keep you apprised as our discussions progress.
i
MEMBER CITY COUNTY 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07
AD-44 Portantino
Arcadia Los Angeles 8.60% 7.90% 8.50%
Duarte Los Angeles p,g� �9� 1 2�
La Canada Flintridge
Los Angeles Los Angetes 4.5% 4.2% 4.3%
Monrovia Los Angeles 5,1� 5 1� �
Pasadena 3.5/
South Pasadena
Temple City Los Angeles 0,5� p.5� � ��
AD-70 DeVore
Irvine Orange 6,g o 4 5� � 6�
Laguna Beach Orange 22.3% 21.0% 23.5%
Laguna Woods Orange 7.4% $.1% 12.1%
Lake Forest Orange 5.5% 6.5% g.1/
Newport Beach Orange 8.8% 8.8% 10.8%
Orange Orange 4.2% 4.3% 4.5�/
Tustin Orange 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
AD-24 Beal
Burbank Los Angeles 4.9% 5.5% 6.3%
Campbell Santa Clara 3.g/ 4,g� 6 ��
San Jose Santa Clara 2.8% 3.0% 3.50/
Santa Clara Santa Clara 8.5% 10.2% 12.5%
Sunnyvale Santa Clara 6.5% 6.7% 7.3%
AD-58 R. Calderon
Downey Los Angeles 1.9% 2.0% 2.3%
Industry Los Angeles 2.p o 2,p/ 2 4�
Los Angeles Los Angeles 4.5% 4.2% 4.3%
Montebello Los Angeles 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%
Pico Rivera Los Angeles 1,3/ 1,4� 2 ��
Whittier Los Angeles 1.$/ 1.9/ Z 20�
AD-23 Coto
San Jose Santa Clara 2.8% 3.0% 3.5%
AD- 39 Fuentes
Los Angeles Los Angeles 4.5% 4.2% 4.3�
San Fernando
AD -73 Harkey
Dana Point Orange 35.1% 38.0% 42.1%
Laguna Hills Orange 5,6� 6.4� � 0�
Laguna Niguel Orange 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
Oceanside San Diego 2.8% 3.2% 3.2%
San Diego San Diego 15.3% 15,3% 15.3%
San Ciemente �range 3.4% 3.5% 3.8%
San Juan Capistrano Orange 1.0% 1.4% 1.5%
AD-64 Nestande
Canyon Lake Riverside 1.1% 1.1% 1.6%
Indian Wells Riverside 39.3% 37.8% 52.1%
Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.9% 0.9% 1.1%
Moreno Valley Riverside 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%
Murrieta Riverside 0.6% 0.5% 0.6%
Palm Desert Riverside 21.2% 19.3% 22.7%
Rancho Mirage Riverside 35.20% 30.00% 31.40%
Riverside Riverside 2.5% 2.2% 2.2%
Temecula Riverside 3,7� 3.�� 4 2%
AD-76 Saldana
San Diego San Diego 15.3% 15.3% 15.3%
CI1� Y 0 � PflL �I � � SER �
73-5�0 FRED WARING DRIVF.
PALM UESF;R7', CAI.IFORNIA 92260-257$
TEL: �60 346—o6ii
Nnx: 760 340-0574
in fo(?�pal m-drse rt.org
__ �_._ ___._ ---- -..._._--
__. _ .,_.__._. .__--..._
Oi iacr:c�� itnc C'ary M,�Nnc i.x ---._._.,---..---
May 27, 2010
The Honorable Brian Nestande
California State Assembly
State Capitol Building, Room 4144
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Opposition to SB625 Undermining Locaf TOT Collection
Dear Brian:
On behalf of the City of Palm Desert, we request your strong opposition to any
legislation that would undermine the ability of our city to fully collect local transient
occupancy tax (TOT)from online sales.
Online travel companies will gut and amend SB 625 (Wright) and insert language
that would undercut local TOT collection. It will then be sent to Assembly Revenue
and Taxation. The bill is intended to pre-empt the outcome of pending litigation in
California and other states regarding whether online travel companies must remit the
full TOT owed to the local agency.
Online travel companies such as Expedia, Hotels.com, Travelocity and others collect
TOT on the price the customer pays for the room but only remit the tax to the city
based on the discounted wholesale room rate the online travel company pays to the
hotelier. These online travel companies retain a portion of the tax they collect,
claiming that it's part of the fees they collect on their sale of the hotel room. In
reality, the online hotel company is retaining tax dollars that are owed to the local
agency as profit.
The City of Palm Desert believes it is losing approximately $20,000 general fund
revenue this year alone from TOT being siphoned off by online travel companies.
These funds are very important to our community and support vital local services,
including police and fire and this loss can only grow larger in subsequent years. As
you know, Palm Desert has already had to make significant cuts incfuding layoffs
because of declining revenues.
�
��y fAIN1F0 OX IEfY(l[D PAffA �
The Honorable Brian Nestande
Opposition to SB625 Undermining Local TOT Collection
May 27, 2010
Page 2 of 2
We ask for you strong opposition to any effort to undermine our local revenues by
legislative action. The legal dispute over the duty of online companies to remit the
full amount of TOT owed to local agencies is already in the courts. That is where the
issue should remain. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
John Wohlmuth
City Manager, City of Palm Desert
cc: Mayor and City Council Members
Anthony Gonsalves
CIiY Of Pfll �l DESERI
�
`J PAIN7lUONA[(Y(LEDPA/ER
URGENT CALL TC1 ACTION
CALL YfJUR LEGtSLATtJ►RS TC�DAY AND URGE THEM TO (JPPQSE
SB 625 {WRIGHT); TClT COLLECTION
SUMMARY: Online travel companies are sponsoring a bill that would undercut cities
authority to fully collect local transient occupancy tax (TOT)from online hotel sales.
While actual language for the bill remains unavailable, legislative staff have informed
the League that SB 625 by Sen. Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles) will be gutted and amended
TODAY(May 27) in an attempt to thwart cities ability to collect the full TOT due to cities
from online travel companies. Once amended, the bill will be referred to the Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee.
There have been rumblings for months that online travel industry lobbyists have been
working to sponsor a bill on this issue. A number of cities have already contacted their
legislators to raise concern. However, it's now time for more cities to speak out against
this bill.
TOT is a significant source of revenues for 400 cities which levy it. On average, TOT
accounts for nearly 8%of a city's general fund revenues.This special interest legislation
is a direct assault on cities and threatens a significant revenue source at a time of fiscal
uncertainty.
Legislators should not be giving away local tax dollars to business interests at the
expense of already strained city budgets. Cities are struggling to provide basic services
like police, fire, streets, parks and libraries. Any effort to reduce this major revenue
source is unacceptable and should be rejected.
ACTION!!!
Considering the immense importance of TOT revenue to cities, we urge you to take the
following actions TODAY:
ACT60fV 1: Call your Senator and Assembly Member and urge him/her to oppose
SB 625, if it is amended to undercut local TOT collection. A city-by-city list of TOT
revenues as a percentage of genera/fund revenues is attached.
Ple�se includ�Leg�s(at+ar Contact Informiation
l�CTIQN 2: Contact representatives of local labor representing city employees,
outline the importance of TOT revenue in retaining local services, and encourage
them to assist in the effort to protect these revenues.
ACTftJN 3: Send a letter to your Senator, Assembly Member and the Governor
urging opposition to any legislation that would undermine the collection of local
TOT. A sample opposition letter is attached.
BACKGROUND: TOT is a tax that is levied on the consumer(not a hotel) as a percentage
of the full room rate charged.
More than 400 California cities and 55 counties fevy a local TOT, with the most common
rate being 10 percent. With the 10 percent rate charges, consumers pay an additional
$10 on a roam that runs$100, bringing the full price charged to the consumer to $110.
Local agencies have cansistently fought against efforts by online travel companies
seeking an exemption from paying the full amaunt of TOT levied on the consumer.
In practice, these companies, such as Expedia, Hotels.com, and Travelocity, purchase
rooms from local hotels at a discounted rate and then resell the space to the general
public over the internet at a higher price, while also collecting from the consumer the
TOT based on that higher rate. However, online travel companies only remit to the
hotel the TOT collected on that lower discounted rate and pocket the rest,thereby
shortchanging local governments and keeping the difFerence for profit.
Major litigation is pending in California and in other states over a practice engaged in by
online travel companies which results in less tax being remitted to local agencies than
would be otherwise owed. For this reason, it is important that the Legislature allow this
issue to be resolved in state and federal courts where it belongs.
Attachment C
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues
as a Percentage of Generai Revenues - California Cities
Source: Computations by CaliforniaCityFinance.com from State Controller data.
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Count 389 392 389
Mean 6.7% 6.7% 7.6%
Standard Deviatio 0.10 0.10 0.10
Median 3.0% 3.1% 3,g%
Wtd Mean(statewide sum/sum 6.2% 5.8% 6.5°/a
City County 2004-05 zoos-os soos-o�
Yountville Napa 69.8°k 67.8% 69.1%
Avalon Los Angeles 55.9% 59.0% 62.1%
Mammoth Lakes Mono 60.3% 55.1% 56.6%
indian Welis Riverside 39.3% 37.8°� 52.1%
Calistoga Napa 52.3% 49.3% 51.2%
Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo 44.8q, q4 2% 47 80�0
Solvang Santa Barbara 38.5% 42.2°� 46.3%
Dana Point Orange 35.5% 38.2% 42.5%
Monterey Monterey 35.5% 34.8% 40.9%
Bishop Inyo 31.9% 37.6°k 40.3%
Ojai Ventura 29.7% 37.6% 39.0°�
Anaheim Orange 34.3% 35.6% 38.7%
Carmel Montere 32.8% 34.0°k 37.0%
Half Moon Bay San Mateo 34.7°/a 35.4% 36.1%
Fort Bragg Mendocino 24.3% 31.0% 33.6%
Crescent City Del Norte 30.2% 28.7% 32.9%
West Hollywood Los Angeles 28.3% 29.3% . 31.8%
Buriingame San Mateo 23.2% 26.0% 31.7%
Rancho Mirage Riverside 35.2% 30.0°k 31.4%
Angels Calaveras 31.8% 29.9% 30.9%
Big Bear Lake San Bernardino 23.0% 24.6% 30.3%
Coronado San Diego 31.5% 24.7% 30.2%
Bueliton Santa Barbara 24.2% 24.6°k 29.9%
Pacific Grove MontereY 26.5°k 23.8% 26.6%
Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 21.7qo 23.2% 25.g°/a
Palm Springs Riverside 25.2% 25.0% 25.0%
Sonoma Sonoma 29.2�0 21.9% 25.0%
Carpinteria Santa Barbara 20.5% 22.2% 24.6%
South Lake Tahoe EI Dorado 30.7% 27.2% 24.1%
Millbrae San Mateo 18.6°la 19.5% �
24.1/e
Laguna Beach Orange 22.3% 21.0% 23.5%
Del Mar San Diego 19.5% 18.7% 22.8%
Palm Desert Riverside 21.2% 19.3% 22,7%
Point Arena Mendocino 25.9% 29.4% 22.6°/a
Mount Shasta Siskiyou 21.0°/a 19.3% 222�/a
Beverly Hills Los Angeles 17.6% 18.6% 21.7%
La Qui�Ea Riverside 17.8°/a 18.0% 21.6°/a
Saint Helena Napa 18.5% 19.5% 21.2%
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controlier reports. GaliforniaGityFinance.cpm page 1 of 9
Attachment C
��tY County 2ooa-o5 2oo5-os zoos-o�
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 19.3% 19.2% 20.3°�
Santa Monica Los Angeles 13.3% 15.3% 20.2%
Marina Monterey 13.1% 14.3% 19.7%
Garden Grove Orange 15.8% 17.5% 19.6%
Weed Siskiyou 16.4% 14.8% 18.9%
Barstow San Bernardino 18.6% 18.0% 17.9%
Goleta Santa Barbara 14.7% 16.4% 17.5%
Napa Napa 15.2% 15.4% 17.3%
Agoura Hills Los An eles 15.4% 15.7% 17.2%
Westlake Viilage Los Angeles 10.9% 9.5% 17.2%
Westmorland Imperial 8.9°/a 10.9% 17.2%
Emeryvilie Alameda 15.5% 13.4°!0 16.6%
Amador Amador 4.5�0 3,7qe �g.7%
San Diego San Diego 15.3% NA 15.3%
Williams Colusa NA 16.5% 15.2%
Blythe Riverside 13.9% 12.8% 15.1%
Arcata Humboldt 12.9% 13.1% 14.9%
Dunsmuir Siskiyou 14.0% 12.4% 14.9%
Femdale Humboldt 12.1% 13.0°k 14.7%
South San Francisco San Mateo 11.4% 12.0% 14.5%
Ridgecrest Kem 11.Sqo 10.2% 14.0%
Yreka Siskiyou 12.8qo 12.4qo 13.8°/0
Fortuna Humboldt 12.2% 12.5% 13.6%
Jackson Amador 9.7% 10.2% 13.6%
Willows Glenn 13.7% 13.3% 13.5%
Seaside Monterey 12.2% 12.6% 12.7%
Foster City San Mateo 8.0% 8.6% 12.7°k
Brisbane San Mateo 5.9°/a 7.9% 12.5%
Santa Clara Santa Clara 8.5% 10.2% 12.5%
Milpitas Santa Cla�a 10.7% 10.6% 12.3%
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 12.3% 12.1% 12.2%
Laguna Woods Orange 7.4% 8.1% 12.1%
Twentynine Palms San Bemardino 8.7% 10.1% 12.1°h
Carlsbad San Diego 8.6°/a 9.6% 12.0%
Nevada City Nevada 11.8�0 11.9% 11.9%
Pfymouth Amador 15.4% 14.4% 11.5%
Newark Alameda 8.6% 9.2°h 11.5°/a
Desert Hot Springs Riverside 12.0% 11.8°� 11.3%
Buena Park Orange 11.6% 12.6% 11.2%
EI Segundo los Angeles 10.0`Yo 9.4°k 11.2%
Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 7.3°/a 8.3% 11.0%
Susanville Lassen 9.4°/a 9.5% 10.9%
Newport Beach Orange 8.8% 8.8% 10.8%
San Francisco San Francisco 8.9% 8.9% 10.4%
Sausalito Marin 7.9°!0 9.1% 10.3%
Palo Alto Santa Clara 8.3% 8.6% 10.3%
SutterCreek Amador 10.5% 10.1% NA
Belmont San Mateo 8.2°/a 8.5% 10.1%
Rohnert Park So�oma 7.0% 7.4% 10.1%
Lompoc Santa 8arbara 7.0% 8.7°/a 10.0%
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controller reports. GaliforniaGityFinance.com page 2 of 9
Attachment C
City County 2ooa-os 2aos-os 2oos-o�
Eureka Humboldt 8.9% 8.7% 9.9%
Solana Beach San Diego 8.0% 8.4% 9.8%
EI Paso De Robles San Luis Obispo 7.7% 8.2% 9.7%
Trinidad Humboldt 11.9% 6.8%
9.6%
Red Bluff Tehama 8.3% 7.9°h 9.6%
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 7,0°/a 7.7% �
9.5/o
Scotts Valley Santa Cruz y 3P y�,�0 9 5p�o
Ontario San Bernardino 10.3% 8.5% 9.3%
Commerce LosAngeles 4.1% 9.1%
Rosemead Los Angeles g.�a�o 8 80�0 9�,�o
Tehachapi Kem 7.4% 7.6% 8,g%
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 7.O�o 7.5% 8.6%
Arcadia Los Angeles 8.6% 7.9% B.5%
Truckee Nevada 7.4% 7.2% 8.4°/a
Maricopa Kern 6.3% 10.2% 8.2°/a
Lake Forest Orange 5.5% 6.5% 8.1%
lafayette Contra Costa 6.1°/a 6.1% �
8.1/o
Cathedral City Riverside 8.8% 8.5% S.0%
Calabasas Los Angeles 7.6qo 6.5% 8.0%
Cupertino Santa Clara 6.69'0 6.6% 7.9%
Los Altos Santa Clara 6.1�0 6.4% 7.6%
San Juan Bautista San Benito 13.3�0 7.7% 7.6%
Corning Tehama 11.Oqo 6.4°k 7.6%
Sebastopol Sonoma 6.6% 5.2% 7.6%
Irvine Orange 6.9% 4.5% 7.6°/a
Redondo Beach Los Angeles 5.7% 6.6% 7.6%
Diamond Bar Los Angeles 5.1`Yo 4.9% 7.6%
Tiburon Marin 4.7% 5.6% 7.5%
Rancho Cordova Sacremento 6.5% 7.3% 7.5%
Morgan Hill Santa Clara 6.9% 6.6% 7.3%
Cypress Orange
6.1% 6.4% 7.3%
Sunnyvale Santa Clara o 0 0
6.5/0 6.7/0 7.3/o
King City Monterey 6.4% 6.2% 7.2%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa a o 0
6.8/0 7.3/0 7.1/o
Costa Mesa Orange 5.9% 6.6% 7.1%
Willits Mendocino 8.3% 5.9% 7.0%
Laguna Nilis Orange 5.8% 6.4% 7.0%
5an Ramon Contra Costa o o a
6.5/0 6.6k 6.8/0
Campbell Santa Clara g.go�o 4 9o�a 6�o�o
Cloverdale Sonoma 2.6% 2.9% 6.6%
Clearlake Lake 4.5% 4.6% 6.5%
Mountain View Santa Clara o 0 0
3.7/0 4.4/0 6.5/o
Lakeport Lake 6.4% 4.5% 6.5%
E�Centro Imperial 6.7% 6.2% 6.4%
Camarilio Ventura 6.3% 6.0% 6.4%
Burbank �os Angeles 4.9% 5.5% 6.3%
Capitola Santa Cruz 5.9°/Q 5.3% 6.3%
Menlo Park San Mateo 5.3% 5.3% 6.2%
San Buenaventura Ventura 5.2% 5.3% 6.2%
Windsor Sonoma 5.1% 5.g%
SOURCE:Coieman Advisory Services
computations using State Controlier reports. GallforniaGityFinance.com
page 3 of 9
Attachment C
City County zooa-os 2oos-os 2oos-o�
Ukiah Mendocino 5.5% 5.3% 5.9%
San Bruno San Mateo 4.4% 5.1% 5.9%
Culver City Los Angeles 3.9% 4.0% 5.9%
Hawthorne Los Angeles 4.3% 4.2% 5.8%
Indio Riverside 4.8% 4.3% 5.7%
Larkspur Marin 3.8% 5.6% 5.6%
Alturas Modoc 7.3% 6.2% 5.6%
Santa Maria Santa Barbara 4.6% o
4.3% 5.6/o
Torrance Los Angeles 5.2% 4.9% 5.6%
Huntington Beach Orange 4.4% 4.5% 5.5%
Grass Valley Nevada 5.2°/a 5.0% 5.5%
Port Hueneme Ventura g 2% 2 5% ,
Los Gatos 5.3/o
Santa Clara 4.5�0 4.1% 5.2%
Calipatria lmperial 3.1% 2.7% 5.2%
Malibu Los Angeles 7.5% 7.2% 5.2%
Chico Butte 4.3°h 4.5% 5.1%
8akersfield Kem 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%
Long Beach Los Angeles 4.7% 4.8°k 5.1%
Petaluma Sonoma 4.5% 4.8°� 5.1%
Novato Marin 4.6�0 4.8% 5.0%
Lawndale Los An eles 4.2°/a 4.3% 5.0°/a
San Dimas Los Angeles 4.7% 4.8% 4.9%
Santa Ana Orange 3.8% 4.6% 4.9%
inglewood LosAngeles 3.7°!0 4.1% 4.9%
Etna Siskiyou 3.4% 4.7% 4.8%
Redding Shasta 3.6% 3.5% 4.8%
Seal Beach Orange 3.3% 3.5% 4.8%
Claremont LosAngeles 2.9% 2.1% 4.8%
Sonora Tuolumne 4.3% 3.8°k 4.7%
Hemet Riverside 2.6% 3.1% 4.7%
Thousand Oaks Ventura 3.6% 3.9% 4.6%
Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 4.3°/a 4.5°� 4.6%
Oxnard Ve�tura 3.0°!a 3.7% 4.6%
Orange Oren9e 4.2°/a 4.3% 4.5%
Healdsburg Sonoma 0.4% 4.5%
San Carlos San Mateo 2.5% 3.3°� 4.5%
Redwood City San Mateo 3.5% 3.7°k 4.5%
Pacifica San Mateo NA 4.8% 4.4°h
Pleasanton Alameda 4.1% 4.1% 4.4%
La Palma Orange 2.2% 3.7% 4.3%
Santa Rosa Sonoma 3.5% 3.8°/a 4.3°/a
Los Angeles Los Angeles 4.5% 4.2% 4.3%
Palmdala Los Angeles 4.5% 4.3% 4.3%
La Mirada Los Angefes 3.2% 3,7% 4.2%
Temecula Riversfde 3.7% 3.7% 4,2%
Oroville Butte 4.9% 4.3°/a 4.2%
San Mateo San Mateo 4.3% 4.0% 4.2%
Davis Yolo 3.2% 2.7% 4.2%
Chowchilta Madera 1.8% 2.2% 4.1%
Brea Oran e 4.1°/a 4.1% 4.0%
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controller reports. Galifornia4ityFinance.com page 4 of 9
Attachment C
City County 2ooa-os 2oos-os zoos-o�
Visalia Tulare 3.3% 3.1%
Fai�eld 4.0%
Solano 2.8% 2.6% 3.9%
imperiai Beach San Diego 3.9% 3.5% 3.9%
Grover City San Luis Obispo 5.0% 4.5%
3.9%
East Palo Alto San Mateo
3.9%
San Clemente Orange 3.4% 3.5% 3.8%
Fullerton
Orange 3.1% 3.4% 3.8%
Atascadero San Luis Obispo 3.6% 3.8% 3.8%
La Mesa
San Diego 3.7% 3.4% 3.7%
Oakland Alameda 2.8% 3.2% 3.7%
Lancaster Los Angeles 3.3°/a 2.6% a
3.6/o
Hesperia San Bemardino 2.8% 2.7/0
° 3.6%
Norvvalk los Angeles 2.9°k 3.7% 3.6°!0
Monterey Park Los Angeles 2.2°k 2.6% �
3.5/o
San Jose Santa Clara 2.8°/a 3.0% 3.5%
Cudahy Los Angeles 1 3% �5% �
3.5/o
San Gabriei Los Angeles 2.4% � o
3.0/0 3.5/o
Monrovia Los Angeles 5.1% 5.19�0 3.5%
Lathrop San Joaquin 1.5% 1.1% 3.5%
San Rafael Marin 3.3% 3.6°� 3.4%
Placentia Orange 2.99'0 2.6% 3.4%
Corte Madera Marin 32% 3.4% 3.4�/a
Concord Contra Costa 2.8% 3.1% 3.4%
Fountain Valley Orange 2,go�o 0 0
2.9/0 3.4/o
Simi Valley Ventura 2.6% 3.2% 3.3%
Lemoore Kin s 4.4% 2.9% 3.3%
Oakdale Stanislaus o 0
2.7% 2.8/0 3.2/0
Artesia Los Angeles 2.2% 2.6% 3.2%
Anderson Shasta 2.8% 4.6% 3.2%
Oceanside San Diego 2.8% 3.2% 3.2°�
South EI Monte Los Angeles 2.7% 2.9% 3.2%
Walnut Creek Contra Costa 2.6% 2.8% 3.2%
Oakfey Contra Costa 3.1% 3.0% 3.1%
Selma Fresno 2.5% 2.8% 3.1%
Folsom Sacramento 2.1% 2.3°/a . 3.1°/a
Mill ValleY Marin 2.7�0 2.8% 3.0%
Vacaville Solano 2.5% 2.6% 3.0%
Carson Los Angeles 2.5�0 2.7°k 3.0%
San Bernardino San Bernardino 3.1% 2.8% 3.0%
Bellflower Los Angeles 2.3% 2.6% 3.0%
Placerville EI Dorado 3.0% 2.9% NA
Berkeley Alameda 2.7% 2.8% 2.9%
Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.4% 1.0% 2.9%
Gilroy Santa Clara 2.8% 2.6% 2.9%
Stanton Orange 2,3% 2.2o�a 2 8��a
Santa Clarita Los Angeles 2.8% 2.9% 2.8%
Livermore Alameda Z.go�a 2 4% 2$%
Chula Vista San Diego 2.8°/a 2.6% 2.7%
West Covina Los An eles 2,40�0 2 20�0 2�o�a
National City San Diego 3.3% 2,1�/a p 7^�0
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controller reports. GaliforniaGityFinance.com page 5 of 9
Attachment C
City County 2ooa-os 2oos-os zoos-o�
Yuba Ciry
Sutter z�a�o
EI Cajon
2.1% 2.6%
San Diego 2�,�0 2 3,�0 2 6%
Calexico Imperial 2 50�0 2�o�o
Fremont 2•6%
Alameda 1.9% 2.1% 2.6%
Auburn Placer 2 8% 2 5%
2.6%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Z,5% o
2.6% 2.6/o
Orland Gienn 3.0% 2.2% 2.5%
Vailejo
Solano 2.3% 2.2% 2.5%
Victorville San Bernardino 2 g% 2�% o
2.5/o
Beaumont Riverside 2 40�0
NA NA
Glendale Los Angeles p q% 2 s��a 2 5%
Union City Alameda 1.5% 2.0% 2.4%
Brawley Imperial 3.0% 2.7% 2.4%
Modesto Stanislaus 2.4% 2.3% 2.4%
Merced Merced 2.2% 2.8°� 2.4%
Industry Los An eles 2.0% 2.0% 2.4%
Woodland Yolo 2.4�0 1.7% 2.4%
Roseville Placer 2�o�a 2 2% �
2.3/o
Galt Sacramento 2.3% 2.0°k 2.3%
Pinole Contra Costa 2.3ryo 2 20� 2 3%
Pomona Los Angeles 2.2% 2.5% 2.3%
Downey Los Angeles 1.9% 2.Oqo 2.3%
Martinez Contra Costa 1.9°/a 1.7% 2.3%
Banning Riverside Z.go�p ��o�p o
2.3/o
American Canyon Napa 1.2% 1.7% 2.3%
Madera Madera 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%
Lomita Los Angeles 1.9% 1.5% 2.2%
Riverside Riverside 2.5% ^ o
2.2/0 2.2/o
Kingsburg Fresno 1.3% 1.3% 2.2%
Whittier Los An eles 1.8% 1.9% 2.2%
Tulare Tulafe 3.0% 2.5% 2.2%
Rio Delt Humboldt 2.0% 1.5°/a 2.2%
Los Banos Merced 2.2% 2.0% 2.1%
Turlock Stanisiaus 1.5% 2.0% 2.1%
West Sacramento Yolo 2.5% 2.5�0 2,1°/a
Dublin Afameda 1.9% 1.9�0 2.1%
Redlands San Bemardino 1.6% 1.5°h 2.0%
Manteca San Joaquin 2.5'Yo 2.3°k 2.0%
Pico Rivera Los Angeles 1.3% 1.4% 2.0%
Salinas Monterey 2.4% 2.4`Yo 2.0%
Soledad Monterey 2.6% 1.7% 2.0%
Covina Los Angeles 2.0°!0 2.3% 2.0%
Encinitas San Diego 1.8% 2.0% 2.0%
Paradise Butte 2.1% 1.5% 2.0%
Lindsay Tulare 0.3°/a 2.7% 1.9%
Dixon Solano 2.2% 1.7% 1.9%
Hanford Kings 2.0% 1.8% 1.9%
Escondido San Diego 1.9% 1.8% 1,9% •
Saratoga Santa Clara 1.7% 1.5% 1.9%
Delano Kern 1,8% 1.4% 1.9%
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controller reports. GaliforniaGityFinance.com page 6 of 9
Attachment C
City County 2ooa-os zoo5-os 2oos-o�
Elk Grove Sacramento 0
Tracy 2.0/0 1.8% 1.8%
San Joaquin 1.7�0 1.7�0
Baldwin Park 1.8%
Los Angeles �g% ��o�o �80�0
San Pablo Contra Costa o
Alameda 1'8�° �•�°�^ 1.8%
Alameda 1.6qo �,5% �go�o
Colton San Bernardino �9o�a o
Porterville
2.3% 1.8/0
Tulare 1.8% 1.8% 1.7°/a
Westminster 9
Oran e 1.4% 1.5% 1.6%
Yorba Linda Orange 1.6% 1.5% 1.6%
Hailister San Benito 1.3% 1.1% 1.6%
Corona Riverside 1.4% 1.3% 1.6°/a
Canyon Lake Riverside o
1,1/0 1.1% 1.6%
Portola Plumas 0.8% 1.3% 1.6%
Yucca Valiey San Bemardino �g% �6% �s%
Bell Los Angeles 1.1% 1.5% 1.5%
Hayward Alameda 1.5% 1.4% 1.5%
Loomis Placer 1.4% 1.2% 1.5%
San Juan Capistrano Orange 1.0% 1.4% 1.5%
Gardena Los Angeles 1,8% 1.6% 1.5%
Signal Hill Los Angeles 1.3% 1.3�0 1.4%
Is�eton Sacramento 1.4�0 1.2qo 1.4%
Cerritos Los Angeles 0.8% 0.9°k 1.3%
Rocklin Placer 3.2% 1.7% 1.3%
Stockton San Joaquin 1.0% 1.O�o 1.3%
Fresno Fresno 1.5% 1.6% 1.3%
Marysville Yuba 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%
Mission Viejo Orange 0.9°!0 1.1% 1.2%
South Gate Los Angeles 0.9% 0.7°/a 1.2%
Duarte Los Angeles 0.8qa 0.9% 1.2%
Gridle Butte 1.3°/a 1.3% 1.2%
Filimore Ventura 2.0% 1.2% 1.2%
Santa Paula Ventura 1.6% 1.5% 1.2%
Chino Hilis San Bernardino �20�0
Colfax Placer 1.0% 1.0% 1.2%
San Marcos San Di o 0.8�0 0.8% 1.2%
Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.8% 0.8°/a 1.1%
R�p°n San Joaquin 0.0% 0.1°k 1.1%
Los Alamitos Orange 0.9% 0.8°k 1.1%
Corcoran Kings 1.39'0 0.9°k 1.1%
Lodi SanJoaquin 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
Antioch Contra Costa 0.7% 0.9% 1.1%
Montebello Los Angeles 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%
Lake Eisinore Riverside 0.9% 0.9% 1.1%
La Puente Los Angeles 1.2% 0.8% 1.0°/a
Sacramento Sacramento 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%
Vista San Diego 0.9% 1.0% 1.0°/a
Daiy City San Mateo 0.6% 0.8% 1.0%
Moreno Valley Riverside 1.1°/a 1.0% 1.0%
Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles p go�p 0$o�o ��%
Dinuba Tulare 0.8% 1.1% 1.0%
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controller reports. GaliforniaGityFinance.com
page 7 of 9
Attachment C
City County 2ooa-os 2oos-os 2oos-o�
Loma Linda San Bemardino a
Benicia 0.1/0 0.8% 0.9%
Solano 0.8°Jo 0.8% 0.9%
Chino San Bemardino p�o�o
0.9% 0.9%
Patterson Stanislaus o
1.0/0 1.0% 0.9%
Clovis Fresno
0.4�a 0.9% 0.9%
Compton
Los Angeles 0.6% 0.6% p_g��e
Richmond Contra Costa NA �8a�o 0
Reedle 0.9/o
y Fresno 1.1% 1.3% 0.8%
Atwater Merced 0.8% o
Exeter
1.0% 0.8/0
Tulare 1.2% 1.1% 0.8%
Taft Kern 0.8°/a NA
Pittsburg � NA
Contra Costa 07% 0.6% p,g%
Fontana San Bernardino 0.8�0 0.79'0 0.8%
Maywood Los Angeles 0.7% 0.6% 0.7%
Poway San Diego 0.6°l0 0.6% 0.7%
Colusa Colusa 0.7% 0.7% NA
Norco Riverside 0.6% 0.7% 0.7%
EI Monte Los Angeles 0.7�0 0.7°� 0.7%
Brentwood Contra Costa o 0
0.8/0 0.7/0 0.7%
Tempie City Los Angeles 0.5% 0.5% 0.7%
Calimesa Riverside 0.9% 0.6°� 0.7%
Alhambra Los Angeles O.6�o 0.6�0 0.6%
Ceres Stanislaus 0.79'0 0.6% 0.6%
Shasta Lake Shasta 0.3% 0.3% 0.6%
Rio Vista Solano 0.6% 0.7% 0.6°/a
U land San Bemardino 0.7% 0.8% 0.6%
EI Cerrito Contra Costa 0.5% 0.6% 0.6%
Murrieta Riverside 0.6% 0.5% 0.6%
Wasco Kern 0.4% 0.4�0 0.5%
Danville Contra Costa 0.4% 0.4°/a 0.5%
San Leandro Alameda 0.6% 0.5°k 0.5%
Highland San Bemardino 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
Rialto San Bernardino 0.5% 0.5°� 0.5%
Santee San Diego 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%
Tustin Orange 0.4% 0.4% 0.4°!0
Perris Riverside 0.7�0 0.6°/a 0.4°/a
Greenfield Monterey 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%
Coalinga Fresno 0.9% 0.9°� 0.4%
Glendora Los Angeles 0.4% 0.5% 0.4%
Adelanto San Bernardino 0.8% 0.3% NA
Fairfax Marin 0.5% 0.3% NA
Lemon Grove San Diego 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
Avenal Kings 0.3% 0.2% 0.3%
San Jacinto Riverside 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
California City Kern 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Huntington Park Los Angeles p,�o�a 0 3% p 2%
Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.2% p.p�/a 0,2a�o
Gonzales Monterey 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Lakewood Los Angefes 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Laguna Ni uel Oran e 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controller reports. GaliforniaGityFinance.com
page 8 of 9
Attac�C
City County 2ooa-o5 2oos-os zoos-o�
Yucai a San Bemardino p,2o�p o
Firebaugh 0.1/0 0.1%
Fresno
Appie Valley 0.1% 0.1%
San Bernardino 0.1'/0 0.1%
Montclair 0.1%
San Bemardino 0.1% 0.1°/, o
Winters Yolo 0.1/,
Sanger 0.1�° 0.'�°/a 0.1%
Fresno 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Mcfarland
Kern
Holtville NA 0.1% 0.1%
Imperial o
Citrus Heights �•��a 0,1% 0,10�0
Sacramento 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Livingston Merced
Escalon 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
SanJoaquin 0.1% 0.1% o
Dorris 0.1/o
Siskiyou
lone NA 1.9% 0.0%
Amador o
Huron 0.4/^ 0.1% 0.0%
Fresno 0.0% 0.0°/a 0.0%
SOURCE:Coleman Advisory Services
computations using State Controller reports. GaliforniaGityFinance.com
page 9 of 9