Billboard Revenue

[council3_rubal]

Fellow Councilmembers,

I attached a document that suggests that $80k revenue per year the City receives from Billboard revenues should go to the City of Universal City and not specifically limited to the Golf Course fund.

This $80K per year from Billboard revenue would best be applied to the general fund to offset property taxes.

Thank you for your consideration in reviewing this document.

Please consider support for ensuring this revenue source is applied to the general fund to benefit all residents.

 

[council5_shelby]

I need to learn more about this. However, if it can go to anywhere especially the general fund then it should as opposed to another guaranteed income source for the golf course who already gets the venue tax.

 

[council4_vaughan]

I think staff have taken the position that it is on golf course land (or what was golf course land prior to the hotel). So, any income from it should stay golf.

I think there would need to be a little more research done on how we got the land in the first place. If the land was purchased with venue tax bonds, then perhaps it needs to stay with golf. My guess is that it was not tied to the venue tax otherwise the City may have not been able to sell the hotel property. In other words, if they could sell the hotel property then presumably the general fund could collect the income from the sign. That is a legal question though.

If it is not tied to the venue tax or bonds, then I would support moving it to the general fund.

 

[council3_rubal]

Fellow Councilmembers, find attached the 2018 Easement agreement with Bexar Co filed on 1 Feb 2019 (document), and Council adopted resolution 7 Nov 2018, which clearly defines that Billboard fees should be considered City revenue. Because of the importance of this issue I am asking for staff to pursue a legal review.

 

[council4_vaughan]

We can have legal look at it, but what would you like to happen? If we move it to general, how do you propose adjusting the golf course budget? I fear it will only require more venue tax which I am not in favor of.

 

[council3_rubal]

We can have legal look at it, but what would you like to happen? If we move it to general, how do you propose adjusting the golf course budget? I fear it will only require more venue tax which I am not in favor of.

We can have legal look at it, but what would you like to happen? If we move it to general, how do you propose adjusting the golf course budget? I fear it will only require more venue tax which I am not in favor of.

First, billboard revenue to the general fund would help offset the proposed property tax increases. Second, there is an unprecedented decrease (loss of general fund revenue) of $125K in GC admin fees in the proposed budget this year, which would have GONE TO THE General Fund. The wisdom of decreasing admin fees in one year to the general fund to this degree and at this time, while proposing increases in property taxes is unclear. Second, the golf course fund balance is projected to be $2,700,599; the billboard fee reflects less than 3% of the projected end-of-budget-year balance. Finally, page 63 of the budget states: "The major revenue source for these (enterprise) funds is the rate revenue generated from the customers who receive the services provided." This suggests that if needed by GC operations, a very small increase in the cost of a round of golf would be more than adequate to replace billboard revenues.

 

[council4_vaughan]

Like I said. I am fine moving it to general if we can find another way to offset the lost revenue in golf. We have other ways of balancing the general fund to avoid a tax increase and the easiest way to do that is to allocate more venue tax to the park budget. There is plenty of qualifying expenditures in the general fund and plenty of unallocated venue tax dollars.

But the reason we have those unallocated venue tax dollars is partly because the golf course has this billboard revenue and the reduced administrative charge that you seem to be against. The golf course no longer needs as much venue tax on an annual basis.

The golf course budget is such an improvement over prior years from a self-supporting basis, that I would rather count that as a win than continue to nitpick it further....at this time.

The real discussion will happen when we look at the improvements that have been suggested. If we decide to proceed on those, finding a way to pay for those without tax dollars will be a challenge.

If the choice is between:
1. Having a reduced admin charge (commensurate with what they would pay to outsource it), letting them keep the billboard revenue, and stopping the flow of venue tax to golf
OR
2. Removing billboard, increasing administrative charges and increasing venue tax support to golf.

I would choose the former.

 

[council3_rubal]

I appreciated the comments of Councilmembers Vaughan and Shelby.