Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster council directs staff to research hotel and cannabis tax options
Summary
At a strategic planning workshop Oct. 6, Westminster councilmembers asked staff to study feasibility of a transient occupancy (hotel) tax and a cannabis tax and to consider a scientifically valid survey to test voter support; staff and the consultant warned timing is tight for ballot measures.
Westminster — At its Oct. 6 strategic planning workshop the Westminster City Council signaled support for staff research into two potential revenue measures: a transient occupancy tax (TOT) on hotels and a cannabis tax.
Vice Mayor Manzo moved that staff return to the council with a feasibility analysis for both options, pressing the council to turn staff reports into action rather than only receiving informational updates. ‘‘I make a motion for staff to bring us back the feasibility to pursue these 2 items,’’ Vice Mayor Manzo said.
Ryder Smith, the council’s strategic planning consultant, advised that research should begin immediately because a timeline to place a measure on the ballot would need to start soon. ‘‘In the typical timeline for pursuing potential ballot revenue measures, we are really up against a timeline that should start now or pretty soon,’’ Smith said.
Councilmembers and staff agreed the next step should be a scientifically valid survey to gauge community support and to shape viable measure structures and timelines. Smith and staff described survey research as the ‘‘baby step’’ that would inform whether the city should pursue a ballot measure and which option — TOT, cannabis tax, or another revenue tool — is viable.
Not all councilmembers supported both measures. One councilmember said she was not interested in a cannabis tax but agreed staff should research additional revenue avenues. Staff noted that a prior staff report in June presented policy options and that the council had given no direction at that time to proceed; the workshop discussion produced a consensus to ask staff to return with more detailed analysis and proposed objectives.
Staff also agreed to review related options such as revising fees (traffic impact, park fees) and other revenue sources and to return with timelines and recommended next steps. The city attorney reminded the council that the workshop was a study session and not a forum for formal action; the direction taken was consensus to research, not an ordinance or vote to adopt a tax.
The council asked staff to bring back a work plan and timeline for survey research and feasibility analysis in the coming months so members could decide whether to pursue a measure in a future year.
