Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-13 - Agendas - Final MEETING NOTICE The Advertising and Promotion Commission will meet on Monday, October 13, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town Center Conference room. AGENDA ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION October 13, 2001 2 :00 p.m. Town Center I. Call to Order II. Reports A. Approval of Minutes for September 8, 2003 B. Financial Report 1 . HMR Revenues 2. Financial Statements - Tom Lonon, Scarbrough and Murtishaw 3. Update from City Attorney re: delinquent tax collection efforts C. Report from Executive Director — Marilyn Heifner D. CVB Report,— Allyson Twiggs E. Town Center Report — Denise Bembenek • F. Advertising Agency Report — Brian Clark III. Old Business A. Ozark Blues Society Request IV. New Business A. Downtown Dickson Master Plan IV. Other Business A. Set meeting for funding requests for 2003 V. Adjourn FYI: Dismissal of lawsuit Thank you letter from Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project • • ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 8, 2003 Commissioners Present: Dan Coody, Chairman Bob Davis, Neal Crawford, Pat Gazzola, David McGeady, Ching Mong, and Curtis Shipley. Staff Present: Denise Bembenek, Marilyn Heifner Chairman Bob Davis called the regular monthly meeting of the Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission to order on September 8, 2003 at the Fayetteville Town Center conference room at 2:00 p.m. MINUTES Moved by Gazzola, second by Shipley to approve the minutes of the August 11 , 2003 meeting. Motion carried. FINANCIAL REPORT HMR tax collections for August were $ 132,965.50, an increase of 11 .33% over one year ago. Year-to-date collections are up 2.99%. Boiler Machinery Insurance from Traveler's • ($520.87) was charged to A & P Commission. Marilyn talked to Peggy Vice and City will refund A & P Commission for that charge. Financial statements for August were not available. Commissioners asked that they be included in the packet next month. City Attorney Kit Williams presented delinquent tax collection efforts with $ 1090 collected in August. Only five restaurants that are currently in business have delinquent HMR taxes. DIRECTOWS REPORT Marilyn Heifner reported that inquiries were up in August; however, they are still down for the year as compared to last year. Internet unique visits are down slightly from last month although they are holding at around 7,000 per month. Council for Advancement of Science Writers has selected Fayetteville for their national conference in November of 2004. Camall Hall opened this month. WRMC and the American Heart Association have provided a defibulator for the Town Center. Town Center staff and Allyson Twiggs have been trained in CPR and in use of the defibulator. • • CVB REPORT Marilyn presented the CVB report for Allyson who was attending an A. S . A. E. event in Pine Bluff. Arkansas Economic Developers Conference was successfully held in Fayetteville. Allyson attended a GLAMER show in New Orleans. The Kaleo Holiday Tours trade show was held in Fayetteville. Pagnozzi Charities events scheduled the first weekend in October have been brought back to Fayetteville. Phyllis has booked 4 more motor coach tours for 2004. TOWN CENTER REPORT The Town Center completed 10 events in August. Monthly average per event sales are up 22%. Year to date completed events are up 2 1 . 1 % and collections are up 24.5%. Town Center staff has completed CPR certification and the defibulator program in cooperation with WRMC and the American Heart Association. The Town Center was hit with a computer virus that required a week to completely repair. Denise discussed the Lost Business Report. She explained that most of the business lost by the Town Center to the Embassy was a money issue and loss to the University House was a relationship issue. The Town Center is working in conjunction with the University students on a Haunted House for Halloween. • AGENCY REPORT Brian Clark reported a continued trend for unique visits to the website. Marilyn, Allyson, and the Agency met with Jay Harrod, communications department head for Arkansas Parks and Tourism. We will begin working with them on a public relations campaign. Brian showed the concept of the new creative for 2004 "Step Into Fayetteville." NEW BUSINESS Funding Requests Ozark Blues Society of Northwest Arkansas — Gary Copeland and Ralph Hudson reported on their event "Blues in the Natural State". The festival was a successful event in several respects - well organized, friendly and hospitable. Blues music in general has a great prospect in Fayetteville. They thanked the A & P for their support. They have been in contact with the 2004 Fayetteville MusicFest to do the work for them in planning their event. The downside of the event was the blistering heat, the Razorback fan appreciation day, a bluegrass festival in Eureka Springs, the Frisco Festival in Rogers, and the early opening • of the Washington County Fair. They were left with a $24,000 shortfall. They need • $ 13,000 to pay outstanding invoices and asked for a $ 13,000 loan. Commissioners asked that they provide festival financials to Marilyn. They will wait to see financials on OBS. Preservation Services Fund Grant Cyrus Sutherland requested $ 1500 in matching funds for a National Trust for Historic Preservation grant for first phase restoration of the Nathan Combs House at 3245 Black Oak Road. The project did not meet guidelines for A & P funds, Bikes. Blues and BBQ Concert Request for funds for the Friday night concert featuring The Peter Mayer Group, The Neville Brothers, and Blues Travelers was presented. 8,000 are expected at the concert. Ticket prices are $28 and $53. Moved by Gazzola, second by Shipley to give BBB $7,500. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Heifner • Executive Director • • Advertising and Promotion Commission For month of September 2003 HMR revenues collected $132, 599.87 Interest revenue 71436.41 Misc. revenue 0.00 Total Revenues $140,036.28 Collection expense -$2,652.00 CEC Bond Payment -31 ,381 .67 CEC Annual Washington County Property Tax -48,988. 10 Town Center Bond Payment -99743. 16 Total Expenses -$92,764.93 Total Check to A&P $47,271 .35 • • » ] \ � I i ( $ \ Lf�f k f ( 7 7 t \ « « ^ ( $ i f @ ! @ ( ! § ° ei- ' - / £ ` 7 f ( \ k ƒ } « @ * k � ) - 4 ¥ ) ui %6 _ 6 c4 C6 all n \ } \ / \ ( # ( k } } ( § J } } \ \ \ j \ � Z929 ) \ ) §§ § i \ � k � f - $ £ ! ! � E Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Fayetteville Town Center Fayetteville Convention and Visitors Bureau Financial Statements August 31 , 2003 • • SCARBROUGH • MURMHAW, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, P.A. 2039 Green Acres Rd., Fayetteville, AR 72703.2619 - Telephone (479) 521-1771 - Fax (479) 442-0082 - Home Pages S.MCPAS.com Wesley D. Murtishaw, CPA Tommy L. Lonon, CPA Fayetteville Advertising & Promotion Fayetteville Town Center Fayetteville, Arkansas We have compiled the accompanying balance sheet and income statements of the Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission, The Fayetteville Town Center, and The Convention and Visitors Bureau as of August 31 , 2003 and for the eight months then ended in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them. • Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures and the statements of retained earnings and cash flows ordinarily included in financial statements. If the omitted disclosures and the statements of retained earnings and cash flows were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the entity's assets, liabilities, equity, income, and expenses. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. ilisp*o & ,r & . Scarbrough & Murtishaw, CPAs, P.A. Certified Public Accountants Fayetteville, Arkansas September 5, 2003 • Members: Akerican Institute of CPAs Private Companies Practice Section Arkansas Society of CPAs Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Balance Sheet • As of August 31 , 2003 ASSETS Current Assets Cash in Bank of Fayetteville - Town Center $ 32,471 .26 Cash in Mcllroy Bank - A & P General 251 ,924.48 Cash in Mcllroy Bank - A & P Payroll 10,235.30 Cash in Bank - Conv & Visitor Bureau 358.50 Investments 2,083, 146.68 Investment Adjustment to Market 22,933.05 Accounts Receivable 61499.24 Accrued Interest Receivable 10,205.45 Due from City 51667.29 Total Current Assets $ 2,4231441 .25 Property, Plant, & Equipment at Cost Furniture and Fixtures 91602.98 Building Additions 181 ,875.24 • Equipment 160,725.88 Less: Accumulated Depreciation (67,276.31 ) Net Property and Equipment 284,927.79 Total Assets $ 21708,369.04 LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL Current Liabilities Payroll Taxes Payable $ 151 .87 Accounts Payable 58,487.72 Accounts Payable - Parks HMR 31249.62 Due to Other Funds 65,386.73 Total Current Liabilities $ 127,275.94 Capital Unrestricted Fund Balance 2,347,192.63 Current Year Earnings 233,900.47 Total Capital 215819093.10 • Total Liabilities and Capital $ 21708,369.04 See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Income Statement • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date August 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual Revenue HMR Tax Revenue $ 1 ,4781000.00 $ 991 ,392.05 $ 486,607.95 $ 130,575.30 Refunds 400,000.00 - 400,000.00 Less Returns & Allowances (400,000.00) (400,000.00) Total Revenue 11478,000.00 991 ,392.05 486,607.95 130,575.30 Materials and Supplies Office Supplies/Printing 31500.00 224.15 31275.85 - Total Materials and Supplies 31500.00 224.15 31275.85 General Expenses General Expenses (See Schedule) 683, 105.00 418,304.50 264,800.50 94,096.37 • Capital Outlay Minor Equipment 50,000.00 3,595.93 46,404.07 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income - Investments 50,000.00 53,697.69 (31697.69) 9,325.08 CEC Bond Excess 208,050.39 (208,050.39) TC Bond Arbitrage Calculation (11100.00) 11100.00 Bonds CEC (459000.00) (45,000.00) Bond Payments - Arts Center (85,000.00) (85,000.00) Bond Payments - Town Center (375,000.00) (196,534.44) (178,465.56) (91743.16) Bond Payments - CEC (380,000.00) (251 ,053.36) (128,946.64) (31 ,381 .67) Transfers to Other Funds (275,950.00) (135,000.00) (140,950.00) Total Other Income (Expense) (11110,950.00) (321 ,939.72) (789,010.28) (31 ,799.75) Net Income (Loss) $ (369,555.00) $ 247,327.75 $ (616,882.75) $ 49679. 18 • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Schedule of General Expenses • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date August 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual General Expenses Salaries & Wages $ 60,000.00 $ 37,266.52 $ 22,733.48 $ 4,641 .44 Payroll Tax Expense 13,200.00 31219.80 99980.20 353.72 Insurance 12,000.00 51996.54 69003.46 734.08 401 (k) Company Match 1 ,800.00 11150.57 649.43 139.24 Car Allowance 31600.00 21400.00 11200.00 300.00 Publications & Dues 11000.00 1 , 156.95 (156.95) 165.00 Postage 15,000.00 16,605.32 (11605.32) 81058.35 Professional Services 12,200.00 8, 150.00 41050.00 11150.00 Taxes and Licenses 500.00 (500.00) Collection Expense 309000.00 19,827.84 10, 172.16 2,611 .51 Miscellaneous Expense 650.00 150.87 499.13 Kamensky Fountain Maintenance 6,000.00 5,856.66 143.34 3,250.00 New Brochures 35,000.00 28,174.42 6,825.58 21 ,090.35 Travel and Training 21500.00 775.90 11724. 10 Depreciation Expense - 12,726.82 (12,726.82) 1 ,590.85 Air Museum 25,000.00 18,750.00 6,250.00 - Bikes, Blues, BBQ 81000.00 8,000.00 • Botanical Garden Society 45,000.00 31250.00 41 ,750.00 Town Center Garden Maintenance 17,500.00 2,916.66 14,583.34 Walton Arts Center 21400.00 1 ,500.00 900.00 North Arkansas Symphony 61000.00 39000.00 31000.00 H. S. Coaches Clinic 15,000.00 151000.00 Sturday of Champions 31000.00 31000.00 State Soccer Championship 1 ,000.00 - 11000.00 Holiday Hoops 10,000.00 109000.00 Joe Martin Stage Race 20,000.00 20,000.00 - AII Star Games 51000.00 51000.00 Ozark Blues Society 10,000.00 91999.56 0.44 2,633.36 Brumley Gospel Sing 15,000.00 15,000.00 Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project 17,600.00 14,077.96 39522.04 First Night Fayetteville 10,000.00 10,000.00 Don Glass Charity Classic 61300.00 61300.00 Hogeye Marathon & Relays 11500.00 11500.00 Natural State Games 975.00 975.00 America in Bloom 21500.00 21500.00 City of Fayetteville - Plaza Gardens 11 ,963.31 (11 ,963.31 ) 11458.33 Rural Mountain Producers Exchange 31000.00 21190.12 809.88 11535.12 DDEP Fine Arts Festival 31000.00 31394.09 (394.09) 31394.09 Ozark Valley Triathlon 29500.00 29500.00 - Advertising and Marketing 250,000.00 127,531 .04 122,468.96 17,967.94 • Airport Information Booth 4,800.00 39600.00 11200.00 1 ,200 00 Interspace Airport Advertising 5,080.00 31698.55 11381 .45 Total General Expenses $ 683,105.00 $ 418,304.50 $ 264,800.50 $ 72,273.38 See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Town Center Income Statement • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date August 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual Revenue Rental Income $ 282,350.66 $ 144,277.19 $ 138,073.47 $ 29,837.55 Daily Parking 21400.00 21727.00 (327.00) 733.00 Parking Revenue 33,600.00 23,524.50 10,075.50 81308.50 Other Income 261 .03 (261 .03) 15.18 Less Returns & Allowances (11000.00) (9.00) (991 .00) - Total Revenue 317,350.66 1709780.72 146,569.94 38,894.23 Materials and Supplies Office Supplies/Printing 6,125.00 21270.60 31854.40 273.76 Total Materials and Supplies 61125.00 29270.60 31854.40 273.76 • General Expenses General Expenses (See Schedule) 476,948.32 2349718.64 2429229.68 299551 .95 Capital Outlay Other Income (Expense) Interest Income - Checking 750.00 160.60 589.40 18.72 Transfers From Other Funds 50,000.00 Total Other Income (Expense) 750.00 50, 160.60 (499410.60) 18.72 Net Income (Loss) $ (803,173.98) $ (16,047.92) $ (787, 126.06) $ 9,087.24 • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Town Center Schedule of General Expenses • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date August 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual General Expenses Salaries & Wages $ 218,475.00 $ 105,089.09 $ 113,385.91 $ 15,384.97 Payroll Tax Expense 16,000.00 91815.64 6, 184.36 11055.85 Insurance 26,237.20 11 ,726.99 14,510.21 1 , 198.40 401 (k) Company Match 41000.00 21625.60 11374.40 314.26 Commissions 27,500.00 12,782.40 14,717.60 893.75 Credit Card Discounts 500.00 352.35 147.65 49. 14 Public Notification 500.00 500.00 - Publications & Dues 750.00 73.65 676.35 Water 61875.00 31716.43 31158.57 19133.36 Gas 11 ,300.00 5,065. 11 69234.89 48.88 Electricity 66,211 . 12 32, 148.50 34,062.62 4,524.97 Cable 1 ,200.00 471 .94 728.06 67.42 Telephone 10,300.00 59687.01 41612.99 829.14 Insurance - Vehicles 15,600.00 - 15,600.00 - • Legal Services 25,000.00 5.67 24,994.33 - Taxes and Licenses 11500.00 11395.00 105.00 395.00 Linens 10,000.00 51824.52 41175.48 505.39 Repairs and Maintenance 24,000.00 19,669.47 41330.53 11560.57 Special Projects 11198.77 (1 ,198.77) Advertising and Marketing 10,000.00 4,281 .70 5,718.30 Travel and Training 11000.00 62.00 938.00 Depreciation Expense - 12,726.80 (12,726.80) 11590.85 Total General Expenses $ 476,948.32 $ 234,718.64 $ 242,229.68 $ 29,551 .95 • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Convention and Visitors Bureau Income Statement • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date August 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual Revenue Bus Tours $ 57.50 $ 11082.50 $ (11025.00) $ 100.00 Brumley Shuttle - $ 1 ,575.00 $ (11575.00) $ 11575.00 Sponsorships - 525.00 (525.00) 300.00 Total Revenue 57.50 31182.50 (3,125.00) 11975.00 Materials and Supplies Materials and Supplies 71200.00 2,167.54 51032.46 Office Supplies/Printing 11950.00 4,739.67 (29789.67) Total Materials and Supplies 91150.00 6,907.21 29242.79 • General Expenses General Expenses (See Schedule) 142,480.67 78,757.29 63,723.38 12,290.64 Capital Outlay - - Other Income (Expense) Interest Income - Checking 150.00 102.64 47.36 4.67 Transfers from Other Funds 134,400.00 85,000.00 499400.00 Total Other Income (Expense) 134,550.00 85, 102.64 49,447.36 4.67 Net Income (Loss) $ (17,023.17) $ 2,620.64 $ (19,643.81 ) $ (10,310.97) • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Convention and Visitors Bureau • Schedule of General Expenses Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date August 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual General Expenses Salaries & Wages $ 70,000.00 $ 37,679.98 $ 32,320.02 $ 3,091 .66 Payroll Tax Expense 71000.00 41150.76 21849.24 432.92 Insurance 13,000.00 8,638.86 41361 . 14 1 ,040.22 401 (k) Company Match 29000.00 1 ,269.18 730.82 170.24 Publications & Dues 11500.00 11025.00 475.00 - Postage 150.00 342.07 (192.07) 216.07 Mileage 11070.19 (19070.19) 147.60 Telephone 42000.00 21330.47 1 ,669.53 566.60 Rent 61000.00 4,000.00 29000.00 11000.00 Convention Development 15,000.00 15,019.43 (19.43) 4,337.80 • Special Projects 225.00 - 225.00 Repairs and Maintenance 105.67 203. 12 (97.45) 97.45 Advertising and Marketing 149500.00 14,500.00 - Travel and Training 91000.00 31028.23 51971 .77 17190.08 Total General Expenses $ 142,480.67 $ 78,757.29 $ 63,723.38 $ 12,290.64 • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Fayetteville Town Center Fayetteville Convention and Visitors Bureau Financial Statements September 30, 2003 • • SCARBROUGH • MURTISHAWr CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, P.A. 2039 Green Acres Rd., Fayetteville, AR 727012619 • Telephone (479) 521.1771 • Fax (479) 442-0082 • Home Page, SMCPAS.com Wesley D. Murtishaw, CPA Tommy L Lonoa, CPA Fayetteville Advertising & Promotion Fayetteville Town Center Fayetteville, Arkansas We have compiled the accompanying balance sheet and income statements of the Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission, The Fayetteville Town Center, and The Convention and Visitors Bureau as of September 30, 2003 and for the nine months then ended in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them. • Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures and the statements of retained earnings and cash flows ordinarily included in financial statements. If the omitted disclosures and the statements of retained earnings and cash flows were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the entity's assets, liabilities, equity, income, and expenses. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. Scarbrough & Muiti haao Scarbrough & Murtishaw, CPAs, P.A. Certified Public Accountants Fayetteville, Arkansas October 6, 2003 • Memben, American Institute of CPAs Private Companies Practice Section Arltansas Society of CPAs Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Balance Sheet • As of September 30, 2003 ASSETS Current Assets Cash in Bank of Fayetteville - Town Center $ 41 ,590.99 Cash in Mcllroy Bank - A & P General 209, 170.29 Cash in Mcllroy Bank - A & P Payroll 10,292.32 Cash in Bank - Conv & Visitor Bureau 32,302.84 Investments 21083, 146.68 Investment Adjustment to Market 22,933.05 Accounts Receivable 6,499.24 Accrued Interest Receivable 109205.45 Due from City 5,667.29 Total Current Assets $ 21421 ,808. 15 Property, Plant, & Equipment at Cost Furniture and Fixtures 9,602.98 • Building Additions 181 ,875.24 Equipment 1609725.88 Less: Accumulated Depreciation (70,458.01 ) Net Property and Equipment 281 ,746.09 Total Assets $ 21703,554.24 LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL Current Liabilities Payroll Taxes Payable $ 161 .64 Accounts Payable 589487.72 Accounts Payable - Parks HMR 3,249.62 Due to Other Funds 65,386.73 Total Current Liabilities $ 127,285.71 Capital Unrestricted Fund Balance 2,347,192.63 Current Year Earnings 229,075.90 Total Capital 29576,268.53 • Total Liabilities and Capital $ 29703,554.24 See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Income Statement • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date September 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual Revenue HMR Tax Revenue $ 11478,000.00 $ 111249357.55 $ 353,642.45 $ 132,965.50 Refunds 400,000.00 400,000.00 Less Returns & Allowances (400,000.00) - (400,000.00) Total Revenue 1 ,478,000.00 1 , 124,357.55 353,642.45 132,965.50 Materials and Supplies Office Supplies/Printing 3,500.00 375.87 3, 124.13 151 .72 Total Materials and Supplies 3,500.00 375.87 31124. 13 151 .72 General Expenses General Expenses (See Schedule) 683,105.00 509,087.77 174,017.23 90,783.27 • Capital Outlay Minor Equipment 50,000.00 31595.93 46,404.07 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income - Investments 50,000.00 58,429.27 (81429.27) 41731 .58 CEC Bond Excess 2089050.39 (208,050.39) TC Bond Arbitrage Calculation (1 , 100.00) 11100.00 Bonds CEC (45,000.00) (45,000.00) Bond Payments - Arts Center (85,000.00) (85,000.00) Bond Payments - Town Center (375,000.00) (206,277.60) (1689722.40) (91743.16) Bond Payments - CEC (380,000.00) (282,435.03) (97,564.97) (31 ,381 .67) Transfers to Other Funds (275,950.00) (185,000.00) (909950.00) (50,000.00) Total Other Income (Expense) (11110,950.00) (406,332.97) (702,617.03) (86,393.25) Net Income (Loss) $ (369,555.00) $ 202,965.01 $ (572,520.01 ) $ (44,362.74) • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion Commission Schedule of General Expenses • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date September 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual General Expenses Salaries & Wages $ 60,000.00 $ 41 ,907.96 $ 18,092.04 $ 4,641 .44 Payroll Tax Expense 13,200.00 31573.52 91626.48 353.72 Insurance 12,000.00 6,766.02 52233.98 769.48 401 (k) Company Match 11800.00 1 ,289.81 510.19 139.24 Car Allowance 31600.00 29700.00 900.00 300.00 Publications & Dues 19000.00 19156.95 (156.95) Postage 15,000.00 17,755.35 (2,755.35) 1 , 150.03 Building Insurance - 520.87 (520.87) 520.87 Professional Services 12,200.00 91150.00 31050.00 11000.00 Taxes and Licenses - 500.00 (500.00) Collection Expense 30,000.00 22,487.15 7,512.85 2,659.31 Bond Paying Agent Fees - 662.00 (662.00) 662.00 Miscellaneous Expense 650.00 150.87 499.13 Kamensky Fountain Maintenance 61000.00 5,856.66 143.34 New Brochures 35,000.00 31 ,938.92 31061 .08 3,764.50 Travel and Training 21500.00 775.90 1 ,724.10 - Depreciation Expense - 149317.67 (14,317.67) 11590.85 • Air Museum 25,000.00 189750.00 6s250.00 - Bikes, Blues, BBQ 8,000.00 81000.00 Botanical Garden Society 45,000.00 3,250.00 41 ,750.00 - Town Center Garden Maintenance 17,500.00 2,916.66 14,583.34 - Welton Arts Center 2,400.00 19800.00 600.00 300.00 North Arkansas Symphony 6,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 H. S. Coaches Clinic 15,000.00 159000.00 Sturday of Champions 3,000.00 3,000.00 State Soccer Championship 11000.00 11000.00 Holiday Hoops 10,000.00 10,000.00 Joe Martin Stage Race 20,000.00 20,000.00 All Star Games 5,000.00 51000.00 Ozark Blues Society 109000.00 9,999.56 0.44 Brumley Gospel Sing 15,000.00 15,000.00 - 15,000.00 Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project 17,600.00 159187.96 21412.04 11110.00 First Night Fayetteville 109000.00 10,000.00 Don Glass Charity Classic 61300.00 6,300.00 Hogeye Marathon & Relays 1 $ 00.00 11500.00 - Natural State Games 975.00 975.00 America in Bloom 21500.00 21500.00 City of Fayetteville - Plaza Gardens - 11 ,963.31 (11 ,963.31 ) Rural Mountain Producers Exchange 31000.00 2,190.12 809.88 DDEP Fine Arts Festival 31000.00 3,394.09 (394.09) Ozark Valley Triathlon 21500.00 21500.00 - • Advertising and Marketing 250,000.00 183, 120.02 66,879.98 55,588.98 Airport Information Booth 41800.00 49832.85 (32.85) 1 ,232.85 Interspace Airport Advertising 51080.00 39698.55 11381 .45 - Total General Expenses $ 683,105.00 $ 509,087.77 $ 174,017.23 $ 90,783.27 See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Town Center Income Statement • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date September 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual Revenue Rental Income $ 282,350.66 $ 174, 180.21 $ 108,170.45 $ 29,903.02 Daily Parking 21400.00 31107.00 (707.00) 380.00 Parking Revenue 33,600.00 23,524.50 10,075.50 - Other Income 687.85 (687.85) 426.82 Less Returns & Allowances (11000.00) (9.00) (991 .00) - Total Revenue 317,350.66 201 ,490.56 115,860.10 30,709.84 Materials and Supplies Office Supplies/Printing 61125.00 21270.60 3,854.40 Total Materials and Supplies 6,125.00 2,270.60 31854.40 • General Expenses General Expenses (See Schedule) 476,948.32 253,951 .28 222,997.04 19,232.64 Capital Outlay Other Income (Expense) Interest Income - Checking 750.00 176.55 573.45 15.95 Transfers From Other Funds - 50,000.00 Total Other Income (Expense) 750.00 50, 176.55 (49,426.55) 15.95 Net Income (Loss) $ (803, 173.98) $ (41554.77) $ (7983619.21 ) $ 11 ,493.15 • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Convention and Visitors Bureau Income Statement Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date September 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual Revenue Bus Tours $ 57.50 $ 11082.50 $ (1 ,025.00) $ Brumley Shuttle $ 11575.00 $ (11575.00) $ Sponsorships - 525.00 (525.00) Total Revenue 57.50 31182.50 (31125.00) Materials and Supplies Materials and Supplies 7,200.00 31368.74 31831 .26 11201 .20 Office Supplies/Printing 11950.00 41739.67 (2,789.67) Total Materials and Supplies 91150.00 81108.41 1 ,041 .59 11201 .20 General Expenses General Expenses (See Schedule) 142,480.67 99,521 .85 42,958.82 20,764.56 Capital Outlay Other Income (Expense) Interest Income - Checking 150.00 113.42 36.58 10.78 Transfers from Other Funds 134,400.00 135,000.00 (600.00) 50,000.00 Total Other Income (Expense) 134,550.00 135, 113.42 (563.42) 50,010.78 Net Income (Loss) $ (17,023. 17) $ 30,665.66 $ (47,688.83) $ 28,045.02 • See Accountants' Compilation Report. Fayetteville Convention and Visitors Bureau Schedule of General Expenses • Actual vs Budget Month of 2003 Year to Date September 2003 Budget Actual Remaining Actual General Expenses Salaries & Wages $ 70,000.00 $ 51 ,105.00 $ 18,895.00 $ 131425.02 Payroll Tax Expense 7,000.00 41583.68 2,416.32 432.92 Insurance 13,000.00 91769.68 31230.32 11130.82 401 (k) Company Match 29000.00 11439.42 560.58 170.24 Publications & Dues 19500.00 11025.00 475.00 Postage 150.00 342.07 (192.07) Mileage 19278.08 (1 ,278.08) 207.89 Telephone 41000.00 21577. 14 11422.86 246.67 Rent 61000.00 41000.00 21000.00 Convention Development 15,000.00 18,680.83 (3,680.83) 3,661 .40 • Special Projects 225.00 - 225.00 Repairs and Maintenance 105.67 203.21 (97.54) 0.09 Advertising and Marketing 14,500.00 14,500.00 Travel and Training 91000.00 49517.74 41482.26 1 ,489.51 Total General Expenses $ 1429480.67 $ 99,521 .85 $ 42,958.82 $ 20,764.56 • See Accountants' Compilation Report. l „ \ 44 . FAYETTEVI LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVI LIE, ARKANSAS • YJT L DAVID wMTAKER, ASST. CI TAY ATTORNEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council A & P Commissioners FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney �C DATE: September 26, 2003 RE: Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Tax's applicability to caterers Attorney General Opinion 2003-260 (9-25-03) Attached is a copy of Attorney General Opinion #2003-260 which analyzed our HMR tax ordinance relating to caterers. This was requested by Senator Bisbee so it was probably on behalf of a Benton County citizen or • official. The opinion is supportive in the most critical area of the appropriateness of taxing caterers as one the "similar businesses as shall be defined in the levying ordinance . . . . " A.C.A. §26-75-602 (c) (2) (emphasis added). "In my opinion, the above-quoted statutory language does authorize cities to levy an advertising and promotion tax on catering businesses." (AG Opinion #2003-260) Our ordinance did define caterers. The Attorney General opined: "This ordinance clearly authorizes a tax on caterers." The Bentonville ordinance did NOT define caterers (as seemingly required by the statute) but merely repeated the "and similar businesses" language from the statute. Nevertheless, the Attorney General also opined that caterers could be taxed in Bentonville. The second issue presented to the Attorney General was where should the tax be assessed — where the food is prepared or where it is served. The • Attorney General acknowledges that this was a "more difficult" issue. "The issue is thus unclear from the specific language of the act . . . ." The Attorney General acknowledged that "persuasive arguments can be made on both sides . . . ." However, the Attorney General finally suggests that taxing caterers at the site of production is preferable to taxing them at the site of service. He urges the General Assembly to clarify this issue. I certainly agree that clarity in the law of taxation is desirable. I would disagree with the rationale of the Attorney General that a tax on tourism to promote tourism should be collected where a product is made rather than where the tourists are served (the meal). We built the Town Center mainly with HMR tax revenues to enhance and increase tourism in Fayetteville. Should another city receive the HMR tax revenues generated when serving tourists at our Town Center? That would mean that Bentonville would receive HMR tax revenues from tourists attending a catered event at Fayetteville' s Town Center and could use that money to encourage tourism to go to Bentonville rather than Fayetteville. The position favored by the Attorney General would also be very difficult • to administer. If a caterer claimed to be from a town with an A&P Commission that applied its tax to caterers, we could not apply our tax to them. Otherwise we could tax out of town caterers. That seems inconsistent (we should either be able to tax caterers who manufacture their product outside Fayetteville or we should not be able to tax them). It would also be an administrative nightmare to try to enforce. We would have to confirm a caterer's actual business location and research the law for that jurisdiction to determine whether or not caterers would be taxed there instead of here. We must and will continue to enforce the ordinance as written until the City Council amends it or a Court declares it illegal. An Attorney General ' s Opinion is advisory only and he acknowledges that the law is very unclear on this issue. Pagel of 5 Opinion No. 2003-260 • September 25, 2003 The Honorable David Bisbee State Senator 14068 Pyramid Drive Rogers, AR 72758-0116 Dear Senator Bisbee: You have presented the following questions for my opinion: Do Fayetteville and Bentonville have the authority under A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2) to levy an advertising and promotion tax specifically on catering businesses? If so, is it lawful for both cities to tax the same transaction — that of a Bentonville caterer who caters a function in Fayetteville? If not, which city may tax the caterer? You have provided me with copies of Fayetteville's and Bentonville's ordinances that address this issue. Response • Question 1 — Do Fayetteville and Bentonville have the authority under A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2) to levy an advertising and promotion tax specifically on catering businesses? As an initial matter, I must note that the Attorney General is not normally in a position to construe local ordinances. The task of construing local ordinances is one that usually must be undertaken by a court or other entity who has the authority to determine various factual matters of local concern that could impact upon the intended meaning and effect of the ordinance. Nevertheless, because the state law that governs your question necessarily requires a reading of the local ordinances in question, I will interpret these ordinances to the extent necessary for an application of state law. It is my opinion that Fayetteville and Bentonville do have the authority under A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2) to levy an advertising and promotion tax on catering businesses. A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2), which is part of the Advertising and Promotion Commission Act, states: (c) The tax authorized in this subchapter shall be upon any one ( 1 ) or more of the following, as specified in the levying ordinance: (2) The portion of the gross receipts or gross proceeds received by restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, delicatessens, drive-in restaurants, carry-out restaurants, concession stands, convenience stores, grocery store-restaurants, and similar businesses as shall be defined in the levying ordinance from the sale of prepared food and beverages for on or off-premises consumption, but such tax shall not apply to such • gross receipts or gross proceeds of organizations qualified under section 501 (c)(3) of the federal Internal Revenue Code. A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2) (emphasis added). http://www.accessarkansas.org/ag/opinions/docs/2003-260.html 9/26/2003 Page 2 of 51 n In my opinion, the above quoted statutory language does authorize cities to levy an advertising and • promotion tax on catering businesses. I base this conclusion on one of the fundamental principles of statutory interpretation: statutory language must be interpreted by giving the words of the statute their ordinary meanings in common usage. Arkansas Dept. of Environ. Qual. v. Brighton Corp., 02-321 , 102 S.W.3d 458 (Ark. 2003). I believe that in common parlance, a catering business would universally be deemed to constitute a business that is "similar" to the other food service businesses that are listed in A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2). Accordingly, I conclude that cities are authorized to levy an advertising and promotion tax on catering businesses under A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2). It is my opinion further that both Fayetteville and Bentonville have enacted ordinances that suffice to include catering businesses in the group of businesses upon which the advertising and promotion tax may be levied. Fayetteville's ordinance (Ordinance No. 4318) explicitly provides that its A&P tax is applicable to caterers, which it defines as follows: "Caterers are for profit businesses or persons who deliver or serve catered food or beverages at a location within the city limits of Fayetteville." Fayetteville Ordinance No. 4318, amending §35.31 of the Code of Fayetteville. This ordinance clearly authorizes a tax on caterers. Bentonville's ordinance (Ordinance No. 3 . 16.01 (B)) does not explicitly mention caterers, but rather, mirrors the language of the statute, providing that the tax will be levied on "the portion of the gross receipts or gross proceeds received by restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, delis, drive-in restaurants, carry-out restaurants, concession stands, convenience stores, grocery store delis, and similar businesses from the sale of prepared food and beverages for on or off-premises consumption[.]" Bentonville Ordinance No. 3 . 16.01 (B). Although this language does not explicitly mention caterers, it is my opinion that, like the • language of the statute, it can readily be interpreted to include caterers within the scope of its application. I base this conclusion on one of the fact that the Arkansas appellate courts have held that the same rules of statutory interpretation that apply to state legislation should be applied to municipal ordinances. Rolling Pines v. City of Little Rock, 73 Ark. App. 97, 40 S.W.3d 828 (2001 ); Stricklin v. Hays, 332 Ark. 270, 965 S.W.2d 103 (1998). Accordingly, the language of Bentonville's ordinance must be interpreted by giving the words their ordinary meanings in common usage. Again, in common parlance, a catering business is deemed to constitute a business that is "similar" to the other food service businesses that are listed in Bentonville's ordinance. For these reasons, I conclude that both Fayetteville and Bentonville may levy an advertising and promotion tax on catering businesses under A.C.A. § 26-75-602(c)(2) and under their respective ordinances. Question 2 — If so, is it lawful for both cities to tax the same transaction — that of a Bentonville caterer who caters a function in Fayetteville? If not, which city may tax the caterer? It is my opinion that it is not lawful for both cities to tax the same transaction. Although the Arkansas Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of double taxation in the context of the Advertising and Promotion Commission Act (A.C.A. § 26-75-602 through -618), it has done so in interpreting the Gross Receipts Act (A.C.A. § 26-52- 101 et seq.). With regard to that act, the court has stated that "a presumption exists that the General Assembly had no intention to impose a double tax[.]" See Ragland v. Dumas, 292 Ark. 515, 732 S.W.2d 119 ( 1987). I believe that the court would apply the same presumption to the advertising and promotion tax, which is of course a type of "gross receipts tax." See A.C.A. § 26-75-602. In light of this presumption, I must interpret the Advertising and Promotion • Commission Act not to permit double taxation. Moreover, the Advertising and Promotion Commission Act is readily interpretable in this manner; the provisions of the act lend themselves to an interpretation http://www.accessarkansas.org/ag/opinions/docs/2003-260.html 9/26/2003 " ' .. Page 3 of 5 under which the tax in question may be levied only once upon a transaction. • The question of which city may tax the transactions of a catering business is more difficult, however. The act does not squarely address this question. Indeed, although the language of the act is clearly broad enough to include catering businesses within the scope of its application (as discussed in response to Question 1 ), that language nevertheless appears to indicate that the General Assembly did not specifically contemplate how the tax should be applied in instances in which a business such as a catering business is located in one city but conducts transactions in another city. The issue is thus unclear from the specific language of the act, and clarification by the General Assembly is well- warranted. Although persuasive arguments can be made on both sides that given the intent of the act, one or the other of the two cities should be permitted to tax the transaction, these arguments are readily met with counterarguments that would support taxation by the other city. Moreover, allowing a patchwork approach to the taxation, in which the various cities tax the transaction in different ways will undoubtedly lead either to double taxation, or to a gap in taxation. For example, if some cities tax all transactions that occur within the city, and other cities tax all transactions by businesses located within the city, some businesses will be taxed twice, and others will avoid taxation altogether by hosting events and taking payment only in locations that are outside of any city limits. In my opinion, the most fair and reasonable interpretation that would avoid these problems and inconsistencies and that would at the same time be consistent with the apparent intent of the act would be the following interpretation: If the city in which the catering business is located has an advertising and promotion tax, that city, rather than the city in which the event is held, may tax the transaction. • However, if the city in which the catering business is located does not have an advertising and promotion tax (or if the caterer is not located in a city), the city in which the event is held may tax the transaction (assuming of course that that city has an advertising and promotion tax). Accord, Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-094. 1 will explain below the reasoning upon which I base this interpretation. I emphasize, however, that this approach is not mandated by the language of the act; rather, it is the interpretation that I suggest would be most effective in avoiding problems and inconsistencies in the application of the tax. I acknowledge, however, that this approach is not without its own problems and inequities, and I urge the General Assembly to clarify this issue. The advertising and promotion tax that is authorized by the Advertising and Promotion Commission Act was intended to authorize cities to raise revenue for the purpose of improving themselves in ways that will attract tourists, thus further increasing revenues for those cities and for the businesses that attract tourists to those cities. This intent is reflected in the wording of the original act that authorized the advertising and promotion tax, Act 185 of 1965 . It contained the following language: It has been found and is declared by the General Assembly that cities having a population of 25,000 inhabitants and more are critically in need of revenues for the promotion of the economic well being of the inhabitants thereof to prevent decline and insure growth and progress, and that enactment of this measure will provide an appropriate method of securing such public interest. Acts 1965, No. 185, § 9. The same intent is reflected in later amending acts. For example, Act 626 of 1989 stated: • It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that some cities in the state are in urgent need of additional revenues to finance tourist oriented facilities to promote the tourist industry in the state and to thereby produce much needed general revenue receipts for the state [oa Arkansas; that this http://wxvw.accessarkansas.org/ag/opinions/docs/2003-260.html 9/26/2003 Page 4 of 51 act is designed to authorize certain cities to increase the tax on gross receipts of hotels, motels and restaurants in such cities to produce such essential revenues[.] • Acts 1989, No. 626, § 7. Under the act's methodology, both the city and the tourism businesses that attract tourism business to the city will presumably receive a benefit. The act's method of raising the needed revenue was to authorize the levy of a tax on the businesses that will likely attract tourist revenue to the city, and that will, in turn, benefit from the increased tourism that will result from the uses that will be made by the tax proceeds. This method allows both the city and the tourism businesses that attract business to the city to receive a benefit. Clearly, both the city in which a catering business is located, and the cities in which it hosts events, receive a benefit from that caterer's business. The caterer, in turn, receives a benefit from the tourism- related improvements made by both. cities that will bring in more business. However, the city in which the caterer is located will presumably receive the primary benefit from the presence of that business in the city (at least indirectly), through such means as the establishment of the business's bank accounts, the business's (and its owners' and employees ') expenditures and payment of sales taxes, the business's (and its owners' and employees') addition to the property tax base, its investment in community projects, etc. Although the cities in which the caterer hosts events also receive a benefit from the business of the caterer, the benefit to those cities can be presumed to be secondary to the benefit received by the city in which the caterer is located. I acknowledge that this result will not always be the case; however, it can safely be presumed to be the case most consistently. It follows, thus, that the city in which the caterer is located should have the primary right to tax the 40caterer's transactions. However, if the city in which the caterer is located does not have an advertising and promotion tax (or if the caterer is not located in a city), but the other city does have such a tax, the purpose of the act will not be served and the benefit that was intended to result from the act will be lost if that other city is not allowed to tax the caterer's transaction for an event held in the other city. In this way (by sustaining the intended primary benefit to the city in which the caterer is located, and by permitting the other city to benefit secondarily), both cities will generate improvements that will ultimately draw tourists and will bring the intended benefits both to themselves and to the caterer. I believe that while this interpretation is not without flaws, it will most consistently serve the purpose of the Advertising and Promotion Commission Act. I do not intend to suggest that the intended benefits of the act could not occur under other interpretations of the act; rather, I suggest that they would occur less consistently. For this reason, I opt for an interpretation of the act under which the cities in which catering businesses are located have the primary right to tax those businesses' transactions, if those cities have an advertising and promotion tax, and if they do not have such a tax (or if the caterer is not located in a city), the cities in which those businesses conduct events may tax the transaction. Under this interpretation, Bentonville may tax the catering business's transactions if Bentonville has an advertising and promotion tax, and Fayetteville may tax transactions for events held in Fayetteville only if Bentonville does not have such a tax (and Fayetteville does have such a tax).W Once again, I emphasize that this interpretation is not mandated by the Advertising and Promotion Commission Act. Rather, it is the interpretation that I find would most consistently serve the intent and purpose of the act. The General Assembly should clarify this issue. • Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Antley prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve. http://www.accessarkansas.org/ag/opinions/docs/2003-260.htmi 9/26/2003 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS • KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WMAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO : A & P Commission CC : Casey Jones, Fayetteville City Prosecutor FROM : Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: October 10, 2003 RE: HMR Tax Collection City Prosecutor Casey Jones ' HMR report is attached. Prosecutor Jones collected $2,189.00 last month to bring our current overdue HMR tax collections so far this year to • a total of $40,990.06. I will be out of town at a Continuing Education Seminar on October 13111 and so cannot attend your meeting. I would appreciate any feedback or instructions concerning my letter to you discussing the Attorney General ' s Opinion about HMR taxes applying to caterers. Until otherwise instructed by you and the City Council, I will not draft any amendment.