Napa County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
Napa Valley Transient Occupancy Tax: How much is being lost?*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
The most recurring items of noncompliance were the lack of acceptable records and the underreporting of gross receipts by the operators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Local governmental agencies provide an operator with a copy of the local ordinance/municipal code and all forms needed to file and remit TOT.
F2
Not every local governmental agency provides adequate information to a new operator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Licensing departments alert local Finance Departments when issuing new licenses to TOT applicants indicating number of rooms for transient occupancy. Local governmental agencies follow the municipal code/local ordinance in assessing penalties and interest.
F3
There is a lack of communication between the Finance Departments and the licensing departments of the local governmental agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The City of Napa recommendations: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
F4
Provisions in the municipal codes/ordinances for interest and penalties are not being executed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Tax administrator to notify City Council or BOS of all past TOT, interest and penalties considered for waiver.
F5
The tax administrator has sole discretion to waive TOT and/or interest and penalties due local governmental agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
City of Napa establish adequate methods for tracking TOT, including past due amounts and consider purchase of software specifically designed to facilitate accounting for this tax.
F6
Audits provided by the Cities and the County of Napa show past due TOT has not been collected from 2005 to the present.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Local governmental agencies expand the municipal code to include the cost of auditing if the operator does not have adequate records.
F7
The City of Napa does not have an adequate method of tracking its TOT revenue, relying in part on an out-of-date manual accounting system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Internal audits or contingency audits should be conducted with regularity.
F8
Most local governmental agencies do not have an accurate record of how many rooms are available for transient occupancy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Enforce the provision in the municipal code assessing the cost of auditing to an operator who does not have adequate records.
F9
The Cities and County do not conduct audits with any degree of frequency or regularity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Each local governmental agency improve its oversight and enforcement of the TOT. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The 2008-2009 Grand Jury requests responses from:
F10
Potential revenue from uncollected TOT, interest, and penalties in the millions of dollars is being lost throughout the county.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1The 2008-2009 Grand Jury commends the City of St. Helena for having the foresight to employ up-to-date technology for tracking the collection of TOT. The Grand Jury also commends the auxiliary Finance Department personnel of the various cities for their efforts in collecting TOT. The Grand Jury is appreciative of the cooperation and assistance provided by representatives of the Napa County Auditor/Controller’s Department. 12
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Napa
Agency
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.