Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 6, 2012 - General Municipal Election - Measure Z - City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachea.gov Office ®f the City Clerk 17 7g69 ' Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE TO VOTERS OF DATE AFTER WHICH NO ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST A CITY MEASURE (TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER RELATING TO LEVY OF PROPERTY TAX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES) MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: "Shall the proposed Charter Amendment, amending Section YES 607 of the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach entitled Tax Limits, as set forth in the proposed measure be approved?" No NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9, Section 9282(a) of the Elections Code of the State of California, for a measure placed on the ballot by petition, the person filing an initiative petition pursuant to this article may file a written argument in favor of the ordinance, and the legislative body may submit an argument against the ordinance, not to exceed 300 words in length, accompanied by the printed name(s)and signature(s) of the author(s)submitting it. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, based upon the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and sample ballots for the election, the City Clerk has fixed July 16, 2012, during normal office hours, as posted, as the date after which no arguments for or against the City measure to amend the Charter may be submitted to the clerk for printing and distribution to the voters as provided in Article 4. Arguments shall be submitted to the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it at the City Hall, Huntington Beach, California. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the city council had determined that rebuttal arguments, not to exceed 260 words in length, as submitted by the authors of the opposing direct arguments, may be filed with the clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. The final date for rebuttals to be delivered to the City Clerk is July 26, 2012 at close of business day. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any ordinance, impartial analysis, or direct argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10 calendar days from the deadline for the filing of the arguments and analysis. Any rebuttal argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10'calendar days from rrthe deadline for filing rebuttal arguments. �'` 1 tom;r--4�, -`�'_ `�� j -:_�7 G✓ Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o hayed by the C , � Hunk nqton each In the Dated: July 3, 2012 Offs of t 0-', -4, Jfat I tbls J public notice on the ..��r��I G!� buMn board i at the lct a-r on et C" a PP-, Date hhppSister Cities: Anjo, Japan ♦ Waitakere,New Zealand tb _.,. ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE Z REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE Z This line item, $6.25 a month for a home with an assessed value of Opponents of Measure Z sound like Chicken Little,having you believe the $500,000, generates$4.2 million dollars a year for the City of Huntington sky will fall in Huntington Beach if Measure Z passes. Beach. "When your house is being burglarized, is on fire,or you're having a heart If this measure passes, the City will lose these funds, but will still be attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time of contractually required to pay for the benefits. If passed, each year the our police and fire departments,"they say. general fund will lose$4.2 million dollars. What do response times have to do with retirement benefits? The city has made$29.5 million dollars in cuts over the last five years,and Are the opponents of Measure Z saying public safety employees won't do our services are stretched woefully thin. their sworn duty if they contribute an appropriate share to their own If passed, there will be serious repercussions for Huntington Beach retirement? residents.The city will be forced to make more cuts including: Huntington Beach deserves better than scare tactics and threats from • Eliminate Five Police Officers elected officials. • Eliminate the Crime Scene Investigation Unit Measure Z is about fairness and City Hall employees paying their fair share. • Eliminate the Urban Search and Rescue Program Newport Beach isn't a dangerous gangland. Firemen and Police Officers are protecting Seal Beach and Fountain Valley every day. Yet these cities • Eliminate Fire Department Hazmat Response have no extra tax on their homes. • Closing Two Branch Libraries No other Orange County city forces a second property tax to subsidize the • Reduction of Hours at the Central Library retirements of City Hall workers. Huntington Beach is the only one. • Closing the Huntington Beach Art Center We are not surprised that the same elected officials who did the union's bidding and granted these outlandish benefits are now thumbing their nose • 45%Reduction in Park Maintenance at the taxpayer. These are real consequences, and will go into effect immediately if We don't need to cut our budget—we need City Hall employees to pay their passed. fair share like they do in other cities. We agree it is imperative that the City continues to negotiate reductions in The sky isn't falling.Huntington Beach is and will continue to be safe. employee pension benefits and that city employees pay their fair share of pension costs. The City Council has unanimously directed the City It is time City Hall employees pay their fair share. It is time to get rid of Manager to negotiate for all employees to pay their full share of pension Huntington Beach's extra property tax,Vote Yes on Measure Z. costs as contracts expire in the next two years. s/Don Hansen However,this poorly written measure will severely limit the City's ability to Mayor,City of Huntington Beach fund its current and ongoing pension obligations. s/Reed Royalty When your house is being burglarized, is on fire,or you're having a heart President Emeritus,Orange County Taxpayers Association attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time s/Allan Mansoor of our police and fire departments. Former Orange County Deputy Sheriff and California State Assemblyman Our public services enhance our property values. This measure threatens the wonderful quality of life we have in Huntington Beach. Please Vote NO on this ill-conceived charter amendment. For more information visit http://www.SaveOurHB.com s/Connie Boardman Councilwoman,City of Huntington Beach s/Keith Bohr Councilman,City of Huntington Beach s/Joe Shaw ya y1 Councilman,City of Huntington Beach 'i REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE Z Opponents of Measure Z sound like Chicken Little,having you believe the sky will fall in Huntington Beach if Measure Z passes. When your house is being burglarized,is on fire,or you're having a heart attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time of our police and fire departments,"they say. What do response times have to do with retirement benefits? Are the opponents of Measure Z saying public safety employees won't do their sworn duty if they contribute an appropriate share to their own retirement? Huntington Beach deserves better than scare tactics and threats from elected officials. Measure Z is about fairness and City Hall employees paying their fair share. Newport Beach isn't a dangerous gangland. Firemen and Police Officers are protecting Seal Beach and Fountain Valley every day. Yet these cities have no extra tax on their homes. No other Orange County city forces a second property tax to subsidize the retirements of City Hall workers. Huntington Beach is the only one. We are not surprised that the same elected officials who did the union's bidding and granted these outlandish benefits are now thumbing their nose at the taxpayer. We don't need to cut our budget—we need City Hall employees to pay their fair share like they do in other cities. The sky isn't falling. Huntington Beach is and will continue to be safe. It is time City Hall employees pay their fair share. It is time to get rid of Huntington Beach's extra property tax,Vote Yes on Measure Z. s/Don Hansen Mayor,City of Huntington Beach s/Reed Royalty President Emeritus,Orange Counity Taxpayers Association s/Allan Mansoor Former Orange County Deputy Sheriff and California State Assemblyman ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE Z Huntington Beach is unique in so many ways.It is why we all live here. We have the longest coastline in Orange County. We are the only Orange County city to have a World Champion Little League team. We host the U.S.Open of Surfing. And we are the only Orange County city that requires property owners to pay an extra tax to subsidize some City Hall employees'retirements. You read that right. For years,every property owner has been paying an extra property tax to cover the cost of some City Hall employees'retirements. Go look at your tax bill,it is right there in black and white:"Huntington Beach City Employee Retirement." And since 2002,the City Council has raised this tax five times,raising it by 115%. Other Orange County cities make their employees pay their own fair share of their retirement. We are the only city that forces taxpayers to pay extra, so that City Hall employees don't have to. That's what Measure Z is all about. Partnering with Mayor Don Hansen,we set out to stand up for Huntington Beach taxpayers and eliminate this tax. Our taxes should be used to pay for more policemen and more firefighters. We should prioritize keeping our city beautiful by cleaning and protecting our coastal shores and wetlands. But instead, we taxpayers are being forced to have our taxes used to subsidize the retirements for City Hall employees. That's just wrong. The Orange County Register recently wrote "Huntington Beach voters would do themselves a favor by ending this tax." By voting YES on Measure Z, Huntington Beach will no longer be the only Orange County city that forces taxpayers to pay an extra property tax to subsidize the retirements of City Hall employees. YES on Measure Z. www.stor)theHBtax.com s/Frank Morrell Huntington Beach Taxpayer Rebuttal to Argument to apposition to Measure opponents of Measure_,_,sound like Chicken Little,having you believe the sky will fall in Huntington Beach If Measure_passes. "When your house is being burglarized,is on fire,or you're having a heart attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time of our police and fire departments,"they say. What do response times have to do with retirement benefits? Are the opponents of Measure_,saying public safety employees won't do their sworn duty if they contribute an appropriate share to their own retirement? Huntington Reach desentes better than scare tactics and threats from elected officials. Measure_is about fairness and city Hall employees paying their fair share. Newport Beath isn't a dangerous gangland.Firemen and Police Officers are protecting Seal Beach and Fountain Valley every day. Yet these cities have no extra tax on their homes. No tither Orange county city forces a second property tax to subsidize the retirements of City Mall workers,,Huntington Beach is the only one. We are not surprised that the same elected officials who did the unlfln's bidding and granted these outlandish benefits are now thumbing their nose at the taxpayer. We don't need to cut our budget—we need city Flail employees to pay their fair share likes they do in other cities. The sky Isn't failing.Huntington Beach is and will continue to be safe. !t is time City Hall employees pay their fair share. it is time to get rid of Huntington Beach's extra property tax,Vote Yes on Measure_ Don Hansen Mayor—cl of Huntlrngton Beach Reed Royalty t LIC President Emeritus— nge Cot,nj Taxpayers s'ctation Allan Mansoor � Farmer orange c n Deputy Sheriff and Calftrnfa State Assemblyman Rebuttal to Argument In Opposition to Measure Opponents of Measure_sound like Chicken Little, having you believe the sky will fall in Huntington Beach if Measure_passes. "When your house is being burglarized, is on fire, or you're having a heart attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time of our police and fire departments,"they say. What do response times have to do with retirement benefits? Are the opponents of Measure_saying public safety employees won't do their sworn duty if they contribute an appropriate share to their own retirement? Huntington Beach deserves better than scare tactics and threats from elected officials. Measure_is about fairness and City Hall employees paying their fair share. Newport Beach isn't a dangerous gangland. Firemen and Police Officers are protecting Seal Beach and Fountain Valley every day. Yet these cities have no extra tax on their homes. No other Orange County city forces a second property tax to subsidize the retirements of City Hall workers. Huntington Beach is the only one. We are not surprised that the same elected officials who did the union's bidding and granted these outlandish benefits are now thumbing their nose at the taxpayer. We don't need to cut our budget—we need City Hall employees to pay their fair share like they do in other cities. The sky isn't falling. Huntington Beach is and will continue to be safe. It is time City Hall employees pay their fair share. It is time to get rid of Huntington Beach's extra property tax,Vote Yes on Measure_ Don Hansen Mayor—Ci Huntington Beach Reed Royalty President Emeritus AntyDeputy e County Taxpayers Association Allan Mansoor ✓� Former Orange C Sheriff and California State Assemblyman r, ;p 2012 AUG - 1 P.'1 4: 26 ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SI.G'NiREBUTTAL'=ARGUMENT The following majority of 1 authors of the Argument mrn Favor of ❑ Against Measure authorize the following person(s) to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument ❑ In Favor of Q Against Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument o In Favor of oAgainst Measure are required: Name (print) Frank Morrell Date: / A Signature: � 'lo.,,�, as Name (print): Date: Signature: Name (print): Date: Signature: The following authors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument ❑ In Favor of ip,,A ainst Measure Printed Name: Date: Title: ,frc,e)r 1� S n � c� Signature: Printed Name J ,�/�--J Date: Title:1���r - ,�� Wq Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: 08/01/2012 11:11 9492400304 REED ROYALTY PAGE 01/01 r titan I PiN k' ti ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT The following ma'o i of-1I , authors of the Argument vTn Favor of o Against Measure authorize the follow,,ippg person(s) to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument ❑ In Favor of against Mr:asure. for the City of Huntington Reach Municipal Eleotion to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument xqh"Favor of t7Against Measure are required: Name (print).Fnalik Mor el! Date-.— Signature: =�" Name(print); bate: Signature:.. Name (print): Date: Signature: The following authors are our prized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the u Ar ment u In Favor of WAAQWnst Measure Printed Name;^ � �, �`!. `'� ' Date: ,c V SWi !J 2 0!'' GdC11UT'Y f Title: -�,fir `i �` c� � OA� Signature: ; Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date; Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: - Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title' Signature: f III' 4 I nA/n1 /7n17 11 • 17C)M Ir,MT—n7 . nn� Attach this form to the Statement of Authors Fgr "m►tted with the Argument oln Favor of oAgainst pleasure REBUTTALS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF REBUTTALS All rebuttals concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the rebuttal: The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the Rebuttal to the Argument (In Favor of/Against) Measure at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: Don Hansen Date: 8-1-12 Title:Mayor - City of Huntington Beach Signature Printed Name: Reed Royalty Date: 8-1-12 Title:President Emeritus - OC Taxpayers Association Signature: Printed Name: Allan Mansoor Date: 8-1-12 Title:Former OC Deputy Sheriff and CA Assemblyman Signature: %f Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: 08/01/2012 14:20 9492400304 REED ROYALTY PAGE 01/01 Li 21 Attach this form to the Statement of Authors Form hbbffiittbd With the Argument ain Favor of c Against Measure REBUTTALS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF REBUTTALS All rebuttals concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the rebuttal., The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the Rebuttal to the Argument(in Favor of/Against) Measure 'at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: Don Hansen Date: 8-1-12 Title:Mayor - city of Huntington Beach Signature: Printed Name: Reed Royalty Date- 8-1-12 P.rnqj.d(�.nt Emeritus - W Taxpay0%,rq ASSaciation Titie: Signature: Printed Name, Allan Mansoor Date: 8 1-12 Title:rom,r 0C Dt�puty Sheriff- and CA Assemblyman Signature: Printed Name'. Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: 08/01/2012 2 : 26PM (GMT-07 : 00) ti tl ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REl§`UTTAL'ARGUMENT The following maWitv of�_authors of the Argument An Favor of ❑Against Measure authorize the following person(s)to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument44n Favor of VAgainst Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument An Favor of c7 Against Measure are required.- Name (print): Frank Morrell Date:7-16-12 Signature Name (print): Date: Signature: } Name(print): Date: Signature: The following uthors are a thorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument.. rn Favor of VAgainst Measure Printed Name: Don Hansen Date: 7-16-1 ., Title: Mayor—City of Huntington Beach Signature: I Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date. Title: Signature: Z' E i r 1 L =�; .> �; "L ARGUMENTS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary Argumen In Favor O/Against) Measure at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington each to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: Frank Morrell Date: 7-16-2012 Title: Huntington Beach Taxpayer Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Argument In Favor of Measure Huntington Beach is unique in so many ways. It is why we all live here. G 12 Su r We have the longest coastline in Orange County: 2 Ul 6 ii i "o 114 c, We are the only Orange County city to have a World Champion Little League team. We host the U.S. Open of Surfing. f And we are the only Orange County City that requires property owners to pay an extra tax to subsidize some City Hall employees'retirements. You read that right. For years,every property owner has been paying an extra property tax to cover the cost of some City Hall employees' retirements. Go look at your tax bill, it is right there in black and white: "Huntington Beach City Employee Retirement." /l And since 2002,the City Council has raised this tax five times,,raising it by 115%. Every other Orange County city makes their employees pay their own fair share of their retirement. We are the only city that forces taxpayers to pay extra,aso that City Hall employees don't have to. That's what Measure is all about. r Partnering with Mayor Don Hansen,we set out to stand up for Huntington Beach taxpayers and eliminate this tax. If these City Hail employees were paying their fair share, more money would be available to pay for more Policemen, more Firefighters. More would be available to keep our City beautiful by cleaning and protecting our costal shores and wetlands. But instead,we taxpayers are being forced to have our taxes used to subsidize the retirements for City Hall employees. That's just wrong. The Orange County Register recently wrote"Huntington Beach voters would do themselves a favor by ending this tax." By voting YES on Measure Huntington Beach will no longer be the only Orange County City that forces taxpayers to pay an extra property tax to/ the retirements of City Hall employees. YES on Measure—. www.stoptheH Btax.com Frank Morrell Huntington Beach Taxpayer Argument In Favor of Measure F-, Huntington Beach is unique in so many ways.It is why we all live here. We have the longest coastline in Orange County. 2012 JUL 16 P-1 3- 42 We are the only Orange County city to have a World Champion Little League team.' We host the U.S.Open of Surfing. And we are the only Orange County City that requires property owners to pay an extra tax to subsidize some City Hall employees'retirements. You read that right. For years,every property owner has been paying an extra property tax to cover the cost of some City Hall employees' retirements. Go look at your tax bill,it is right there in black and white:"Huntington Beach City Employee Retirement." And since 2002,the City Council has raised this tax five times,raising it by 115%. Every other Orange County city makes their employees pay their own fair share of their retirement. We are the only city that forces taxpayers to pay extra,so that City Hall employees don't have to. That's what Measure_is all about. Partnering with Mayor Don Hansen,we set out to stand up for Huntington Beach taxpayers and eliminate this tax. If these City Hall employees were paying their fair share,more money would be available to pay for more Policemen, more Firefighters.More would be available to keep our City beautiful by cleaning and protecting our costal shores and wetlands. But instead,we taxpayers are being forced to have our taxes used to subsidize the retirements for City Hall employees. That's just wrong. The Orange County Register recently wrote"Huntington Beach voters would do themselves a favor by ending this tax." By voting YES on Measure J Huntington Beach will no longer be the only Orange County City that forces taxpayers to pay an extra property tax to subsidize the retirements of City Hall employees. YES on Measure_ www.stoptheHBtax.com Frank Morrell Huntington Beach Taxpayer ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE Z This line item, $6.25 a month for a home with an assessed value of $500,000, generates$4.2 million dollars a year for the City of Huntington Beach. If this measure passes, the City will lose these funds, but will still be contractually required to pay for the benefits. Ifpassed, each year the general fund will lose$4.2 million dollars. The city has made$29.5 million dollars in cuts over the last five years,and our services are stretched woefully thin. If passed, there will be serious repercussions for Huntington Beach residents.The city will be forced to make more cuts including: • Eliminate Five Police Officers • Eliminate the Crime Scene Investigation Unit • Eliminate the Urban Search and Rescue Program • Eliminate Fire Department Hazmat Response • Closing Two Branch Libraries • Reduction of Hours at the Central Library • Closing the Huntington Beach Art Center • 45%Reduction in Park Maintenance These are real consequences, and will go into effect immediately if passed. We agree it is imperative that the City continues to negotiate reductions in employee pension benefits and that city employees pay their fair share of pension costs. The City Council has unanimously directed the City Manager to negotiate for all employees to pay their full share of pension costs as contracts expire in the next two years. However,this poorly written measure will severely limit the City's ability to fund its current and ongoing pension obligations. When your house is being burglarized, is on fire,or you're having a heart attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time of our police and fire departments. Our public services enhance our property values. This measure threatens the wonderful quality of life we have in Huntington Beach. Please Vote NO on this ill-conceived charter amendment. For more information visit http://www.SaveOurHB.com s/Connie Boardman Councilwoman,City of Huntington Beach s/Keith Bohr \ Councilman,City of Huntington Beach s/Joe Shaw �1 Councilman,City of Huntington Beach �✓ p L:b ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT The following majority of 3 authors of the Argument ❑ In Favor of 56 Against Measure authorize the following person(s)to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument 6g In Favor of ❑ Against Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument oln Favor of Against Measure are required: ­V Name (print): 4 96�r_ Date: /G Signature: o� Name (print): P.onn1e- 026-d Marl Date: -7Signature: Name Name (print): �� J Date: Ze Signature: The following thors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument "In Favor of ❑ Against Measure Printed Name: Sf'�,�� Uffia Date: 7-/&-/ Title:�o/'ryJ�i' yo� Signatur G Printed Name: - � �o ko- Date: -7 Ito Title:"� Sig nature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBL7AL ARGI`1MEN,T The following ma0orityof 3 authors of the Argument ❑ In Favor of VAgainst Measure authorize the following person(s) to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument p In Favor of ❑ Against Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument o in Favor of PAgainst Measure are required. Name (print): 00VI� t e� ' .v-c VA Date: -7 [2 1 2- Signature: 02:-Z24LA'Q — a --' Name (print): LJ Date: Signature: Name (print): �=i�t G Date: Signature: 'i G The following authors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument Aln Favor of ❑ Against Measure Printed Name: Gy4Ce W 60,64 -P-k1 Date: t2- Title: f�arp-' Signature:See 00n D VAt 5L fay- Printed Name: D-e) \jL�e- Date: -11 t fl lz_ Title: (z" 2w�e� H of, Ct, 1-km6j 6- Signature: S,z-Q- ton�wm Lv St Q pate' Printed Name: 11 ffal� Date: Title: ()��V a C �J h� Signature: Printed Name. ',4 ISA4 Date: Title: �> Si nature: S J Printed Name: J lrl' zl�li) Date: ifs Z Title: / r' Signature 'See-7b "- f IYJ Ju1, 14. 2012 6 , 10PM ,FRED MEYER #603 CID 360-427-2968 No. 1465 P. 1 C e u Ilk�'v,� v. Y-q a, c o o vY.a, Fa 3-71+ 5 7 ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT The following m%g&of '? .authors of the Argument c�i In Favor of quAgainst Measure . authorize the following person(s)to prepare,submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument p In Favor of o Against Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal'Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6,2012. Signatunm$of a majority of the authors of the Argument D to Favor of O Against meesure are required: Name(print) iy rY --' Date: Signature: , 1 • ,; �.. !'.. ` Name(print)_ Date: Signature: t E Name(print), Date: Signature: The following authors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument In Favor of o Against Measure Printed Name: %rgcQ Date: 7�(y 1 S� Tifle:Po r yr a.r ma 'au <i1 PA¢mb �Signatur . Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date.- Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date; Title: Signature: ARGUMENTS 2012 JUL 16 P 11 1 . 4,4 AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT The following majority of 3 authors of the Argument o In Favor of [Against Measure authorize the following person(s)to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument p In Favor of o Against Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Signa a>aa of a majority of the authors of the Argument v In favor of pAgainst mewj r+a are requited., Name (print): (.; _M N e- : x� c1Y`ACI Vt Date: -7 1:3 tj 2__ Signature: „ �1Jci1ti� Name(print): �.1 �� Date: � Signature: Name (print): Date: Signature: The foilovvi authors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument In Favor of o A ainst Measure _ Printed Name: De i e- Date: J4 � S � *2-O 1 2-- Title:w�91+� Signature: z. Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date. Title: Signature: Printed Name: Dane: Title: Signature: 4v ARGUMENTS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY LL r AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the argument: he undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary Argument (In Favor o gains ) Measure at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: Covio t.e_' rd mail Date: l i3 r2— Title:�aui�tu� l��ia� , �;tu2t ? Signature: Printed Name: Date: 710( ti�-' Title: LU;J� ' V�GLv1 Signature: ^ V Printed Name: Date: 7• lG//Q, Title: -� � Signature, � a"u� cH Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE Z REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE Z Huntington Beach is unique in so many ways.It is why we all live here. For over a century the people of Huntington Beach have advanced and We have the longest coastline in Orange County. safeguarded our great community. We are the only Orange County city to have a World Champion Little We have 10 miles of public beaches, hundreds of acres of parks, miles of League team. bicycle/walking trails, world class wetlands, libraries, sports complexes, senior center, nature center, community garden, and museums. These We host the U.S.Open of Surfing. treasures are not free. They are financially supported by the General And we are the only Orange County city that requires property owners to Fund.Measure Z jeopardizes what five generations have fought so hard to pay an extra tax to subsidize some City Hall employees'retirements. create and protect. You read that right. If this measure passes the city will lose$4.2 million a year forever.To make up for this huge loss: For years,every property owner has been paying an extra property tax to cover the cost of some City Hall employees'retirements. ^ Less revenue will be available to keep our City beautiful,not more. Go look at your tax bill,it is right therein black and white:"Huntington Beach • Less will be available to protect our coast and wetlands,not more. City Employee Retirement." • Less will be available to hire additional Police and Firefighters,not And since 2002,the City Council has raised this tax five times,raising it by more. 115%. The city council has not raised this source of revenue since 2009. In July, Other Orange County cities make their employees pay their own fair share council approved introduction of Ordinance 3954 capping the rate"AS of their retirement. IS." If reconsidered and approved,Council cannot ever raise the rate We are the only city that forces taxpayers to pay extra, so that City Hall again. employees don't have to. Measure Z does not end the city's obligations. It forces cuts in public That's what Measure Z is all about. services, all for the price of one decent restaurant meal per year. Our employees do contribute toward their pensions.Many currently pay 75%of Partnering with Mayor Don Hansen,we set out to stand up for Huntington the maximum percentage allowed toward their benefits. Beach taxpayers and eliminate this tax. Measure Z is an attempt to reverse what the voters approved decades ago. Our taxes should be used to pay for more policemen and more firefighters. If Measure Z is passed,it will harm our city. We should prioritize keeping our city beautiful by cleaning and protecting our coastal shores and wetlands. Join us and other city leaders in opposing Measure Z. But instead, we taxpayers are being forced to have our taxes used to Please Vote NO on Measure Z. subsidize the retirements for City Hail employees. That's just wrong. www.SaveOurHB.com The Orange County Register recently wrote "Huntington Beach voters s/Ralph Bauer would do themselves a favor by ending this tax." Former Mayor By voting YES on Measure Z, Huntington Beach will no longer be the only s/Gil Coerper Orange County city that forces taxpayers to pay an extra property tax to Former Mayor subsidize the retirements of City Hall employees. s/Debbie Cook YES on Measure Z. Former Mayor www.stootheHBtax.com s/Shirley Dettloft s/Frank Morrell Former Mayor Huntington Beach Taxpayer s/Jill Hardy Former Mayor REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE Z For over a century the people of Huntington Beach have advanced and safeguarded our great community. We have 10 miles of public beaches, hundreds of acres of parks,miles of bicycle/walking trails, world class wetlands, libraries, sports complexes, senior center, nature center, community garden, and museums. These treasures are not free. They are financially supported by the General Fund.Measure Z jeopardizes what five generations have fought so hard to create and protect. If this measure passes the city will lose$4.2 million a year forever.To make up for this huge loss: • Less revenue will be available to keep our City beautiful,not more. • Less will be available to protect our coast and wetlands,not more. • Less will be available to hire additional Police and Firefighters,not more. The city council has not raised this source of revenue since 2009. In July, council approved introduction of Ordinance 3954 capping the rate"AS IS." If reconsidered and approved,Council cannot ever raise the rate again. Measure Z does not end the city's obligations. It forces cuts in public services, all for the price of one decent restaurant meal per year. Our employees do contribute toward their pensions.Many currently pay 75%of the maximum percentage allowed toward their benefits. Measure Z is an attempt to reverse what the voters approved decades ago. If Measure Z is passed,it will harm our city. Join us and other city leaders in opposing Measure Z. Please Vote NO on Measure Z. www.SaveOurHB.com s/Ralph Bauer Former Mayor s/Gil Coerper Former Mayor s/Debbie Cook Former Mayor s/Shirley Dettloff Former Mayor s/Jill Hardy Former Mayor ARGUMENTS 2012 AUG' _ I PM : 35 AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT 1 :: . _. ... €....r. i The following maoority of authors of the Argument ❑ In Favor of o-Against Measure authorize the following person(s) to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument E�rfh Favor of ❑ Against Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument o In Favor of ff-Against Measure are required: Name (print): Date: 3 f z Signature: Name (print): VU2 � ^ Date: �� G Signature: Name (print): Date: Signature: The following authors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument 21n Favor of ❑ Against Measure Printed Name: I Cbex- ef- Date: Title: - ;VLSignature: Printed Name: kO ` 1-p/j Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Attach this form to the Statement of Authors Form submitted with the Argument o In Favor of &?Against Measure REBUTTALS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF REBUTTALS All rebuttals concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the rebuttal: CID The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the Rebuttal to the Argument (Im avor. f/Against) Measure at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington _ eo be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the rebuttal is true and corrPst to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. - �► Printed Name: 611 CCe"(P ey- Date: i�2`�I 12-- Title: FpjzME2 Signature: Printed Name: .L 0—bolt— Date: I Title:-F-0rnAe� or Q U. , Signature: ' Printed Name: `f i JIlt Date: Title: Signature- Printed Name: ^��f �U Date: Title: �, , of �,l :� o� Signat e- Printed Name: )eA&P414 d441A Date: 7/,2 Title:FGx-yM �9 d���.r,>�n���w/Sr- �t Signature Rebuttal To Argument in Favor of Measure For over a century the people of Huntington Beach have advanced and safeguarded our great community. We have 10 miles of public beaches,hundreds of acres of parks,miles of bicycle and walking trails,world class wetlands,libraries,a sports complex, senior center,nature center,community garden, and museums. These treasures are not free. They are financially supported by the General Fund. Measure_jeopardizes what five generations have fought so hard to create and protect If this measure passes the city will lose 4.2 million dollars a year forever.To make up for this huge loss: • Less revenue will be available to keep our City beautiful,not more. • Less will be available to protect our coast and wetlands,not more. • Less will be available to hire additional Police and Firefighters,not more. The city council has not raised this source of revenue since 2009,and the council voted to cap it forever. The rate can never be raised again without voter approval. Measure_does not end the city's obligations. It forces cuts in public services,all for the price of one dece t�xestaurant meal per year. Our employees do contribute toward their pensions.Many currently pay 8!44/o of the maximum percentage of their inea a allowed toward their benefits. Measure_is an attempt to reverse what the voters approved decades ago. If Measure_is passed, it will harm our city. Join us and other city leaders in opposing Measure_. ! Please Vote NO on Measure www.SaveOurHB.com w _.y cri J�h//0 cl Rebuttal To Argument in Favor of Measure_ For over a century the people of Huntington Beach have advanced and safeguarded our great community. We have 10 miles of public beaches, hundreds of acres of parks, miles of bicycle/walking trails,world class wetlands, libraries, sports complexes, senior center, nature center, community garden,and museums. These treasures are not free. They are financially supported by the General Fund. Measure_jeopardizes what five generations have fought so hard to create and protect. If this measure passes the city will lose $4.2 million a year forever. To make up for this huge loss: • Less revenue will be available to keep our City beautiful, not more. • Less will be available to protect our coast and wetlands,not more. • Less will be available to hire additional Police and Firefighters, not more. The city council has not raised this source of revenue since 2009. In July, council approved introduction of Ordinance 3954 capping the rate"AS IS." approved, Council cannot ever raise the rate again. X-f I'etor►S�dcd Measure_does not end the city's obligations. It forces cuts in public services, all for the price of one decent restaurant meal per year. Our employees do contribute toward their pensions. Many currently pay 75%of the maximum percentage allowed toward their benefits. Measure_is an attempt to reverse what the voters approved decades ago. If Measure_is passed, it will harm our city. Join us and other city leaders in opposing Measure_. Please Vote NO on Measure_. www.SaveOurHB.com s/Ralph Bauer, Former Mayor s/Gil Coerper, Former Mayor s/Debbie Cook, Former Mayor /s/Shirley Dettloff, Former Mayor, s/Jill Hardy, Former Mayor Rebuttal To Argument in Favor of Measure For over a century the people of Huntington Beach have advanced and safeguarded our great community. We have 10 miles of public beaches, hundreds of acres of parks,miles of bicycle/walking trails,world class wetlands, libraries, sports complexes, senior center, nature center, community garden,and museums. These treasures are not free. They are financially supported by the General Fund. Measure_jeopardizes what five generations have fought so hard to create and protect. If this measure passes the city will lose$4.2 million a year forever.To make up for this huge loss: • Less revenue will be available to keep our City beautiful,not more. • Less will be available to protect our coast and wetlands, not more. • Less will be available to hire additional Police and Firefighters,not more. The city council has not raised this source of revenue since 2009. In July, council approved introduction of Ordinance 3954 capping the rate "AS IS." approved, Council cannot ever raise the rate again. Measure_does not end the city's obligations. It forces cuts in public services,all for the price of one decent restaurant meal per year. Our employees do contribute toward their pensions. Many currently pay 75% of the maximum percentage allowed toward their benefits. Measure_is an attempt to reverse what the voters approved decades ago. If Measure_is passed, it will harm our city. Join us and other city leaders in opposing Measure_. Please Vote NO on Measure_. www.SaveOurHB.com s/Ralph Bauer, Former Mayor s/Gil Coerper, Former Mayor •� s/Debbie Cook, Former Mayor s/Shirley Dettloff, Former Mayor s/Jill Hardy, Former Mayor IVI Please order names in alphabetical order as below: °? a I'MY ' a Ralph Bauer, Former Mayor Gil Coerper,Former Mayor Debbie Cook, Former Mayor i Shirley Dettloff, Former Mayor Jill Hardy, Former Mayor Argument Against Measure This line item,$6.25 a month for a home with an assessed value of$500,000,generates$4.2 million dollars a year for the City of Huntington Beach. If this measure passes,the City will lose these funds,but will still be contractually required to pay for the benefits. If passed.each year the general fund will lose$4 2 million dollars The city has made$29.5 million dollars in cuts over the last five years,and our services are stretched woefully thin. If passed,there will be serious repercussions for Huntington Beach residents.The city will be forced to make more cuts including: • Eliminate Five Police Officers fk • Eliminate the Crime Scene Investigation Unit • Eliminate the Urban Search and Rescue Program • Eliminate Fire Department Hazmat Response ' :: • Closing Two Branch Libraries - • Reduction of Hours at the Central Library • Closing the Huntington Beach Art Center • 45%Reduction in Park Maintenance These are real consequences,and will go into effect immediately if passed. We agree it is imperative that the City continues to negotiate reductions in employee pension benefits and that city employees pay their fair share of pension costs.The City Council has unanimously directed the City Manager to negotiate for all employees to pay their full share of pension costs as contracts expire in the next two years. However,this poorly written measure will severely limit the City's ability to fund its current and ongoing pension obligations. When your house is being burglarized,is on fire, or you're having a heart attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time of our police and fire departments. Our public services enhance our property values. This measure threatens the wonderful quality of life we have in Huntington Beach. Please Vote NO on this ill-conceived charter amendment. For more information visit http://www.SaveOurHB.com 016nl9le Pxzl rd ro l 4 &ram -9 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - - (714) 536-5227 o www.huntingtonbeachca.gov FfB A°N ® Office of the City Clerk it 799 ® Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk July 25, 2012 Council Members Boardman, Bohr and Shaw City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Re: Requested Revisions to the Argument in Opposition of Measure Dear Council Members, As the City of Huntington. Beach's City Clerk I serve as the Elections Official. The position comes with considerable responsibility to follow and enforce elections laws and standards. One of the laws that I must seek strict compliance of is that all election materials printed and presented to the voters must be true and accurate. In viewing the ballot argument that you submitted I found a clause which violates the standard and I would like to present you with the opportunity to review and edit the statement. The law provides that ballot arguments shall be made available for inspection and copying for a period of ten calendar days following the deadline for submission of those materials. (ELEC. CODE § 9295.) During those ten days, any voter or the elections official may seek a writ of mandate or injunction requiring any of the materials to be amended or deleted. A writ of mandate or an injunction may be issued upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Elections Code, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. The writ may be filed by any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held or the elections official. It must name the elections official as respondent, and the person or official who authored the material in question as real parties in interest. If the elections official brings the mandamus or injunctive action, the board of supervisors of the county shall be named as the respondent and the person or official who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest. (ELEC. CODE § 9295.) Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ® Waitakere,New Zealand Boardman, Bohr, Shaw Letter July 25, 2012 The one clause in which I am requesting a revision is the following sentence: "Our employees will be paying the full share of their pension costs in the next two years." While this may be the goal of the council, there is nothing legally binding the employees to comply with this timeline, thus the statement is not true. I am requesting you modify the sentence so that it indicates this is what Council hopes to achieve. One option might be "The goal of the City Council is that our employees will be paying the full share of their pension costs in the next two years." If you have any questions, please give me a call. In the interest of complying with the law and avoiding unnecessary court proceedings I urge you to revise your ballot argument and resubmit it by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 27tn Rebuttal arguments will now be due on Wednesday, August 1st by 5:00 P.M. Sincerely, oa L. Flynn, CIVIC, M� Ci Clerk Attachment: Impartial Analysis Argument in Favor of Measure Huntington Beach is unique in so many ways. It is why we all live'h}ere tt° We have the longest coastline in Orange County. We are the only Orange County city to have a World Champio,n,Little League te_am''`. ,...•- We host the U.S. Open of Surfing. And we are the only Orange County city that requires property owners to pay an extra tax to subsidize some City Hall employees' retirements. You read that right. For years, every property owner has been paying an extra property tax to cover the cost of some City Hall employees' retirements. Go look at your tax bill, it is right there in black and white: "Huntington Beach City Employee Retirement." And since 2002,the City Council has raised this tax five times, raising it by 115%. Other Orange County cities make their employees pay their own fair share of their retirement. We are the only city that forces taxpayers to pay extra, so that City Hall employees don't have to. That's what Measure is all about. Partnering with Mayor Don Hansen, we set out to stand up for Huntington Beach taxpayers and eliminate this tax. Our taxes should be used to pay for more policemen and more firefighters. We should prioritize keeping our city beautiful by cleaning and protecting our coastal shores and wetlands. But instead,we taxpayers are being forced to have our taxes used to subsidize the retirements for City Hall employees. That's just wrong. The Orange County Register recently wrote "Huntington Beach voters would do themselves a favor by ending this tax." By voting YES on Measure_, Huntington Beach will no.longer be the only Orange County city that forces taxpayers to pay an extra property tax to subsidize the retirements of City Hall employees. YES on Measure www.stoptheHBtax.com City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachea.gov mar-G,:v- ;irS„y Office of the City Clerk e Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk July 25, 2012 Mr. Frank Morrell 21181 Shaw Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Re: Requested Revisions to The Argument in Favor of Measure Dear Mr. Morrell, As the City of Huntington Beach's City Clerk I serve as the Elections Official. The position comes with considerable responsibility to follow and enforce elections laws and standards. One of the laws that I must seek strict compliance of is that all election materials printed and presented to the voters must be true and accurate. In viewing the ballot argument that you submitted I found several clauses which violate the standard and I would like to present you with the opportunity to review and edit the statements. The law provides that ballot arguments shall be made available for inspection and copying for a period of calendar days following the deadline for submission of those materials. (ELEC. CODE § 9295.) During those ten days, any voter or the elections official may seek a writ of mandate or injunction requiring any of the materials to be amended or deleted. A writ of mandate or an injunction may be issued upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Elections Code, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. The writ may be filed by any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held or the elections official. It must name the elections official as respondent, and the person or official who authored the material in question as real parties in interest. If the elections official brings the mandamus or injunctive action, the board of supervisors of the county shall be named as the respondent and the person or official who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest. (ELEC. CODE § 9295.) Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ♦ Waitakere, New Zealand Morrell Letter July 25, 2012 The two clauses for which I am requesting a revision are the following paragraphs: "Every other Orange County city makes their employees pay their own fair share of their retirement." I have statistical information which provides the amount each city requires of both their safety and miscellaneous employees toward their pension costs. I can make it available to you if you would like to peruse it. It will show that if you are referring to full payment when you use the words "fair share," then using "every" is false. An accurate statement would be achieved by replacing the word "many" or "some" for the word "every." Your statement could be revised to: Many other Orange County cities make their employees pay their own fair share of their retirement. The final section is: "If these City Hall employees were paying their fair share, more money would be available to pay for more Policemen, more Firefighters. More would be available to keep our City beautiful by cleaning and protecting our coastal shores and wetlands." This is a false statement-the tax can only be collected for the purpose of funding retirement costs. If the tax is repealed by the voters, the City will in fact have even less money for other general purposes because the City is contractually obligated to pay the PERS retirement costs and presumably the obligations would be funded with general fund money, leaving less for other general services. Please refer to the attached impartial analysis, paragraph six for confirmation of this analysis. I am requesting that you revise the above paragraph. In the interest of complying with the law and avoiding unnecessary court proceedings I urge you to revise your ballot argument and resubmit it by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 27cn Rebuttal arguments will now be due on Wednesday, August 1st by 5:00 p.m. Sincerely, r Joan L. Flynn�CMC, M A Cit Jerk Attachment: Impartial Analysis C: Don Hansen Impartial Analysis Prepared By The City Attorney Ballot Measure proposes to amend the Huntington Beach City Charter by repealing Section 607(b)(2) thereof, which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the City's obligations to the state retirement system. Section 404 of the City Charter requires the City"to participate in a retirement system." To meet this requirement, the City has contracted with the California Public Employees' Retirement System(PERS)to provide an employee retirement system. Since at least 1966, Charter Section 607(b)(2)has authorized the City to levy a property tax sufficient to meet the City's retirement obligations. However, the amount of tax the City may levy is limited by other laws. Proposition 13 limits the tax to only pay for the City's retirement obligations that existed in 1978. Consequently, the tax may not pay for any enhancements the City has made to the employee retirement system after 1978. Also, Revenue & Taxation Code Section 96.31(a)(4) limits the City to levying a retirement tax of no more that $49 per $100,000 of assessed value to pay for its retirement system. The City has levied a tax less than these amounts. For fiscal year 2011-12,the actual tax levy was $15 per $100,000 of assessed value, which equals $45 for a home with a$300,000 assessed value. This measure would repeal the City's duty and authority to levy this tax to pay the City's obligations under its contract with PERS, and thereby eliminate the revenue raised by this tax as a funding source for the city's contractual obligations to the state retirement system. The City's general fund would remain liable to continue to pay the City's obligations under its contract with PERS to fund the retirement system. Because the City's general fund is the source for most municipal operations, including public safety and infrastructure maintenance services, repeal of the tax would consequently reduce the amount of City funds available to pay for such municipal services. A"yes"vote would repeal the tax. A"no" vote would leave the tax in place. A majority of "yes" votes is required to repeal the tax. The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure . If you desire a copy of the measure or resolution 2012-32/Exhibit A,please call the elections official's(City Clerk) office at 714-536-5227 and a copy will be mailed to you. In addition, you may obtain a copy at the City website www.huntingtonbeachca.gov. JENNIFER MCGRATH City Attorney Council/Agency Meeting Held: /�, —�2,0/;�.• Deferred/Continued to: " A.", XAppr ve ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Ci ler ' Sign re Council Meeting Date: July, , 2012 Departme D Number: CK 12-007 CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC, City Clerk PREPARED BY: Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC, City Clerk SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 2012-45 consolidating with the County the November 6, 2012 Election as it pertains to the Measure which amends the City Charter, Section 607 entitled Tax Limits Statement of Issue: The County requires all consolidated election ballot items to be enumerated through an adopted resolution. Since the June 4, 2012 adoption of Resolution No. 2012-22 which consolidated the election of city officials, a petition has been submitted, signatures verified as sufficient, and the item accepted by the City Council for addition to the ballot. An additional resolution must now be adopted to authorize the County to consolidate this item into the election by placing the Charter Amendment Measure on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Financial Impact: Funds to cover the full November 6, 2012 election cost (including this initiative) in the amount of $195,000 have been budgeted in the FY 2012-13 City Clerk budget 10010201.69300 — Professional Services. Recommended Action: Motion to: Adopt Resolution No. 2012-45, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, with the Statewide General Election to be held on the date pursuant to § 10403 of the Elections Code." Alternative Action(sll: None. HB -39- Item 5. - I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/16/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK 12-007 Anaiysis: On June 4, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-21 which called for the November 6, 2012, Municipal Election as it pertained to the election of three (3) Council Members, one (1) City Clerk and one (1) City Treasurer. Council also adopted Resolution No. 2012-22 which consolidated the election of those five officials with the Country of Orange. Since that time, the Tax Override Initiative petition which amends the City Charter was submitted by the proponent, signatures verified by the Orange County Registrar of Voters, and was accepted on July 2, 2012, for addition to the November ballot by City Council. The Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Registrar of Voters require all aspects of the City ballot to be consolidated through the adoption of a Resolution listing the items. Therefore, it is necessary to add, by Resolution No. 2012-45, through consolidation with the County of Orange, the Charter Amendment Measure to the November 6, 2012, ballot. Environmental Status: N/A Strategic Plan Goal: N/A (Compliance with the California Elections Code and the Requirements of the Orange County Board of Supervisors/Orange County Registrar of Voters) Attachment(s): Resolution No. 2012-45, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, with the Statewide General Election to be held on the date pursuant to 10403 of the Elections Code" Item 5. - 2 HB -40- ATTACHMENT # 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is submitting to the voters a question relating to a charter amendment, amending section 607 of the Huntington Beach Charter entitled Tax Limits; and It is desirable that the General Municipal election be consolidated with the Statewide General election to be held on November 6, 2012, and that within the City of Huntington Beach the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the County election department of the County of Orange canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, for the purpose of a measure which is to appear on the ballot as follows: "Shall the proposed Charter Amendment, amending YES Section 607 of the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach entitled Tax Limits, as set forth in the proposed �. measure be approved?" NO 2. That the County of Orange election department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. 3. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County of Orange election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election. 4. That the City of Huntington Beach recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs. 1 12-3382.001/81589 Resolution No. 2012-45 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County election department of the County of Orange. 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16 t h day of July , 20 12 . Mayor REVIE D ND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: lid r Ci /ger it Clerk APPROVED ORM: Attorney 12-3382.001/81589 Res. No. 2012-45 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 16, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Ci Clerk and ex-officio Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Argument In Favor of Measure Huntington Beach is unique in so many ways.It is why we all live here. We have the longest coastline in Orange County. i"- s °i,. 3' We are the only Orange County city to have a World Champion Little League team. ; We host the U.S.Open of Surfing. And we are the only Orange County City that requires property owners to pay an extra tax to subsidize some City Hall employees'retirements. You read that right. For years,every property owner has been paying an extra property tax to cover the cost of some City Hall employees' retirements. Go look at your tax bill, it is right there in black and white:"Huntington Beach City Employee Retirement." And since 2002,the City Council has raised this tax five times,raising it by 115%. Every other Orange County city makes their employees pay their own fair share of their retirement. We are the only city that forces taxpayers to pay extra,so that City Hall employees don't have to. That's what Measure is all about. Partnering with Mayor Don Hansen,we set out to stand up for Huntington Beach taxpayers and eliminate this tax. If these City Hall employees were paying their fair share,more money would be available to pay for more Policemen, more Firefighters. More would be available to keep our City beautiful by cleaning and protecting our costal shores and wetlands. But instead,we taxpayers are being forced to have our taxes used to subsidize the retirements for City Hall employees. That's just wrong. The Orange County Register recently wrote"Huntington Beach voters would do themselves a favor by ending this tax." By voting YES on Measure J Huntington Beach will no longer be the only Orange County City that forces taxpayers to pay an extra property tax to subsidize the retirements of City Hall employees. YES on Measure www.stoptheHBtax.com Frank Morrell Huntington Beach Taxpayer r12 1 U 3 1 r"' P-i", ,9 ARGUMENTS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary Argumen In��;D O/Against) Measure at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntingtoneach to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: Frank Morrell Date: 7-16-2012 Title: Huntington Beach Taxpayer Signature: -- _ &/ Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Argument Against Measure This line item,$6.25 a month for a home with an assessed value of$500,000, generates $4.2 million dollars a year for the City of Huntington Beach. If this measure passes,the City will lose these funds,but will still be contractually required to pay for the benefits. if passed each year the general fund will lose$4 2 million dollars The city has made$29.5 million dollars in cuts over the last three years,and our services are stretched woefully thin. If passed,there will be serious repercussions for Huntington Beach residents.The city will be forced to make more cuts including: • Eliminate Five Police Officers • Eliminate the Crime Scene Investigation Unit • Eliminate the Urban Search and Rescue Program f Eliminate Fire Department Hazmat Response ® .n Closing Two Branch Libraries • Reduction of Hours at the Central Library O Closing the Huntington Beach Art Center • 45%Reduction in Park Maintenance These are real consequences,and will go into effect immediately if passed. We agree it is imperative that the City continues to negotiate reductions in employee pension benefits,and that city employees pay their fair share of pension costs. Our employees will be paying the full share of their pension costs in the next two years. However,this poorly written measure will severely limit the City's ability to fund its current and ongoing pension obligations. When your house is being burglarized, is on fire, or you're having a heart attack you want fast response.This measure will increase response time of our police and fire departments. Our public services enhance our property values. This measure threatens the wonderful quality of life we have in Huntington Beach. Please Vote NO on this ill-conceived charter amendment. For more information visit http://www.SaveOurHB.com ;v ARGUMENTS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY rC AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the argument: e undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary Argument (In Favor o gains ) Measure at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: 00 V144 le- v-A mQYi Date: �1 t3 i 12- Title: � 1rlc tlkrvt Q eUt t� Signature: Printed Name: Date: 7 {3 t Title: >UK ' ( y,�u;� �� Signature: b' Printed Name: ��; I�a ��` Date: 7" l ff-2.. TitleG `� -� � Signature: : �---�-- O�r�Gt rye e% ct o 1 Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature.- Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: C �-� m u �„� V. a cL� .2-0 o 0 1 1) -3-7L 5S -7 ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT The following maiority of authors of the Argument:_In Favor of o.Against Measure authorize the following person(s)to prepare,submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument p In Favor of o Against Measure for the City of Huntington Beach Municipal`Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6,2012. Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument o In Favor of a, -Against Measure are required. Name(print): - r'f f: - Date: Signature: Name(print): - Date: 'r Signature: z Name(print): Date: Signature: The following authors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument o.In Favor of ❑Against Measure Printed Name: G rq,Q Date. -T UJ -LOt't— Title:FOrYV\Q"'r ignatur . MCL o�h c>> fd��mb Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: D'Alessandro, Paul From: D'Alessandro, Paul Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 4:04 PM To: Flynn, Joan; McGrath, Jennifer Subject: RE: Impartial analysis due Monday by 5:00 pm Attachments: RetirementTaxMeasurelmpartialAnalysis_final.pdf Hi Joan, The impartial analysis is attached to this email. I will print and submit a hard copy as well. Paul D'Alessandro Assistant City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone: 714-536-5555 Fax: 714-374-1590 IMPORTANT NOTICE: The preceding message may be confidential or protected by the attorney- client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then destroy it. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:56 PM To: McGrath, Jennifer; D'Alessandro, Paul Subject: Impartial analysis due Monday by 5:00 pm Just a reminder: The deadline is Monday the 16th for the Impartial Analysis for the tax override measure. Joan Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk - f w Impartial Analysis Prepared By The City Attorney Ballot Measure proposes to amend the Huntington Beach City Charter by repealing Section 607(b)(2) thereof, which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the City's obligations to the state retirement system. Section 404 of the City Charter requires the City "to participate in a retirement system." To meet this requirement, the City has contracted with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to provide an employee retirement system. Since at least 1966, Charter Section 607(b)(2) has authorized the City to levy a property tax sufficient to meet the City's retirement obligations. However, the amount of tax the City may levy is limited by other laws. Proposition 13 limits the tax to only pay for the City's retirement obligations that existed in 1978. Consequently, the tax may not pay for any enhancements the City has made to the employee retirement system after 1978. Also, Revenue & Taxation Code Section 96.31(a)(4) limits the City to levying a retirement tax of no more that $49 per per $100,000 of assessed value to pay for its retirement system. The City has levied a tax less than these amounts. For fiscal year 2011-12, the actual tax levy was $15 per $100,000 of assessed value, which equals $45 for a home with a $300,000 assessed value. This measure would repeal the City's duty and authority to levy this tax to pay the City's obligations under its contract with PERS, and thereby eliminate the revenue raised by this tax as a funding source for the city's contractual obligations to the state retirement system. The City's general fund would remain liable to continue to pay the City's obligations under its contract with PERS to fund the retirement system. Because the City's general fund is the source for most municipal operations, including public safety and infrastructure maintenance services, repeal of the tax would consequently reduce the amount of City funds available to pay for such municipal services. A "yes" vote would repeal the tax. A "no" vote would leave the tax in place. A majority of"yes" votes is required to repeal the tax. JUL2912 -1: 4r I {[ ' �j ; L`� --:-.' ' City Of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Office of the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE TO VOTERS OF DATE AFTER WHICH NO ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST A CITY MEASURE (TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER RELATING TO LEVY OF PROPERTY TAX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES) MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: "Shall the proposed Charter Amendment, amending Section YES 607 of the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach entitled Tax Limits, as set forth in the proposed measure be approved?" No NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9, Section 9282(a) of the Elections Code of the State of California, for a measure placed on the ballot by petition, the person filing an initiative petition pursuant to this article may file a written argument in favor of the ordinance, and the legislative body may submit an argument against the ordinance, not to exceed 300 words in length, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, based upon the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and sample ballots for the election, the City Clerk has fixed July 16, 2012, during normal office hours, as posted, as the date after which no arguments for or against the City measure to amend the Charter may be submitted to the clerk for printing and distribution to the voters as provided in Article 4. Arguments shall be submitted to the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it at the City Hall, Huntington Beach, California. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the city council had determined that rebuttal arguments, not to exceed 250 words in length, as submitted by the authors of the opposing direct arguments, may be filed with the clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. The final date for rebuttals to be delivered to the City Clerk is July 26, 2012 at close of business day. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any ordinance, impartial analysis, or direct argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10 calendar days from the deadline for the filing of the arguments and analysis. Any rebuttal argument filed under the authority of the elections code will be available for public examination in the clerk's office for not less than 10 'calendar days from the deadline for filing rebuttal arguments. qp�a!-are Joan-L. Flynn, ity'�lerk % �..��.�,.., cdr;d :: ;:Jruna�q{ of ;e^lunf, 1zt I abrs e; ed 'by the Cif, &' H=Jntna°h 13ce Died: July 3, 2012 Cat of the City �:.ier' ` ''' tt' I thls public notice on the tiers board at the Center on at 10:00 1i.m2p.m. Date Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand Gh+GIs. a ® NEAL KELLEY Registrar of Voters Mailing Address: P.O. Box 11298 Santa Ana, California 92711 ® REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 1300 South Grand Avenue, Bldg. C Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 567-7600 TDD (714) 567-7608 FAX(714)567-7627 www.ocvote.com June 25, 2012 Ms. Joan Flynn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Flynn: Enclosed is the Certificate as to Verification of Signatures for the petition entitled "A BALLOT MEASURE TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 607(B)(2) THEREOF, WHICH AUTHORIZES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM". The Registrar of Voters verified 4,373 signatures. The cost per signature verified is $3.40 for a total cost of$14,868.20. An invoice is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 714-567-7606. Sincerely, & �� Kay Cotton Candidate and Voter Services Manager Ac Enclosure Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector INVOICE NO: R223 Revenue Recovery/Accounts Receivable Unit P.O. Box 4005 DATE: 6/25/12 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4005 SOLD TO: NAME City of Huntington Beach Reference this number Attn:Joan Flynn,City Clerk on your remittances for ADDRESS 2000 Main Street proper credit. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PHONE (714)536-5227 S.S.# ACCOUNTING CODE 5X Put'X'in the box if BUD DEPT DEPT BSA DEPT FUND DEPT CONTROL UNIT REV SUB-REV REV OBJ SUB-OBJ OBJ ACCT SUB BSA BSA Job Number Amount Government Agency 100 031 031 4420 7340 0301 GV430 14,868.20 P.O./M.A.# THIS INVOICE PREPARED BYJ M linh Tu PHONE#: 714 567-7422 Quantity Description Price Amount 4,373 Verification of Signatures for the petition entitled: 3.40 14,868.20 A ballot measure to amend the Huntington Beach charter by repealing Section 607(B)(2)thereof,which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the City's obligations to the State retirement system. Total Due: 14,868.20 Make check payable to:County of Orange. Mail check and copy of invoice to address on invoice. V.,1.5(6/09) Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector INVOICE NO: R223 Revenue Recovery/Accounts Receivable Unit P.O. BOX 4005 DATE: 6/25/12 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4005 SOLD TO: NAME City of Huntington Beach Reference this number Attn:Joan Flynn, City Clerk on your remittances for ADDRESS 2000 Main Street proper credit. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PHONE (714}536-5227 S.S.# ACCOUNTING CODE QX Put'W'in BUD DEPT DEPT BSA DEPT the box if FUND DEPT UNIT REV SUB-REV OBJ SUB-OBJ SUB BSA Job Number Amount Government CONTROL REV OBJ ACCT BSA Agency 100 031 031 4420 7340 0301 GV430 14,868.20 P.O./M.A.# THIS INVOICE PREPARED BY: M linh Tu PHONE#: 714 567-7422 Quantity Description Price Amount 4,373 Verification of Signatures for the petition entitled: 3.40 14,868.20 A ballot measure to amend the Huntington Beach charter by repealing 4 Section 607(B)(2)thereof,which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the City's obligations to the State retirement system. Total Due: 14,868.20 Make check payable-to:County of Orange. Mail check and copy of invoice to address on invoice. V.,1.5(slog) � I P/OCI OD/OJ/OW# Amount to P 2 Supplier# " j Order Co# 2-way or 3-wra ccount# I prove PV# tch CERTIFICATE AS TO VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURES ON PETITION State of California) )ss. County of Orange I, Neal Kelley, Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange, do hereby certify that I am the county officer having charge of the registration of voters in the County of Orange, and I have examined, or caused to be examined, the petition submitted to the City of Huntington Beach entitled "A BALLOT MEASURE TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 607(B)(2) THEREOF, WHICH AUTHORIZES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM". I further certify that from said examination I have determined the following facts regarding this document: Number of signatures filed: 5,670 Number of signatures required: 3,633 Number of signatures verified: 4,373 Number of signatures found valid: 3,640 Number of signatures found invalid: 733 Invalid because of Duplicate: 17 WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 25th Day of June, 2012. NEAL I EY Registlar Orange County s Wp S, FINAL Petition Result Breakdown �m ,:• �&, r" .. ZS .=�., r §�.. >�- ^' :�s '.r�. ,5 .�,.=�. ..',8r"*,',s�:�`,'' /..?E, j. � :,e, �ia �y�f ,rl z ���>a k , � � > Signatures Required 3633 Raw Count 5,670 Sample Size 5,670 Percentot Percentot Sigs Checked 4,373 Sigs Checked Sample Size Sigs Not Checked 1,297 22.9% Sigs Valid 3,640 83.2% 64.2% Sigs Invalid 733 16.8% 12.9% Duplicated 17 0.0% 0.3 % Non-duplicate Invalids 716 16.0% 12.6% Approved Approved 3,640 83.2% NotReg Not Registered 449 10.3% OutOfDist Out of District 8 0.2% Duplicate Signed more than once 17 0.4% RegLate Registered Late 30 0.7% RegDiffAdd Registered at a Different Address 154 3.5% Declncmp Declaration Incomplete 9 0.2% NoResAdd No Residence Address Given 2 0.0% SigNoMatch Signatures Don't Match 64 1.5% Total pages 1,289 Circulators Checked No cc: N. Kelley J. Berardino L.Strickland N. Mendoza K..Cotton_- -M:Nielsort J.'Martinez M. Tu J. Boiarsky PCMR012-Petition Result Breakdown Page 1 of 1 Printed: 6/21/2012 3:37:05PM Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: 1� App v d ❑ Conditionally Approved El Denied 1�.. y C rk's nature Council Meeting Date: July 2, 2012 Department ID Number: CK 12-005 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Joan L. Flynn, CMC, City Clerk PREPARED BY: Joan L. Flynn, CMC, City Clerk SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Numbers 2012-32 through 2012-34 placing the Proposed Charter Amendment initiated by Mr. Frank Morrell, Proponent (deleting Section 607 (b)2 of the Huntington Beach Charter) on the November 6, 2012 ballot, and setting priorities for Written Arguments and Rebuttals regarding said Measure Statement of Issue: The California Constitution and Election Code define the laws governing measures to be submitted to the voters. A petition for a Charter Amendment Relating to the Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes has been received by the City Clerk, and signatures verified as sufficient by the Orange County Registrar of Voters for placement on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Financial Impact: California Election Code Division 9, Chapter 3, Section 9266 states the expenses of signature verification shall be provided by the governing body receiving the petition from the elections official. That cost, payable to the Office of the Orange County Registrar of Voters, is $14,868.20 (4,373 signatures at.$3.40 each) and funds are available in FY 2011-12 City Clerk budget 10010101.69505 — Contract Services. The cost of ballot and sample ballot printing and canvassing the votes cast for or against the initiative is estimated to be between $8,000-10,000 and will be billed by the Registrar of Voters in early 2013. Funds to cover the full election cost (including initiatives) in the amount of $195,000 have been budgeted in the FY 2012-13 City Clerk budget 10010201.69300 — Professional Services. Recommended Action: Motion to: A) Accept Certificate as to Verification of Signatures on Petition dated June 25, 2012 as provided by the Orange County Registrar of Voters to the Huntington Beach City Clerk; and, B) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-32 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City A Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as called by Resolution No. 2012-21;" and, Item 1. - I HB -10- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/2/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK 12-005 C) Approve no more than 5 Council Members to write and sign the Argument Against the Measure, and adopt Resolution No. 2012-33 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Setting Priorities for Filing a Written Argument Regarding a Charter Amendment Relating to Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as called by Resolution No. 2012-21 and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis;" and, D) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-34 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for the Charter Amendment Relating to Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as called by Resolution No. 2012-21." Alternative Action(s): N/A Analysis: On December 22, 2011, Frank Morrell, proponent, filed a "Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition." On January 5, 2012, Mr. Morrell was provided a Ballot Title and Summary prepared by the Office of the City Attorney — an amended Summary was delivered to the proponent on January 13, 2012. On January 19, 2012, the proponent, Mr. Morrell, published said Notice, Ballot Title and Summary in The Huntington Beach Independent. He was able to commence circulation of the petition upon providing the City Clerk an affidavit of publication on January 24, 2012 — the legal circulation deadline to gain signatures on the petition, according to the California Election Code 9208 is 180 days after the proponent's receipt of the (amended) Ballot Title and Summary, or July 11, 2012. There was much debate as to the required number of signatures needed to validate this petition. After lengthy research and legal consultation the determination was made that this petition did, in fact, fall under Proposition 218 provisions that set the petition signature threshold for repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge to five percent of the votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election (per the California Constitution, Section 8 (a)). In 2010, there were 72,647 Huntington Beach votes cast for all candidates. Five percent of those votes equal 3,633. Therefore, 3,633 valid signatures was the number set as the least the proponent could gather and still qualify the initiative to be placed on the ballot. After the proponent felt he had achieved his signature goal, he supplied a communication to the City Clerk authorizing Don Hansen to return the petition (in compliance with Election Code 9210). On May 29, 2012 Mr. Hansen brought approximately 1290 petition pages to the City Clerk, and a prima facie review indicated that the minimum number of 3,633 was achieved. The petition was delivered to the office of the Orange County Registrar of Voters the following day, May 30, 2012, with instructions to verify up to the number of signatures needed (3,633). The Registrar, per Election Code 9114, had until July 11, 2012 (30 working days — excluding weekends and holidays) to verify signatures. The verification was received on June 25, 2012 and the following information is presented for your review: Number of signatures filed: 5,670 Number of signatures required: 3,633 Number of signatures verified: 4,373 HB -11- Item 1. - 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/2/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK 12-005 Number of signatures found valid: 3,640 Number of signatures found invalid: 733 Number of signatures found invalid due to duplication: 17 When a measure is placed on the ballot by petition, the proponent may file a written argument in favor, and the legislative body may submit an argument against of no more than 300 words (Election Code 9282 (a)(c). Resolution 2012-33 is provided for adoption by Council in order to name the Council Member(s) (no more than 5) who will write the Argument against the Measure. Also attached for adoption is Resolution 2012-34 which provides for the filing of a Rebuttal to the Arguments. Environmental Status: N/A Strategic Plan Goal: N/A (Compliance with the California Election Code and California Constitution) Attachment(s): 1. Orange County Registrar of Voters Certificate as to Verification of Signatures on Petition dated June 25, 2012 2. Resolution 2012-32, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City a Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as called by Resolution No. 2012-21" 3. Resolution 2012-33, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Setting Priorities for Filing a Written Argument Regarding a Charter Amendment Relating to Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as called by Resolution No. 2012-21 and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis" 4. Resolution 2012-34," A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for the Charter Amendment Relating to Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as called by Resolution No. 2012-21" Item 1. - 3 HB -12- ATTACHMENT # 1 i NEAL KELLEY Registrar of Voters Mailing Address: f P.O. Box 11298 Santa Ana,California 92711 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 1300 South Grand Avenue, Bldg.C Santa Ana,California 92705 (714)567-7600 TDD(714)567-7608 FAX(714)567-7627 www.ocvote.com June 25, 2012 Ms. Joan Flynn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Flynn: Enclosed is the Certificate as to Verification of Signatures for the petition entitled "A BALLOT MEASURE TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 607(B)(2)THEREOF, WHICH AUTHORIZES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM". The Registrar of Voters verified 4,373 signatures. The cost per signature verified is $3.40 for a total cost of$14,868.20. An invoice is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 714-567-7606. Sincerely, Kay Cotton Candidate and Voter Services Manager :kc Enclosure i CERTIFICATE AS TO VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURES ON PETITION i State of California) )ss. County of Orange i I, Neal Kelley, Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange, do hereby certify that I am the county officer having charge of the registration of voters in the County of Orange, and I have examined, or caused to be examined, the petition submitted to the City of Huntington Beach entitled "A BALLOT MEASURE TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 607(B)(2) THEREOF, WHICH AUTHORIZES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM'. further certify that from said examination I have determined the following facts regarding this document: Number of signatures filed: 5,670 Number of signatures required: 3,633 Number of signatures verified: 4,373 Number of signatures found valid: 3,640 Number of signatures found invalid: 733 Invalid because of Duplicate: 17 WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 25th Day of June, 2012. V NEAL EY Regis r Orange County i i FINAL Pedfion Result Breakdown 21 OEM i Signatums Required 3033 Raw Count 5,670 Sample Size 5,670 Percent of Percent of Sigs Checked 4,373 Sigs Checked Sample Size Sigs Not Checked 1,297 22.9% Sigs Valid 3,640 83.2% 64.2% Sigs Invalid 733 16.8% 12.9% Duprcated 17 0.0% 0.3 % Non-duplicate Invalids 716 16.0% 12.6% Approved Approved 3,640 83.2% NotReg Not Registered 449 10.3% OutO#Dist Out of District 8 0.2% Duplicate Signed more than once 17 0.4% RegLate Registered Late 30 0.7% RegDWAdd Registered at a Different Address 154 3.5% Decincmp Declaration Incomplete 9 0.2% NoResAdd No Residence Address Given 2 0.0% SigNoMatch Signatures Don't Match 64 1.5% Total pages 1,289 Circulators Checked No cc: N.Kelley J. Berardino L.Strickland N. Mendoza K.,Cotton. �M.Nielson J. Martinez M.Tu J. Boiarsky PCMR012-Petition Result Breakdown Page i of 1 Printed: 61 2012 3:37:05PM ATTACHMENT #2 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO LEVY OF PROPERTY TAX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 6, 2012, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION 2012-21 WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 has been called by Resolution No. 2012-21, adopted on June 4, 2012, and Pursuant to authority provided by Article XI of the Constitution and Title 4, Division 2, Chapter 3 of the Government Code and Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at §9255) of the Election Code, a petition has been filed with the legislative body of the City of Huntington Beach signed by more than five percent of the voters for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election preceding the issuance of the circulating title and summary for the initiative measure by the City Attorney as required by Proposition 218 and Article 3, Section 9034 of the California Election Code; and The City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed charter amendment to the voters, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following question: "Shall the proposed Charter Amendment, amending Section 607 of the Charter of the City of Huntington YES Beach entitled Tax Limits, as set forth in the proposed measure be approved?" NO 2. That the text of the Charter Amendment submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A. 3. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. 4. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. 1 12-3382/81035.doc Resolution No. 2012-32 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 n d day of July , 2012. we Mayor REVIE ND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: CijakYa er- Ci Clerk OVED AS ORM: (ity/Attorney v L- 2 12-3382/81035 Resolution No. 2012-32 EXHIBIT A Section 607. TAX LIMITS. (a) The City Council shall not levy a property tax for municipal purposes in excess of One Dollar annually on each One Hundred Dollars of the assessed value of taxable property in the City, except as otherwise provided in this section, unless authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting on a proposition to increase such levy at any election at which the question of such additional levy for municipal purposes is submitted to the electors. The number of years that such additional levy is to be made shall be specified in such proposition. (b) There shall be levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as other property taxes for municipal purposes are levied and collected, as additional taxes not subject to the above limitation, if no other provision for payment thereof is made: A tax sufficient to meet all liabilities of the City of principal and interest of all bonds and judgments due and unpaid, or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year, which constitute general obligations of the City; and . A tax scrrrrEie}lrcv-meet-all m--obligations—6f the .. .y f.,_ ....., _.,fir.,_n..ensuing __. f; .,l (c) Special levies, in addition to the above and not subject to the above limitation, may be made annually, based on City Council approved estimates, for the following specific purposes, but not to exceed the following respective limits for those purposes for which limits are herein set forth, to wit: parks and recreation and human services not to exceed $0.20 per One Hundred Dollars; Libraries not to exceed $0.15 per One Hundred Dollars; promotional interests and cultural affairs not to exceed $0.07 per One Hundred Dollars; and civil defense and disaster preparedness not to exceed $0.03 per One Hundred Dollars. The proceeds of any special levy shall be used for no other purpose than that specified. 81037.doc Res. No. 2012-32 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 02, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 9"�J— 65111JW0) City,lerk and ex-officio Mrk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #3 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO LEVY OF PROPERTY TAX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION 2012-21 AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: "Shall the proposed Charter Amendment, amending Section 607 of the Charter of the City of Huntington YES Beach entitled Tax Limits, as set forth in the proposed measure be approved?" NO NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the City Council authorizes the following members of its body Connie Boardman (Council Member against) Keith Bohr (Council Member against) Joe Shaw (Council Member against) (Council Member against) (Council Member against) to file a written"Argument Against.Measure "not exceeding 300 words regarding the City measure as specified above, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California. The arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date of July 161h at 5:00 p.m. as fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. The arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, accompanied by the Form of Statement to be Filed by Author(s) of Argument(see Exhibit A). 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure not 1 12-3382/81040.doe Resolution No. 2012-33 exceeding 500 words showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 n d day of July , 2012. Mayor REVI APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: J City er ity erk AP ROVED AS RM: tyr'Attorney 2 12-3382/81040.doc Resolution No. 2012-33 Exhibit A ARGUMENTS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument (in favor of/against) ballot proposition at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Res. No. 2012-33 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 02, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None My Clerk and ex-offici&klerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #4 _1 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO LEVY OF PROPERTY TAX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2012-21 WHEREAS, Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code, when the elections official has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the elections official shall send a copy of an argument in favor for the proposition to the authors of any argument against the measure and a copy of an argument against the measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the measure immediately upon receiving the arguments. The author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a City measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. A rebuttal argument may not be signed by more than five authors. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, by July 26"' at 5:00 p.m. — 10 days after the final date for filing for direct arguments. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to be Filed by Author(s) of Argument(See Exhibit A). Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures are repealed. 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall only apply to the election to be held on November 6, 2012, and shall then be repealed. 1 12-3382/81038 Resolution No. 2012-34 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 n d day of July , 2012. Mayor REV ND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPR VED: g 1 "4, City i a er �--C'ity Jerk OVEDJASJO FORM: Attorney 2 12-3382/81038 Resolution No. 2012-34 Exhibit A REBUTTALS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF REBUTTALS All rebuttals concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with section 9200) of the California Election Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the rebuttal: The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the rebuttal (in favor of/against) ballot proposition at the Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach to be held on November 6, 2012 hereby state that the rebuttal is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Printed Name: Date: Title: Signature: Res. No. 2012-34 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 02, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Cit Jerk and ex-officio 61erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 7/3/2012 A� gCOO .rn 1, Steps for Petitioner Initiated Measure P Petitioner Frank Morrell filed a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition in December 2011 and filed an Affidavit of Publication in January 2012. o The City Manager and Finance Director supplied a verbal and PowerPoint report on the fiscal and program impacts of the Measure as requested by Council Members in March, June and July 2012. o Signed petitions were returned to the City Clerk on May 29, 2012 1 7/3/2012 9774 3,633 Signatures were verified within 30 working days by the Orange County Registrar of Voters (ROV) (June 25) 9775<e> Certificate as to Verification of Signatures must be presented to the City Council at next regular meeting (July 2) Certificate is included in tonight's agenda as Item 1 (A) for acceptance by City Council Action y c Also presented to Council are Resolutions which accomplish the following things: • Call the November 2012 election for the ballot measure • Authorization of Arguments and Rebuttals • Appointment of City Council Members writing the Argument Against • Request Impartial Analysis from the City Attorney o Resolution for Consolidation with the County of Orange (July 16 meeting) 2 7/3/2012 Difference between Measures 9282(a)For Measures placed on the ballot by petition, the person filing the petition may file the argument in favor, and the legislative body may submit an argument against. 9282(b)For measures placed on the ballot by the City Council, any members of the Council authorized by the Council, any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or a bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations may file written argument for or against. Arguments o 9286 Arguments are due 14 days from the call of the election placing the measure on the ballot o 9282(c) Arguments are limited to no more than 300 words o 9283 Arguments can be signed by no more than 5 individuals o All Arguments are due to the ROV no later than August 10 3 7/3/2012 Priority Order 9287 If multiple arguments are submitted, the decisions on which argument to use is the responsibility of the Elections Official/City Clerk. 9287(a-d) Priority order: • Member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body • The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of the two who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure • Bona fide associations of citizens • Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure Rebuttals 9285(2)Authors of the Arguments can write the opposite rebuttal or authorize others to do so. 9285(3)Rebuttals are limited to no more than 250 words 9285(4) Rebuttals are due 10 days after the deadline for the Arguments 9283(5) Rebuttals can be signed by no more than 5 individuals o All rebuttals are due to the ROV no later than August 20 4 7/3/2012 Upcoming Dates o August 13 the ROV will assign a letter to each Measure o August 15 is the last date to withdraw a measure placed by the City Council o August 16 the Secretary of State will determine the order of names on the ballot o October 22 is the last day to register to vote in the November 2012 election. 5 8 City of Huntl'olngton Beach d� 2OOo Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachea.gov v a m Office of the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk I, Don Hansen, authorized representative for Frank Morrell, proponent of the petition entitled "A ballot measure to amend the Huntington Beach City Charter by repealing Section 607(b)(2) thereof, which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the city's obligations to the state retirement system" received from the City Clerk, or her staff, at the time of filing the petition, a copy of the California Government Code 84305 as required by California Election Code 16—Literature Requirements. CGC 15: Literature Requirements: "A copy of Section 84305 of the Government Code shall be provided by the elections official to each candidate or his or her agent at the time of filing the declaration of candidacy, and to the proponents of a local initiative or referendum at the time of filing the petitions." Date: -5- 1','-2 1? l Printed Name:�o�J �5�.J Signature: Witness: Copy sent to Mr. Morrrell on May 30, 2012 Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand WAIS Document Retrieval Page 1 of 6 CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 84300-84310 84300. (a) No contribution of one hundred dollars ($100) or more shall be made or received in cash. A cash contribution shall not be deemed received if it is not negotiated or deposited and is returned to the contributor before the closing date of the campaign statement on which the contribution would otherwise be reported. If a cash contribution, other than a late contribution, as defined in Section 82036, is negotiated or deposited, it shall not be deemed received if it is refunded within 72 hours of receipt. In the case of a late contribution, as defined in Section 82036, it shall not be deemed received if it is returned to the contributor within 48 hours of receipt. (b) No expenditure of one hundred dollars ($100) or more shall be made in cash. (c) No contribution of one hundred dollars ($100) or more other than an in-kind contribution shall be made unless in the form of a written instrument containing the name of the donor and the name of the payee and drawn from the account of the donor or the intermediary, as defined in Section 84302. (d) The value of all in-kind contributions of one hundred dollars ($100) or more shall be reported in writing to the recipient upon the request in writing of the recipient. 84301. No contribution shall be made, directly or indirectly, by any person in a name other than the name by which such person is identified for legal purposes. 84302. No person shall make a contribution on behalf of another, or while acting as the intermediary or agent of another, without disclosing to the recipient of the contribution both his own full name and street address, occupation, and the name of his employer, if any, or his principal place of business if he is self-employed, and the full name and street address, occupation, and the name of employer, if any, or principal place of business if self-employed, of the other person. The recipient of the contribution shall include in his campaign statement the full name and street address, occupation, and the name of the employer, if any, or the principal place of business if self-employed, of both the intermediary and the contributor. 84303. No expenditure of five hundred dollars ($500) or more shall be made, other than overhead or normal operating expenses, by an agent or independent contractor, including, but not limited to, an advertising agency, on behalf of or for the benefit of any candidate or committee unless it is reported by the candidate or committee as if the expenditure were made directly by the candidate or committee. The agent or independent contractor shall make known to the candidate or committee all information required to be reported by this http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0431174165+1+0+0&WAI Sacti... 2/23/2012 WAIS Document Retrieval Page 2 of 6 section. 84304. No person shall make an anonymous contribution or contributions to a candidate, committee or any other person totaling one hundred dollars ($100) or more in a calendar year. An anonymous contribution of one hundred dollars ($100) or more shall not be kept by the intended recipient but instead shall be promptly paid to the Secretary of State for deposit in the General Fund of the state. 84305. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) , no candidate or committee shall send a mass mailing unless the name, street address, and city of the candidate or committee are shown on the outside of each piece of mail in the mass mailing and on at least one of the inserts included within each piece of mail of the mailing in no less than 6-point type which shall be in a color or print which contrasts with the background so as to be easily legible. A post office box may be stated in lieu of a street address if the organization's address is a matter of public record with the Secretary of State. (b) If the sender of the mass mailing is a single candidate or committee, the name, street address, and city of the candidate or committee need only be shown on the outside of each piece of mail. (c) If the sender of a mass mailing is a controlled committee, the name of the person controlling the committee shall be included in addition to the information required by subdivision (a) . 84305.5. (a) No slate mailer organization or committee primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures shall send a slate mailer unless: (1) The name, street address, and city of the slate mailer organization or committee primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures are shown on the outside of each piece of slate mail and on at least one of the inserts included with each piece of slate mail in no less than 8-point roman type which shall be in a color or print which contrasts with the background so as to be easily legible. A post office box may be stated in lieu of a street address if the street address of the slate mailer organization or the committee primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measure is a matter of public record with the Secretary of State's Political Reform Division. (2) At the top or bottom of the front side or surface of at least one insert or at the top or bottom of one side or surface of a postcard or other self-mailer, there is a notice in at least 8-point roman boldface type, which shall be in a color or print which contrasts with the background so as to be easily legible, and in a printed or drawn box and set apart from any other printed matter. The notice shall consist of the following statement: NOTICE TO VOTERS THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY (name of slate mailer organization or committee primarily http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=043 1 1 74 1 65+1+0+0&WAISacti... 2/23/2012 WAIS Document Retrieval Page 3 of 6 formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures) , NOT AN OFFICIAL POLITICAL PARTY ORGANIZATION. Appearance in this mailer does not necessarily imply endorsement of others appearing in this mailer, nor does it imply endorsement of, or opposition to, any issues set forth in this mailer. Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by an * . (3) The name, street address, and city of the slate mailer organization or committee primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures as required by paragraph (1) and the notice required by paragraph (2) may appear on the same side or surface of an insert. (4) Each candidate and each ballot measure that has paid to appear in the slate mailer is designated by an *. Any candidate or ballot measure that has not paid to appear in the slate mailer is not designated by an * . The * required by this subdivision shall be of the same type size, type style, color or contrast, and legibility as is used for the name of the candidate or the ballot measure name or number and position advocated to which the * designation applies except that in no case shall the * be required to be larger than 10-point boldface type. The designation shall immediately follow the name of the candidate, or the name or number and position advocated on the ballot measure where the designation appears in the slate of candidates and measures. If there is no slate listing, the designation shall appear at least once in at least 8-point boldface type, immediately following the name of the candidate, or the name or number and position advocated on the ballot measure. (5) The name of any candidate appearing in the slate mailer who is a member of a political party differing from the political party which the mailer appears by representation or indicia to represent is accompanied, immediately below the name, by the party designation of the candidate, in no less than 9-point roman type which shall be in a color or print that contrasts with the background so as to be easily legible. The designation shall not be required in the case of candidates for nonpartisan office. (b) For purposes of the designations required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) , the payment of any sum made reportable by subdivision (c) of Section 84219 by or at the behest of a candidate or committee, whose name or position appears in the mailer, to the slate mailer organization or committee primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures, shall constitute a payment to appear, requiring the * designation. The payment shall also be deemed to constitute authorization to appear in the mailer. 84306. All contributions received by a person acting as an agent of a candidate shall be reported promptly to the candidate or any of his or her designated agents. All contributions received by a person acting as an agent of a committee shall be reported promptly to the committee's treasurer or any of his or her designated agents. "Promptly" as used in this section means not later than the closing date of any campaign statement the committee or candidate for whom http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0431174165+1+0+0&WAISacti... 2/23/2012 WAIS Document Retrieval Page 4 of 6 the contribution is intended is required to file. 84307. No contribution shall be commingled with the personal funds of the recipient or any other person. 84307.5. A spouse or domestic partner of an elected officer or a candidate for elective office shall not receive compensation from campaign funds held by a controlled committee of the elected officer or candidate for elective office for services rendered in connection with fundraising for the benefit of the elected officer or candidate for elective office. 84308. (a) The definitions set forth in this subdivision shall govern the interpretation of this section. (1) "Party" means any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. (2) "Participant" means any person who is not a party but who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and who has a financial interest in the decision, as described in Article 1 (commencing with Section 87100) of Chapter 7. A person actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding if he or she lobbies in person the officers or employees of the agency, testifies in person before the agency, or otherwise acts to influence officers of the agency. (3) "Agency" means an agency as defined in Section 82003 except that it does not include the courts or any agency in the judicial branch of government, local governmental agencies whose members are directly elected by the voters, the Legislature, the Board of Equalization, or constitutional officers. However, this section applies to any person who is a member of an exempted agency but is acting as a voting member of another agency. (4) "Officer" means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. (5) "License, permit, or other entitlement for use" means all business, professional, trade and land use licenses and permits and all other entitlements for use, including all entitlements for land use, all contracts (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts) , and all franchises. (6) "Contribution" includes contributions to candidates and committees in federal, state, or local elections. (b) No officer of an agency shall accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) from any party, or his or her agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency and for three months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding if the officer knows or has reason to know that the participant has a financial interest, as that term is used in Article 1 (commencing with Section 87100) of Chapter 7. This prohibition shall apply regardless of whether the officer accepts, solicits, or directs the contribution for himself or herself, or on behalf of any other http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoc1D=0431174165+1+0+O&WAISacti... 2/23/2012 WAIS Document Retrieval Page 5 of 6 officer, or on behalf of any candidate for office or on behalf of any committee. (c) Prior to rendering any decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use pending before an agency, each officer of the agency who received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) from a party or from any participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding. No officer of an agency shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence the decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending before the agency if the officer has willfully or knowingly received a contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) within the preceding 12 months from a party or his or her agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent if the officer knows or has reason to know that the participant has a financial interest in the decision, as that term is described with respect to public officials in Article 1 (commencing with Section 87100) of Chapter 7. If an officer receives a contribution which would otherwise require disqualification under this section, returns the contribution within 30 days from the time he or she knows, or should have known, about the contribution and the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, he or she shall be permitted to participate in the proceeding. (d) A party to a proceeding before an agency involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) made within the preceding 12 months by the party, or his or her agent, to any officer of the agency. No party, or his or her agent, to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending before any agency and no participant, or his or her agent, in the proceeding shall make a contribution of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to any officer of that agency during the proceeding and for three months following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding. when a closed corporation is a party to, or a participant in, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending before an agency, the majority shareholder is subject to the disclosure and prohibition requirements specified in subdivisions (b) , (c) , and this subdivision. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to imply that any contribution subject to being reported under this title shall not be so reported. 84309. (a) No person shall receive or personally deliver or attempt to deliver a contribution in the State Capitol, in any state office building, or in any office for which the state pays the majority of the rent other than a legislative district office. (b) For purposes of this section: (1) "Personally deliver" means delivery of a contribution in person or causing a contribution to be delivered in person by an agent or intermediary. (2) "Receive" includes the receipt of a campaign contribution delivered in person. http://vvww.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0431174165+1+0+O&WAI Sacti... 2/23/2012 WAIS Document Retrieval Page 6 of 6 84310. (a) A candidate, committee, or slate mailer organization may not expend campaign funds, directly or indirectly, to pay for telephone calls that are similar in nature and aggregate 500 or more in number, made by an individual, or individuals, or by electronic means and that advocate support of, or opposition to, a candidate, ballot measure, or both, unless during the course of each call the name of the organization that authorized or paid for the call is disclosed to the recipient of the call. Unless the organization that authorized the call and in whose name it is placed has filing obligations under this title, and the name announced in the call either is the full name by which the organization or individual is identified in any statement or report required to be filed under this title or is the name by which the organization or individual is commonly known, the candidate, committee, or slate mailer organization that paid for the call shall be disclosed. This section shall not apply to telephone calls made by the candidate, the campaign manager, or individuals who are volunteers. (b) Campaign and ballot measure committees are prohibited from contracting with any phone bank vendor that does not disclose the information required to be disclosed by subdivision (a) . (c) A candidate, committee, or slate mailer organization that pays for telephone calls as described in subdivision (a) shall maintain a record of the script of the call for the period of time set forth in Section 84104. If any of the calls qualifying under subdivision (a) were recorded messages, a copy of the recording shall be maintained for that period. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0431174165+1+0+0&WAI Sacti... 2/23/2012 PROOF OFiL ,x 1 : z PUBLICATION 2012J� : �'A HOTKE OF(INTENT T)gR(ULATE PE iION STATE ®� CAL �® ) Notice is)hereby givm by the prtioerson whose name appears hereon ofh�softHuntngtoorBeach Sse a petition within the CtI, for-the purpose of quaifymg the Property Tax Reduction and Of Measure. A statement COUNTCOUNTY o f ORANGE of the reasons. pttiti ,proposed action as Y i ORANGE contemplated in the prtition is as follows: Huntington Beach is the unly city in Oran tnge_ County that has a Property tax assepublic employee ment for the sole purpose o; funding p am a citizen of the United States and a pensions. Further, ttis pension tax rate can be increased without a vote of property owners if a simple majority"of the Huntington Beach Cit resident of the County aforesaid; I am y � Council chooses to iicrease.the assessed rate. Since the 2003/2004 budget year,the pension over the age of eighteen years, and not tax rate has increased 115%. a art to or interested in the notice The pension Obligations xpe for the city of Hun- p Y tington Beach are expected to swell in the published. i am a principal clerk of the coming years. n Without taxpayer ythese increasest0 p p p City Council can 'simply p for real j HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT to the taxpayers without negotiating pension reform.The citizens of Huntington each which was adjudged a newspaper of should not be used as the funding solution for out-of-balance retirement benefits. Further, the general circulation on August 26 1994 property„owners pf Huntington Beach should not , be subject to tax increases when thn b100%C1of case A50479, for the Cityof Huntington ties of these pensions are not pay g g their share e-the cost. Beach County of Orange and the State To ensure-the taxpayer has adequate pension tion, I believe it is time to eliminate the pennon of California. Attached to this Affidavit is property tax from-,the city charter. The elimination of-this language will make certain the residents are not further burdened.with out a true and complete copy as was printed of control pension costs. Therefore, I intend to circulate a petition that and published on the following date(s). eliminates' any individual property tax assess ment.for the sole purpose of funding retirement benefits. iven of a request for Notice is also hereby g of a proposed preparation, by the City Attorney, measure ballot title and summary. January19 2012 Frank Morrell 21181 Shaw Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646. Ballot aide And Summary Title:A ballot,measure to amend the Huntington on Beach City Charter by repealing certify (or declare) under penalty of 6o7cbx2> thereof, which authorizes a tax sufti- cient to meet the city's obligations to the state perjury that the foregoing is true and retninar : Thism. Suntingt This proposed meCharter would Section Huntington. Beach'City correct. 607(b)(2), which authorizes a tax'sufficient to meet the city's obligationsto the stheerevenue. ment system, and thereby eliminate raised by this tax as a funding source for the city's contractual obligations to the'state,retire- meet system.' t0 articipate Executed on January 20 2012 The City Charter requires the city P e in a retirement system- To meet this re- quirement, the city has contracted ontra ted wit System at Costa Mesa California California Public Employee. (PERS). The contract obligation voterof approved PERS is partially funded tax authorized by the Charteerr since at least 1966. Since 1983-84,Revenue&Taxation Code Section 96.31(a)(4) has limited the city to levying.a e maximum override taxf0 $�Oe93ement er $sys em assessed value to pay For fiscal year 2011-12, the actual tax levy was $0.015 per$100 of assessed value;which equals $15 per $100,000 of assessed value, and islau Signatur than the maximum rate that the city thorized to levy. This measure would repeal the city's duty an d authority to levy this tax to„pay the city's obligations under its contract with PERS. The city would remain_liable on its contract with PERS,but the measure would eliminate the city's ability to meet its obligations by a specific tax levy. Instead, the city's.retirement 0 li,ach nis would be shifted to the general fund, the source for most municipal operations,includ cture maintenance ing public safety and infrastru services. Published Huntington Beach Independent013-784 i uary 1,9,2012 . PETITION FOR SUBMISSION TO VOTERS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: Ballot Title And Summary Title: A BALLOT MEASURE TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 607(B)(2) THEREOF,WHICH AUTHORIZES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Summary: This proposed measure would repeal Huntington Beach City Charter Section 607(b)(2),which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the city's obligations to the state retirement system, and thereby eliminate the revenue raised by this tax as a funding source for the city's contractual obligations to the state retirement system. The City Charter requires the city to participate in a retirement system. To meet this requirement, the city has contracted with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The contract obligation of the city to PERS is partially funded by a voter approved tax authorized by the Charter since at least 1966. Since 1983-84, Revenue & Taxation Code Section 96.31(a)(4) has limited the city to levying a maximum override tax of$0.04930 per$100 of assessed value to pay for its retirement system. For fiscal year 2011- 12, the actual tax levy was $0.015 per$100 of assessed value,which equals $15 per$100,000 of assessed value, and is less than the maximum rate that the city is authorized to levy. This measure would repeal the city's duty and authority to levy this tax to pay the city's obligations under its contract with PERS. The city would remain liable on its contract with PERS, but the measure would eliminate the city's ability to meet its obligations by a specific tax levy. Instead, the city's retirement obligations would be shifted to the general fund,which is the source for most municipal operations, including public safety and infrastructure maintenance services. Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of his intention to circulate a petition within the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of qualifying the Property Tax Reduction and Protection Measure. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: Huntington Beach is the only city in Orange County that has a property tax assessment for the sole purpose of funding public employee pensions. Further,this pension tax rate can be increased without a vote of property owners if a simple majority of the Huntington Beach City Council chooses to increase the assessed rate. Since the 2003/2004 budget year,the pension tax rate has increased 115%. The pension obligations for the City of Huntington Beach are expected to swell in the coming years. Without taxpayer protections,the City Council can simply pass these increases on to the taxpayers without negotiating for real pension reform. The citizens of Huntington Beach should not be used as the funding solution for out-of- balance retirement benefits. Further,the property owners of Huntington Beach should not be subject to tax increases when the beneficiaries of these pensions are not paying 100%of their share of the cost. To ensure the taxpayer has adequate protection,I believe it is time to eliminate the pension property tax from the city charter. The elimination of this language will make certain the residents are not further burdened with out of control pension costs. Thercfore,1'iiitciid to circulate a petition that eliminates any individual property tax assessment for the sole purpose of funding retirement benefits. Notice is also hereby given of a request for preparation,by the City Attorney,of a proposed measure ballot title and summary. Frank Morrell To the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach: We,the undersigned,registered and qualified voters of the State of California,residents of the City of Huntington Beach,in the County of Orange, pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution and Chapter 2(commencing with Section 34450)of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code,present to the city council of the city this petition and request that the following proposed amendment to the charter of the city be submitted to the registered and qualified voters of the city for their adoption or rejection at the next statewide general,statewide primary,or regularly scheduled municipal election date pursuant to Section 1200, 1201,or 1301. The proposed charter amendment reads as follows: Section 607.TAX LIMITS. (a) The City Council shall not levy a property tax for municipal purposes in excess of One Dollar annually on each One Hundred Dollars of the assessed value of taxable property in the City,except as otherwise provided in this section,unless authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting on a proposition to increase such levy at any election at which the question of such additional levy for municipal purposes is submitted to the electors.The number of years that such additional levy is to be made shall be specified in such proposition. (b) There shall be levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as other property taxes for municipal purposes are levied and collected, as additional taxes not subject to the above limitation,if no other provision for payment thereof is made: A tax sufficient to meet all liabilities of the City of principal and interest of all bonds and judgments due and unpaid,or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year,which constitute general obligations of the City--,end. (c) Special levies,in addition to the above and not subject to the above limitation,may be made annually,based on City Council approved estimates, for the following specific purposes,but not to exceed the following respective limits for those purposes for which limits are herein set forth,to wit:parks and recreation and human services not to exceed$0.20 per One Hundred Dollars;Libraries not to exceed$0.15 per One Hundred Dollars;promotional interests and cultural affairs not to exceed$0.07 per One Hundred Dollars;and civil defense and disaster preparedness not to exceed$0.03 per One Hundred Dollars.The proceeds of any special levy shall be used for no other purpose than that specified. PETITION FOR SUBMISSION TO VOTERS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: Ballot Title And Summary Title: A BALLOT MEASURE TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 607(B)(2) THEREOF, WHICH AUTHORIZES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Summary: This proposed measure would repeal Huntington Beach City Charter Section 607(b)(2),which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the city's obligations to the state retirement system, and thereby eliminate the revenue raised by this tax as a funding source for the city's contractual obligations to the state retirement system. The City Charter requires the city to participate in a retirement system. To meet this requirement, the city has contracted with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The contract obligation of the city to PERS is partially funded by a voter approved tax authorized by the Charter since at least 1966. Since 1983-84, Revenue& Taxation Code Section 96.31(a)(4) has limited the city to levying a maximum override tax of$0.04930 per$100 of assessed value to pay for its retirement system. For fiscal year 2011- 12, the actual tax levy was $0.015 per$100 of assessed value,which equals $15 per$100,000 of assessed value, and is less than the maximum rate that the city is authorized to levy. This measure would repeal the city's duty and authority to levy this tax to pay the city's obligations under its contract with PERS. The city would remain liable on its contract with PERS, but the measure would eliminate the city's ability to meet its obligations by a specific tax levy. Instead, the city's retirement obligations would be shifted to the general fund,which is the source for most municipal operations, including public safety and infrastructure maintenance services. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. for official use only 1 (Print Your Name) (Residence Address ONLY) Date (Signature--sign as registered to vote) (City and Zip Code) d 2 (Print Your Name) (Residence Address ONLY) Date W ® (Signature--sign as registered to vote) (City and Zip Code) � 7^ Z ® 3 (Print Your Name) (Residence Address ONLY) Date Z CA (Signature--sign as registered to vote) (City and Zip Code) E~ WO > 4 (Print Your Name) (Residence Address ONLY) Date W (Signature--sign as registered to vote) (City and Zip Code) C7 W 5 (Print Your Name) (Residence Address ONLY) Date (Signature--sign as registered to vote) (City and Zip Code) DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR(To be completed in circulator's own hand after the above signatures have been obtained.) I, (full given name, including middle name or initial) am registered to vote or am qualified to vote in Huntington Beach, California, County of Orange. My residence address is (street and number, city, state, zip): I personally circulated the attached petition for signing and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written on the petition and,to my best information and belief, each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. The appended signatures were obtained between the dates of_/ / and inclusive. (starting date) (ending date) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on(date) at(city) California (signature --full given name of circulator, including middle dame or initial) Lugar, Robin From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:05 AM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: Ballot Title and Summary Attachments: Ballot Title&Summary-corrected.pdf From: D'Alessandro, Paul Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:35 PM To: Flynn, Joan Cc: McGrath, Jennifer Subject: RE: Ballot Title and Summary Hi Joan, Here is the corrected version. The maximum allowable override under R&T Section 96.31(a)(4) is $0.04930 per $100, not $0.49300. It was my error, the zero was in the wrong place. Based on the Jarvis case and its actuarial, the City has concluded that it may set the override at $0.04833 per $100. But the Council set the actual override for 2011-12 at $0.01500 per $100 by Resolution 2011-44. Paul D'Alessandro Assistant City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone: 714-536-5555 Fax: 714-374-1590 IMPORTANT NOTICE: The preceding message may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then destroy it. Thank You. From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:16 PM To: D'Alessandro, Paul Subject: FW: Ballot Title and Summary From: Frakes, Sandie Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 4:16 PM To: Flynn, Joan Cc: McGrath, Jennifer Subject: FW: Ballot Title and Summary Sorry, non draft version attached. Please let me know if I should send this another way. 1 Sandie Frakes City Attorney's Office City of Huntington Beach 714-536-5249 EA, Save A Tree-please consider the environment before printing this message. This email transmission,and any documents,files or previous email messages attached to it,is CONFIDENTIAL,intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed. It also may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. You are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee or his or her designated agent is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If your receipt of this transmission is in error,please notify Sandie Frakes immediately by calling collect at 714-536-5555 and destroying the original transmission and its attachments without reading them,printing them or saving them to an electronic medium. Thank you. From: Frakes, Sandie Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 4:12 PM To: Flynn, Joan Cc: McGrath, Jennifer Subject: Ballot Title and Summary Hi Joan Jennifer has the completed draft of the Ballot Title and summary. How do you want me to get this to you? Scanned and emailed (attached is a copy)? Hard copy attached to a memo? Sandie Frakes City Attorney's Office City of Huntington Beach 714-536-5249 EA, Save A Tree-please consider the environment before printing this message. This email transmission,and any documents,files or previous email messages attached to it,is CONFIDENTIAL,intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed. It also may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. You are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee or his or her designated agent is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If your receipt of this transmission is in error,please notify Sandie Frakes immediately by calling collect at 714-536-5555 and destroying the original transmission and its attachments without reading them,printing them or saving them to an electronic medium. Thank you. 2 Lugar, Robin From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Wednesday, January 35. 3O131O:O5AK8 To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FVV: Ballot Title and Summary Attachments: Ballot Title and Summary Fino\.pdf ��'����������� `����---- ����� From: Frakea Sandie Sent: Wednesday, January O4, 30124:16PM To: Flynn, loan Cc: McGrath,Jennifer Subject: RN: Ballot Title and Summary Sorry, non draft version attached. Please let mne know if| should send this another way. SandieFralkeS City /#1Orney'SOffice City Of Huntington Beach 714-536-5249 ASuvoATmo-p|oaoeoonoiue,moonvimnmentuem�pno ^ ^om|omoosaos. This email transmission,and a ny documents,files or previous email messages attached to it,is CONFIDENTIAL,intended for the sole use of the individual and entity tn whom itisaddressed. It also may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. You are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee n/his o,her designated agent b STRICTLY PROHIBITED. |f your receipt ofthis transmission isin error,please notify Sandie Frakes immediately by calling collect at 714-536-5555 and destroying the original transmission and its attachments without reading them,printing them o,saving them toan electronic medium. Thank you. �����������������----------- �����... ������ Fromm: Frakea Sandie Sent: Wednesday, January O4, ZO1Z4:1ZPM To: Flynn, loan Cc: McGrath, Jennifer Subject: Ballot Title and Summary Hi]oan Jennifer has the completed draft of the Ballot Title and summary. How do you want mneto get this toyou? Scanned and emna(|ed (attached isacopy)? Hard copy attached toamemo? SandieFrakeS City /#1O[ney'SOffice City of Huntington Beach 714-536-5249 A;, SavoATmo »|eaoeoono|uo,meonv|mnmentoem�pnnonomiomeooaoe. This email transmission,and any documents,files or previous email messages attached to it,is CONFIDENTIAL,intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom itisaddressed. It also may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. You are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee or his or her designated agent is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If your receipt of this transmission is in error,please notify Sandie Frakes immediately by calling collect at 714-536-5555 and destroying the original transmission and its attachments without reading them,printing them or saving them toon electronic medium. Thank you. 1 Ap Ballot Title And Summary Title: A ballot measure to amend the Huntington Beach City Charter by repealing Section 607(b)(2)thereof, which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the city's obligations to the state retirement system. Summary: This proposed measure would repeal Huntington Beach City Charter Section 607(b)(2),which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the city's obligations to the state retirement system, and thereby eliminate the revenue raised by this tax as a funding source for the city's contractual obligations to the state retirement system. The City Charter requires the city to participate in a retirement system. To meet this requirement, the city has contracted with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The contract obligation of the city to PERS is partially funded by a voter approved tax authorized by the Charter since at least 1966. Since 1983-84, Revenue & Taxation Code Section 96.31(a)(4) has limited the city to levying a maximum override tax of$0.04930 per$100 of assessed value to pay for its retirement system. For fiscal year 2011-12, the actual tax levy was $0.015 per$100 of assessed value,which equals $15 per$100,000 of assessed value, and is less than the maximum rate that the city is authorized to levy. This measure would repeal the city's duty and authority to levy this tax to pay the city's obligations under its contract with PERS. The city would remain liable on its contract with PERS, but the measure would eliminate the city's ability to meet its obligations by a specific tax levy. Instead,the city's retirement obligations would be shifted to the general fund, which is the source for most municipal operations, including public safety and infrastructure maintenance services. 7iZ- e 021 bo& lea 11-3158/74454 Ballot Title And Summary Title: A ballot measure to amend the Huntington Beach City Charter by rep ling Section 607(b)(2)thereof, which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the city's obl' ations to the state retirement system. Summary: This proposed measure would repeal Huntington Be City Charter Section 607(b)(2), which authorizes a tax sufficient to meet the city's ligations to the state retirement system, and thereby eliminate the revenue raised by this to as a funding source for the city's contractual obligations to the state retirement system. The City Charter requires the city to participate in retirement system. To meet this requirement, the city has contracted with the California Public mployees' Retirement System(PERS). The contract obligation of the city to PERS is parti ly funded by a voter approved tax authorized by the Charter since at least 1966. Since 1983-84, Re nue &Taxation C de Section 96.31(a)(4) has limited the city to levying a maximum overr' e tax of$0.49300 r$ 0 of assessed value to pay for its retirement system. For fiscal year 0 1-12, the evy was $0.015 per$100 of assessed value, which equals $15 per $100,000 o a e va e, and is less than the maximum rate that the city is authorized to levy. This measure would repe the city's duty and authority to levy this tax to pay the city's obligations under its co tract with PERS. The city would remain liable on its contract with PERS, but the measu would eliminate the city's ability to meet its obligations by a specific tax levy. Instead, the c' y's retirement obligations would be shifted to the general fund, which is the source for most unicipal operations, including public safety and infrastructure maintenance services. 1 1-3 1 58/74454 Fity of Huntington Beach INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney FROM: Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk DATE: December 22, 2011 SUBJECT: CITY CLERIC'S TRANSMITTAL OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION AND REQUEST FOR BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED MEASURE Pursuant to California Election Code §9203, please return a ballot title and summary of the attached proposed measure within 15 days (by January 6, 2012) for the Clerk's Office to provide to the proponent. JF Attachments c. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Fred Wilson, City Manager DEG s '0 2011 Transmittal of Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of his intention to circulate a petition within the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of qualifying the Property Tax Reduction and Protection Measure. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: Huntington Beach is the only city in Orange County that has a property tax assessment for the sole purpose of funding public employee pensions. Further, this pension tax rate can be increased without a vote of property owners if a simple majority of the Huntington Beach City Council chooses to increase the assessed rate. Since the 2003/2004 budget year, the pension tax rate has increased 115%. The pension obligations for the City of Huntington Beach are expected to swell in the coming years. Without taxpayer protections, the City Council can simply pass these increases on to the taxpayers without negotiating for real pension reform. The citizens of Huntington Beach should not be used as the funding solution for out-of-balance retirement benefits. Further, the property owners of Huntington Beach should not be subject to tax increases when the beneficiaries of these pensions are not paying 100% of their share of the cost. To ensure the taxpayer has adequate protection, I believe it is time to eliminate the pension property tax from the city charter. The elimination of this language will make certain the residents are not further burdened with out of control pension costs. Therefore, I intend to circulate a petition that eliminates any individual property tax assessment for the sole purpose of funding retirement benefits. Notice is also hereby given of a request for preparation, by the City Attorney, of a proposed measure ballot title and summary. Frank Morrell 21181 Shaw Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1_� �� I, Frank Morrell, acknowledge that it is a misdemeanor under state law (section 18650 of the Election Code) to knowingly or willfully allow the signatures on an initiative petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the proposed measure for the ballot. I certify that I will not knowingly or willfully allow the signatures for this initiative to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the measure for the ballot. Frank Morrell 21181 Shaw Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dated this 22th day of December, 2011 1907 DRAFT Section 607. TAX LIMITS. (a)The City Council shall not levy a property tax for municipal purposes in excess of One Dollar annually on each One Hundred Dollars of the assessed value of taxable property in the City, except as otherwise provided in this section, unless authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting on a proposition to increase such levy at any election at which the question of such additional levy for municipal purposes is submitted to the electors. The number of years that such additional levy is to be made shall be specified in such proposition. (b)There shall be levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as other property taxes for municipal purposes are levied and collected, as additional taxes tax not subject to the above limitation, if no other provision for payment thereof is made: 4-.A tax sufficient to meet all liabilities of the City of principal and interest of all bonds and judgments due and unpaid, or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year,which constitute general obligations of the City; and -2. A ta*suffieient to meet all obligatiens of the City fef the retirement system in whieh the-C4y a and unpaid of to beeeme due during the ensuingyea . (c) Special levies, in addition to the above and not subject to the above limitation, may be made annually, based on City Council approved estimates, for the following specific purposes,but not to exceed the following respective limits for those purposes for which limits are herein set forth,to wit: parks and recreation and human services not to exceed $0.20 per One Hundred Dollars; Libraries not to exceed $0.15 per One Hundred Dollars; promotional interests and cultural affairs not to exceed$0.07 per One Hundred Dollars; and civil defense and disaster preparedness not to exceed $0.03 per One Hundred Dollars. The proceeds of any special levy shall be used for no other purpose than that specified.