The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHoward Jarvis Property Tax Refund Claims Process Corresponde • Page 1 of 2 BEFORE THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Z Subject: Claim for Refund of Portion of Property Tax Payment p co CD Claimant's Name:... . . . . . .... ...z............................... t7 D j Assessor's Parcel No........ r U Cl) ......a . ' ........ . co 17> Parcel Address:....�a 3�....VaP A..:.. , C: 90)�'/7. ) CLAIM FOR REFUND Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096, et seq., the above-named Claimant hereby claims a refund of a portion of the property tax paid for Fiscal Years 1997-98 through 2000-01 on the above-referenced parcel. PART CLAIMED Claimant seeks the refund of Claimant's share of that portion of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach that exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. GROUNDS The claimed portion of the City's property tax was "illegally assessed or levied" and/or"illegally collected" as those terms are used in Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096. Proposition 13 caps ad valorem property taxes at one percent of the property's assessed value. Cal. Const., art. XIIIA, sec. 1(a). An exception permits the one percent cap to be exceeded to repay an "indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978." Id. Sec. nTrpainome.socai.rr.com/nDTax/rormLTrc..nTm sisoiui Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale From: Jones, Dale Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:50 AM To: 'Allannah Molloy' Cc: Flynn, Joan; Ehring, Liz; Grant, Peter Subject: RE: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Good morning, I located Mr. Mayeda's claim which was received on August 27, 2004. Our office has been instructed to hold all of the claims received July 30, 2004 forward so that is why you could not locate his claim. Please check with Pete Grant regarding what you should do with the claim you received on Sept. 14. Thank you. Dale -----Original Message----- From: Allannah Molloy [mailto:amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:16 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Hi Dale, Can you please see if you have a claim for the following: William Mayeda 5552 Mossvale Circle Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 APN No. 163-182-05 1 don't have a Claim Number. We don't have a record of any claim for this person by name or APN No. Claimant says he filed a claim on 8/26/04 and mailed it to the City at 2000 Main St. instead of the P.O. Box 848 address. He said he again mailed a second copy on 9/14/04 to the P.O. Box 848 address, which we received today. Thanks 9/29/2004 Page 1 of 1 Ehring, Liz From: Jones, Dale Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:50 AM To: 'Allannah Molloy' Cc: Flynn, Joan; Ehring, Liz; Grant, Peter Subject: RE: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Good morning, I located Mr. Mayeda's claim which was received on August 27, 2004. Our office has been instructed to hold all of the claims received July 30, 2004 forward so that is why you could not locate his claim. Please check with Pete Grant regarding what you should do with the claim you received on Sept. 14. Thank you. Dale -----Original Message----- From: Allannah Molloy [mailto:amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:16 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Hi Dale, Can you please see if you have a claim for the following: William Mayeda 5552 Mossvale Circle Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 APN No. 163-182-05 1 don't have a Claim Number. We don't have a record of any claim for this person by name or APN No. Claimant says he filed a claim on 8/26/04 and mailed it to the City at 2000 Main St. instead of the P.O. Box 848 address. He said he again mailed a second copy on 9/14/04 to the P.O. Box 848 address, which we received today. Thanks 9/29/2004 Ehring, Liz From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:27 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: FW: Property Tax Bills As you know, all property tax bill (not claims)questions are to be transferred to Dan Villella, but here is the information that is being sent to the rest of City Hall from the Treasurer's Office. If someone calls or comes in and just wants a phone number, and you can find it on this list, feel free to dispense that info. Thanks, Joan -----Original Message----- From: Ferrera,Caren Sent: Thursday,September 23,2004 11:19 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: FW: Property Tax Bills Rebecca suggested I forward this your department- looks like you didn't get a copy of the original. Hope this helps with the phone calls. cf -----Original Message----- From: Von Holle,Catherine Sent: Thursday,September 23,2004 10:18 AM To: CITY TREASURER; Randal,Gilda; Peterson,Janice;Sharpe,Jean; Balkee,Anita; Bazant, Denise; Boucher,Linda; Ferrera,Caren; Fikes,Cathy; Fogarty, Patti;Greene,Joyce; Lugar,Robin; Reed,Karin; Rehwinkel,Gwen; Richards,Jan; Robinson,Cheryl; Storovich,Gloria; Suraci, Linda;Von Holle,Catherine Subject: Property Tax Bills The county recently mailed out property tax bills which have several new taxes added that have increased the total amount of taxes to be paid. Could you please forward this email to your"front line"staff or others in your department that may need this information? The City will probably be receiving calls about their tax bill and in order to assist the caller with their questions, please refer them to the following phone numbers: Huntington Beach HS 041D- Call the Huntington Beach School District--964-3339 Coast CCD 2002 and CCCD 03-Call Erin Cohn at Coast Community College--438-4605 HB City Emp Retirement-The answer to questions about the Huntington Beach Employee's Retirement Tax appearing on property tax bills is that the Courts only found a portion of the tax to be illegal and the City Council Voted to continue to collect the legal portion of the tax. If the caller needs further information, have them Call Dan Villella-- 536-5225 Nuisance abatement-Call Dwan Mandel --374-1554 There are additional phone numbers listed on the tax bill for other information. PLEASE NOTE: The above information is not related to the PROPERTY TAX REFUND and claims. The phone number regarding the Property Tax Refund and claims is still 866-528-2703 or you can transfer them directly to x2987 which is the same as the caller dialing the toll-free number. i l s 6 ' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES },, INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION ea Hwti�gk, ch N 7 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Via: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator From: Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services - Date: September 23, 2004 Subject: Retirement Tax Refund Status Update This memorandum provides an update of the retirement tax refund process: Judgment Obligation Bond On September 8, 2004 the city successfully sold $12.5 million of judgment obligation bonds. The bonds mature over the next 15 years and the last two years of bonds (2018 and 2019) have call provisions should the city have excess proceeds after all tax refunds are issued/expired. Total cost to repay the bonds is approximately $16.4 million and annual debt service is between $1.1 million and $1.2 million. The bond sale closed the morning of September 22, 2004 and the City Treasurer received a wire transfer of $12,436,662.21. Refund Claire Processing The following table presents claims processing status as of Thursday, September 23, 2004: Description Number of claims Percent of claims Claims to be paid 347769 74.3% Duplicate claims 10,347 22.1% Denied claims 1,341 2.9% Pending claims 358 0.7% Total Claims 46,815 100% Processing of 34,769 checks will begin on September 27, 2004 and should be complete on October 4, 2004. Checks should begin arriving Saturday, October 1 and Monday, October 4, 2004. This first check run represents 99% of the non- duplicate, valid claims received prior to July 30, 2004. The first check run will provide refunds (including interest) of$9,688,730.1.9. j Each refund check includes a two-page insert (attached) designed to answer questions about the refund, how it was processed, and what claimants can do if they believe their refund is incorrect. In addition to the letter, the city's consultant will be adding additional phone lines and staff to the toll-free telephone number to handle claimant inquiries. However, even with additional phone lines and staff, it may be difficult to reach a customer service representative in the first days after the refund checks are delivered. Next Steps While the check run represents the resolution of nearly all the claims the city has received, staff is still working on several significant elements of the project, including: • Notifying claimants whose refund was denied' (planned for the week of October 11, 2004); • Resolving the remaining 358 pending claims2 (planned before the end of October 2004); ® Processing approximately 120 submitted after the July 30, 2004 processing cut-off(these claims will not be paid until at least late- November); • Activating and staffing the appeals process; • Transitioning claims processing and customer service from the consultant to city staff; and • Resolving refund checks that cannot be delivered (incorrect mailing addresses) or are not redeemed before the check is void (six months from the date the check is issued) Conclusion Staff will continue to keep the City Council appraised of refund processing developments until the anticipated conclusion of the project in April 2006. In the meantime, if you have any questions or I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 536-5236. In the last update to the City Council on August 9, 2004, 4,609 claims were set to be denied. The additional research the city's consultant conducted at the county greatly reduced the number of claims set for denial. 2 In the last update to the City Council on August 9, 2004, 2,912 claims were pending. The additional research the city s consultant conducted at the county greatly reduced the number of pending claims. Finally, I would like to recognize the excellent work the following members of the retirement tax refund team performed over the past 13 months: Peter Grant, Project Manager, Principal Administrative Analyst William P. Workman, Assistant City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney Janis Ingels, Director of Information Services Dan Villella, Finance Officer John Fujii, Deputy City Attorney Robert-Sedlak, Principal Accountant Laurie Payne, Community Relations Officer Karin Reed, Administrative Assistant Nicole Arms, IS Analyst John Carpenter, Systems Administrator Joan Flynn, City Clerk Liz Ehring,Assistant City Clerk Dale Jones, Deputy City Clerk Attachment c: Retirement Tax Refund Project Team 1 Jones, Dale From: Jones, Dale Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:30 AM To: Grant, Peter Subject: RE: claims dbase Thank you, the dates have been corrected. After all of the claims are entered I will check the main database for any other unusual dates. Dale -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Peter Sent: Wednesday, February 25,2004 5:06 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: claims dbase Hi Dale, was looking at the claims dbase this afternoon and found the following claim numbers with filing dates beyond today's date. 41435 23931 25811 23913 37732 14907 15004 40189 45314 42325 42600 44803 447481 They range from 12/1/04 to 2028 or something! Obviously data entry errors, but can you have someone correct them? Thanks, Pete i Jones, Dale From: Grant, Peter Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:01 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: RE: Tax Claims Hi Dale, There are a lot issues in your email, so if I get my wires crossed responding,just call me (5674)! -----Original Message----- From: Jones, Dale Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:42 PM To: Grant, Peter Cc: Brockway,Connie; Ehring, Liz Subject: Tax Claims Good afternoon, As fora meeting date, Wednesday Feb 18 would be best for our office. Please check with Moreland if this will work for them. As I mentioned last week this is confirmed and they'll be here tomorrow gam. Our office would like InfoSys to burn a CD of a read only version of the Incomplete data base for our records prior to Moreland working on this file. Also when we are ready to turn over the Main file to Moreland we would like a CD of a read only version for our records. I've not been able to consult with IS about this yet. In preparation for Moreland, I need a read only version of the two Excel datasheets (NC2000-63 and 13100-20500) placed back into our G drive. I was not aware that it had been removed until today. I've not been able to consult with IS about this yet. Based on today's meeting it appears that all claims even duplicates should be entered into the database. We are in the process of researching this now. We have entered into the database claims that are possible duplicates (name and APN match as a minimum) regardless of date received, as January 4, 2004 claims since the original claim was filed timely. If we remove those claims from the Main database, since they were received after Jan 4, the new claim number will disappear and will have to be documented that it does not exist, and then entered into the Jan 5 new database. There was mention at the meeting that Moreland will be handling the claims received after Jan 5 up to a date uncertain. If this is the case,would it not be better to keep the duplicate claims already entered in Main database and change the date filed to the actual date? Also, continue adding the claims received after Jan 5 into the database Main database as date filed (received)as a search for claims received Jan 5 forward could be done if the refund is to be calculated based on the Jan 4 deadline. This response from DCSE covers the last two paragraphs: We are okay with the proposal to keep all records in one database. The duplicate claims that have been entered with Jan. 4 file dates should be corrected to the actual i filed (received)date as suggested.Also, continue to add claims that were received after Jan. 4 into the same database with the actual received date as suggested.We can set up the refund calculation to check that the claim was received by the deadline in order to receive the refund for the first two years. At some point we'll decide what data is going to Moreland for the"big batch" processing and create a new database then. I'll keep working on the open issues, Pete Please advise and thank you. Dale z Jones, Dale From: Jones, Dale Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:01 AM To: McGrath, Jennifer Subject: claim retention I checked our retention schedule-for Claims Against the City-2 year retention. Under Comments/Reference it states City Attorney is OFR; GC Section 34090.7. 1 also found for Claims - 1 year retention. Under Comments/Reference it states Copies retained in department for 1 year; Risk Mgmt administrates claim; City Attorney maintains copies of lawsuits; GC Sections 34090.7, 34090.6. Under Retention/Disposition it states: Vital? -Yes: Before Settlement; Media Options- Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr; Image-S/I; and Destroy Paper after Imaged and QC'd -Yes: After Settlement. This is per Res No. 2002-9. If you find anything to the contrary, please advise. Thank you. Dale 1 C)C) Soo c CO CA, v-1-3- U& LA Page 1 of 1 Jones, ®ale From: Colleen Wilson [colleen@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:46 AM To: ehringl@surfcity-hb.org Cc: djones@surfcity-hb.org Subject: tax refund My neighbor and I filed for the property tax refunds at the same time. She has received hers--I have not. Can you explain. My name is Colleen Wilson, 18941 Silverbit Lane, Huntington Beach, 91648. I also own properties at 6781 Marilyn, and 6941 Verlene in HB (92647). Thank you. Who should I contact if not your office? COITeen vils"�071 6791 ` r-4yn D"w 6q6/ 2/2/2004 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: City Attorney, City Treasurer, Principal Administration Analyst FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk SUBJECT: Tax Claim Update DATE: January 7, 2004 The City Clerks Office as of January 7, 2004 has entered 36,600 claims into the city's database. We have approximately 3600 claims to "clean-up". These claims are incomplete (missing zip codes, parcel numbers, multiple APN's, etc.) We have to approximately 350 claims that are in the process of mailing back to claimant for completion. The clerk's office received approximately 3000 claims on January 4, 2004. We have approximately 46,000 claims. Claim for Partial Refund of Property Tax In order to process your claim regarding your property tax refund, we are returning your claim for your signature.. Please .segr> your attached claim, date it, and mail or drop off at your earliest convenience to the address below. .The deadline has not yet been ascertained; however, to ensure timely receipt please return to the City Clerk's Office by December 4, 2003. .Thank you. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 Claim for Partial. Refund of Property Tax In order to process your claim regarding your property tax refund, we are returning your claim because we need your Assessors Parcel Number. To locate your parcel number you can: (Example: 123-456-78) 1) Locate your parcel number in the upper left hand corner of your tax bill; 2) Available at hftp://tax.ocgov.com/tcweb/search page.asp; or 3) Call the Assessor's Office at 714-834-6077. Please mail or drop off at your earliest convenience to the address below. The deadline has not yet been ascertained; however, to ensure timely receipt please return to the City Clerk's Office by December 4, 2003. Thank you. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 Jones, Dale From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:14 AM To: Jones, Dale Cc: Brockway, Connie Subject: RE: update of tax claim meeting of Jan 15, 2004 Dale-thank you for heading up the meeting - I know you handled everything as well as is possible(given the circumstances by which we are working). The only concern I believe Connie would have (I know I do) is the fact that the City Clerk will only have"read only" access. Liz -----Original Message----- From: Jones,Dale Sent: Thursday,January 15,2004 12:54 PM To: Brockway,Connie; Ehring, Liz Subject: update of tax claim meeting of Jan 15,2004 Pete Grant and 4 representatives of Moreland &Associates came to our office. I showed them what we are doing, the claims, and the misc stuff we are working on. Pete will be getting a memo together for Council meeting of Feb 2 for direction pertaining to-do we need the claims to have a signature and also approve the policy for processing the invalid claims (letter to be mailed giving invalid claims 30 days to cure). There may be other things also. I informed Pete that we are entering approx 500 claims per day so we should have all valid claims in the database end of Jan or first part of Feb. Pete meet with Info Sys regarding the databases and the security issue. Info Sys informed Pete that we could not edit the access database, I confirmed with Pete that we can edit and he will check with Info Sys (for security purposes) if we should be able to. Moreland will have there own database shared with us for processing the incomplete claims that have been cured and will assign a claim number and send the original to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will provide only copies of any claim Moreland will need. They will establish a new phone number for claim questions -we will update our phone message-they might be able to forward the calls. (Pete will get back to us.) Moreland will get a copy of the Dirty Access -they will cleanup. (City Clerk read only) and the Two Excel files- (City Clerk read only) Moreland will also get a copy of the list of the files that could not convert from Excel to Access because they had multiple APN's on the same claim and were not assigned a separate claim number at that time. They will check the comments field for claims noted as unassigned or check with Risk Management. These databases will be updated by Info Sys regularly. On the claims that the City Clerk has segregated as un-entered incomplete, based on Council Action, our office or Moreland will process. Pete asked me to check with you (Connie) if you want our department to process or Moreland. I guess approximately 300-500 of which a majority are ready to mail with the exception of the letter that Council needs to approve at the Feb 2 meeting. The City Clerk will attach all duplicate claims to the original claims (checking that they are exact). The City Clerk will attach all misc inquires/address change, etc to original claims and i confirm the changes were made in the database. There are still claims that are yet to be identified as incomplete. If Council waives the original signature, then the faxed claims will be valid. Pete will get back to us regarding correspondence from claimant- if we need to identify that there is. (We have put in the comments field anything irregular but I don't know how consistent we have been.) I believe that is everything for now. Dale 2 Message Page 1 of 1 Ehring, Liz From: Jones, Dale Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:16 PM To: 'Clay' Subject: RE: CLAIM FORM Good afternoon, When you get to the home page on our website look to the right under Announcements. The first link is the Claim for Refund...be sure to print out both pages of the claim form and mail or drop off to the City Clerk's Office at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The deadline for filing is January 2, 2004. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Thank you. Dale Jones Sr Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Clay [mailto:clay@charterelectrical.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:47 AM To: ehringl@surfcity-hb.org; djones@surfcity-hb.org Subject: CLAIM FORM I would like to download a "Partial Refund of Huntington Beach Property Tax" CLAIM FORM from your website. I don't see it here. Could you help? Thank you. slgoose61(c_yahoo.com 11/13/2003 Ehring, Liz From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:10 AM To: McGrath, Jennifer Cc: Ehring, Liz; Jones, Dale; Ross, Rebecca Subject: Property Tax Claims On August 18, 2003 the City Council advised that all Valid claims would be honored. Please review the process that the City Clerk's Office has been following thus far: (1) We have been returning unsigned claims to the sender and requesting that they sign the claim. (2) We have been taking phone calls of persons who changed their address and have, or will enter it into the database. The volume has not allowed the Clerk's office to document all of the phone calls (changing addresses)nor to check for duplicate claims being filed.) Our database information will be different than what is on the original claim in come instances. Next: What is the best thing to do with claims of homeowners who have not circled the years that they owned the property. What is the process with faxed claims? Is an original signature necessary? What is the best procedure when property owners call and change their mailing address? Connie Brockway City Clerk 1 0 J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Interested Persons FROM: Gail Button, City Attorney DATE: March 15, 2001 SUBJECT: Property Tax Refund Claims We have received a number of inquiries concerning the recent trial court decision in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, et al., v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 81 87 80. A copy of the Court decision is attached. Several taxpayers have asked whether they may also file property tax refund claims. Pursuant to the City Charter, it is right and duty of the City Attorney to advise and represent the City, the City Council, and all City commissions and officers. Consequently, the City Attorney cannot represent or advise individual taxpayers. Instead, in the interest of providing as much information as the City Attorney reasonably and lawfully can provide, also attached is a copy of the web page of the "Huntington Beach Taxpayers' Association," along with the Association's form letters on how to file a protest of property tax payments and a claim for refund. Unfortunately, we cannot provide advice on whether these procedures are appropriate. Instead, you may wish to contact-the author of these materials, Dr. David Sullivan, a former Councilmember of the City of Huntington Beach. Gail Hutton City Attorney Attachments: 1) Tentative Decision 2) Huntington Beach Taxpayers' Association form letters SF-2001 Memos:Interested Persons 3-14 BEFORE THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Property Tax Payment Claimant's Name: Assessor's Parcel No. Parcel Address: Claimant's Address [if different than parcel address]: CLAIM FOR REFUND Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096, et seq.; the above-named Claimant hereby claims a refund of the property tax paid for Fiscal Year The total property tax paid on the above-referenced parcel was $ , and the amount sought for refund is $ GROUNDS [Describe the basis that you believe a refund is due.] VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Huntington Beach, California. DATED: SIGNED: A copy of your property tax bill and the check or other evidence showing payment of taxes should be attached. SF Forms: Tax refund form 3-19-01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ) CASE NO . 81-87-80 ASSOCIATION; AND CHARLES SCHEID ) 12 ) TENTATIVE DECISION Plaintiffs, ) 13 ) V. ) 14 ) COUNTY OF ORANGE; AND DAVID ) 15 SUNDSTROM, AUDITOR_CONTROLLER ) 16 Defendants . ) 17 ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 18 ) Real Party In Interest . ) 19 ) 20 This cause came on regularly for trial on February 26 and 21 February 27, 2001 in Department C-28 ; plaintiffs appearing by their 22 attorney Timothy A. Bittle on behalf of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers 23 Association and Charles Scheid. Defendant City of Huntington Beach, 24 the real party in interest, appeared by their attorneys, Stephen L. 25 Mayer of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canada, Falk and Rabkin, and 26 Gail Hutton, City Attorney, by Scott Field, Assistant City 27 Attorney. Defendants County of Orange and David Sundstrom, 28 /// 1 Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange, appeared by James C. 2 Harmon, Deputy County Counsel . 3 The parties stipulated that should there be a ruling against 4 the County in this matter, that the City shall pay any costs and 5 fees that may be ordered against the County as the City is the real 6 party in interest . The County asked the Court' s permission to be 7 excused from further participation in the trial . Pursuant to said 8 stipulation of all parties, the County was excused— 9 The Court having heard and considered the testimony, the 10 arguments of the parties, a jury having been waived and the matter 11 having been submitted for decision now renders its tentative 12 decision as follows : 13 (1) THE COURT DECLARES THE DEFENDANT CITY OF HUNTINGTON 14 BEACH' S CITY PROPERTY TAX OVERRIDE VIOLATES CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 15 ARTICLE XIII A, SECTION 1 (b) TO THE EXTENT IT EXCEEDS THE CITY 16 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PERS OBLIGATION AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO 17 JULY 1, 1978 AND CANNOT LAWFULLY BE ASSESSED OR COLLECTED. 18 (2) PLAINTIFF CHARLES SCHEID IS AWARDED A REFUND IN THE 19 AMOUNT OF $22 . 55 OR SUCH AMOUNT THAT IS DETERMINED AFTER DEDUCTING 20 AMOUNTS PAID BY SCHEID AS A RESULT OF THE CITY' S IMPOSITION OF 21 THOSE AMOUNTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNLAWFUL OVERRIDE IMPOSED FOR THE 22 TAX YEAR 1999-2000 . - 23 PLAINTIFFS TO RECOVER THEIR COSTS OF SUIT. 24 The Court makes the following findings : 25 (1) The Court finds that plaintiff' s first cause of action 26 is not barred by the statute of limitations contained in Revenue 27 and Taxation Code Section 4808 in that the City Council as a 28 legislative body enacted a 0 . 0493 per cent tax on August 16, 1999 -2- 1 on real property for the fiscal year 1999-2000 and this action was 2 filed on December 27, 1999 and well within the 12-month deadline. 3 (2 ) The Court finds that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers 4 Association has standing to bring the first cause of action in that 5 it' s not seeking a refund and need not have paid the tax to seek 6 declaratory relief; "To establish an associational standing 7 (plaintiff) must demonstrate that its members would otherwise have 8 standing to sue in their own right . " Associated- Builders and 91 Contractors, Inc. , v. San Francisco Airport Commission, (1991) , 21 10 Ca14th 352 . 11 (3) On 6-6-78 , California voters approved Proposition 13 , 12 adding Article XIII A to the State Constitution which sets the 13 maximum rate for property taxes at Ilk of assessed value. Section 14 1 (b) provides a limited exception that allows the one percent cap 15 to be overridden to repay an "indebtedness approved by the voters 16 prior to July 1, 1978 . " 17 (4) The 1966 Charter authorized the City Council of 18 Huntington Beach to levy property tax "sufficient to meet all 19 obligations of the City under the State Employee Retirement System, 20 the Federal Insurance Contribution Act, or other plan for the 21 retirement of city employees, due and unpaid or to become due 22 during the ensuing fiscal year. " 23 (5) In 1973 the voters of Huntington Beach approved a change 24 in the City Charter. The voters were informed that the Charter 25 would be revised to state that the tax would be "sufficient to meet 26 all obligations for the retirement system in which the City 27 participates, due and unpaid or to become due during the ensuing 28 fiscal year; " a related provision was changed to state "The City -3- 1 shall participate in a retirement system, " eliminating a previous 2 reference that limited the City to the .State Employees Retirement 3 System. 4 (6) The legislative analyst referred to the changes as 5 "housekeeping" provisions, in contrast to other changes said to be 6 "controversial. " 7 (7) The ballot argument in favor of the change stated that 8 Measure D contained "housekeeping" provisions to make government 9 more "efficient" and stated they were "noncontroversial . " 10 (8) The tax at issue is an exception (override) to the voter 11 approved Proposition 13 permitting a tax for the purpose of 12 financing retirement benefits . This override was capped by the 13 Legislature in 1985 resulting in maximum rates of . 0493 percent . 14 (9) Prior to the approval of the Huntington Beach Charter 15 on July 6, 1978 , the City was providing a PERS pension to all city 16 employees and a PERS survivors' benefit to its firefighters . An 17 obligation to pay these benefits can properly be paid by levy of a 18 property tax override . 19 (10) Proposition 13 override applies to indebtedness that 20 existed prior to July 1, 1978 . Charters are subordinate to the 21 state constitution and statutes . Proposition 13 preempted the 22 field of ad valorem property taxation. City of Rancho Cucamonga- v. 23 Mackzum (1991) 228 CA3d 929 . 24 (11) The City began paying a portion of the , employees 25 contributions to PERS under bargaining agreements in July of 1978;. 26 the levels of city contributions have increased since then with the 27 City paying all employees' share in the 1980s . In 1987 the City 28 -4- I began to pay supplemental retirement benefits and medical insurance 2 retirement benefits . 3 (12) The Court finds any allowable Proposition 13 override 4 applies only to indebtedness existing before 7/1/78 . Any benefits 5 approved later were not voter approved. Carmen vs. Alvord (1982) 6 31C3d 318 . 7 (13) The Court finds that the City Employers' obligation to 8 PERS, as it existed prior to July 1, 1978 remains as the only debt 9 to which an override is allowable under the City' s Charter; that 10 debt was zero for the tax year 1999-2000 and the City' s continued 11 collection of millions of dollars in excess of the constitutional 12 one percent cap is illegal . Valentine v. City of Oakland (1983) 13 148 CA3d 139 . 14 (14) The Court further finds for the fiscal year 1999-2000 15 the City collected approximately $6 . 5 million more than it needed 16 to pay its employer obligation to PERS due to PERS' successful 17 investment portfolio. 18 Counsel for the plaintiffs is hereby ordered to prepare a 19 statement of decision and formal judgment in conformity with this 20 tentative decision. 21 IT IS SOO(-,RDERED. 22 Dated: �J C f�� 23 24 ROBE AT H. GALLIVAN 25 Judge of the Superior Court TD818780/gm 26 27 28 -5- Road Runner Personal Home Page Page 1 of 1 Telephone 840-4015 Email: dsullivan a-socal.rr.com Mission Statement Gather information about how our taxes and fees are spent in Huntington Beach. Evaluate the spending priorities of Huntington Beach. Provide tax information to our member and the community. Seek consensus of the members and express the views of the members of the Huntington Beach Taxpayers Association to the city council and city staff. Action Bulletin Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association files lawsuit against Huntington Beach. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach, contending that the city has illegally collected a portion of the city property tax used for employer retirement. If the city loses the Jarvis lawsuit, the city will not be obligated to return the illegally collected taxes, unless the individual taxpayer protests the tax at the time they pay their property taxes. The next property tax installment must be paid and protested by April 10, 2001. How to protest the tax. Send the two letters below to the appropriate people: Tax Protest to County Tax Protest to City Clerk To Receive information Please leave your: name, address and zip code, phone number, email if applicable http://home.socal.rr.com/hbtax/ 3/14/01 Tax Protest to County Page 1 of 1 (Date) Orange County Tax Collector P.O. Box 1980 Santa Ana, CA 92702-1980 Subject: Protest of Property Tax Payment and Claim for Refund Gentlemen: The enclosed property tax payment for Fiscal Year 20,00-2001 on Assessors Parcel No. (your parcel number) is made under protest. The part of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach which is associated with employee retirement benefits put in place on or after July 1, 1978 is not allowable under the California Constitution, Art. X1IIA. A claim is hereby made for refund of that part of my property tax payment. Sincerely yours, (your name and address) (It is important to write "Paid in Protest" on the face of your check. This at least gets you on record.) http://home.socal.rr.com/hbtax/FonnLtrB.doc.htm 3/14/01 ti ry x Tax Protest to City Clerk Page 1 of 1 (Date) City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Portion of Property Tax Payment Dear Ms. Brockway, I hereby claim a refund of a portion of the property tax for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 on Assessors Parcel No. (your parcel number), the first installment of which has been paid. The part of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach which is associated with employee retirement benefits put in place on or after July 1, 1978 is not allowable under the California Constitution, Art. XIIIA. Sincerely yours, (your name and address) http://home.socal.rr.com/hbtaxiFonnLtrC.doc.htm 3/14/01 j i so ityCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION Hm' o C . To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ro z From: RaySilver, City Administrator c,?zd Y w o__< Date: October 23, 2003 c� Subject: Property Tax Override Refund Update ;f At its September 15, 2003 meeting,-ihe City Council directed the City Admini frator to present a progress report for the property tax override refund process. This memorandum provides an update of city's progress, detail on some of the major issues staff has encountered, and an estimated timeline for the major milestones in the refund process. Current Efforts In September 2003,the City Administrator created.a.special.project team to manage the property tax.override refund process. Led. by the City Administrator; the team includes i representatives from the City Administrator's office, the.City Attorney's office, the City Clerk's office, the City Treasurer's office, and the Information Services and Administrative Services departments. The team has scheduled weekly meetings and developed the following update for the City Council. i Refund Claim Database To date, the City Clerk's office has received approximately 35,000 claims and has entered 23,500 claims into the city's database. This past month,. the Information Services departmei t developed a database for the. City Clerk's office to use. when logging claims into the computer and has undertaken an effort to reformat the data in the original spreadsheets the City Clerk's office developed. The City Clerk has been. using temporary employees, plus volunteer staff, to manage the flow of refund claims her office is receiving. The City Attorney and City Clerk are also working together to resolve hundreds of refund claim forms that have been submitted with incorrect or incomplete information. The City Clerk's office is contacting these refund claim filers by telephone and mail to gather the necessary information. C,2-b Refund Process Planning Staff holds weekly meetings and has met twice with the county to develop the refund process. Significant progress has been made toward determining how the refund process will work. However,-the refund process promises to be enormously complex and staff is proceeding cautiously to ensure it is as.efficient, :equitable, and dependable as possible. Staff is working to secure consultant assistance to review claims and issue refund checks. Staff expects that with supplemental resources (the cost of which could be recovered in a judgment bond issue) the city will be able to more quickly process claims and issue refunds. The special project team will manage the consultant contract. Staff will return to the City Council with a further update that will include a cost'estimate for consultants, temporary staff in the City Clerk's office, reimbursement to the county for its costs, the cost to issue the refunds, arm other related costs. Anticipated Timeline to Process Refunds At this early stage in the refund process, staff has developed the following major miles imelm a city ex-pects t�follow: January 4, 2004 Deadline for refund claims for property taxes paid from 1998-99 9 All claims postmarked by January 4, 2004 entered.into database March 2004 City Council asked to approve judgment bond issue April 16, 2004 All claims verified against county property tax database April 19, 2004 Begin review of exception claims' April - May 2004 Sell judgment bond July 1, 2004 Begin process of issuing refund checks April 2006 Refund deadline expires for all timely taxpayers2 Staff expects to encounter a large number of exception claims during the verification process. These exceptions will likely involve issues such as: property owner information not matching refund claim information, mid-year property sales, foreclosures,divorced and deceased property owners, etc. While staff hopes to develop efficient methods to resolve these issues, exception claim verification could prove an onerous undertaking. 2 Refund claims for taxes paid by December 1999 must be filed no later than January 4, 2004. Refund claims for taxes paid after December 1999 must be filed within four years from the date the tax was paid. The city last collected the property override tax in 2001, meaning a timely payment in 2001 would be eligible for a refund until April 2006. A timely unsecured property tax payment could be as late as April 2002. Taxpayers who made supplemental or late payments will have some undetermined period beyond that date to file refund claims. Staff will be developing an on-going refund process to ensure these taxpayers receive their refunds, when valid, in a timely manner. Communications Communication with impacted taxpayers is a vital part of the refund process. To date, the city has advertised the refund claim form on channel 3 and the city's website. -Staff has also coordinated a municipal services bill insert, which is being included in the November, billing cycle's mailing. . .,Staff is also working on effective ways to communicate refund claims status and the city's progress toward issuing the refunds. Conclusion/Next Steps The city has a significant amount of work and a list of complicated issues to resolve as we proceed through the refund process. However, we are encouraged by our progress to date and by the relationship we have established with the county. The City Council can expect to receive another update at its January 5, 2004 meeting. Staff is, of course, available to each of you any time between now and the next update to answer questions and provide you with updates. Recommended Action In order to facilitate the next steps in the property tax override refund process, the City Administrator is requesting the following City Council actions: 1. Authorize the City Administrator to retain assistance to process the property tax override refund claims and payments; and 2. Authorize the City Administrator to retain assistance to issue the property tax override refund judgment bond. q c�� f,&Uy\`ks JJ CITY OF HUN TING'TON BEACH Inter Department Communication TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CONNIE BOARDMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RAY SILVER, City Administrator WILLIAM WORKMAN,Assistant City Administrator CLAY MARTIN,Director of Administrative Services FROM: JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorney DATE: September 23,200 SUBJECT: war_ Ja _is_Ta ayaers Association v. City of Huntington Beach, Case No. G029292; Implementation of Retirement Property Tax Refunds The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the deadline for citizens to file property tax retirement refund claims. . In Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association v. City of Huntington Beach, the Court of Appeal held that the City may only levy a retirement tax for benefits approved prior to July 1978. Because the City collected a tax from 1997/98 through 2000/01 that was used in whole or in part for post- 1978 retirement benefits, any property owner who paid the tax during that time period is entitled to a refund upon submitting a claim. - In April 2001,the trial court issued its judgment invalidating the tax to the extent it was used to pay for post-1978 benefits. That same month,the Council appealed the trial court decision. Recognizing that the statute of limitations would begin barring some, if not all refund claims during the course of-the appeal,the City Council"tolled"the statute of limitations so that all individuals entitled to a refund would have at least until 90 days after the final decision from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to file a refund claim. For the City Council's reference, enclosed please find Resolution No. 2001-19,adopted in April 2001 extending the statute of limitation. Also enclosed is a letter to all property owners prepared by the Office of the City Attorney, stating that while the statute of limitations on filing a tax refund claim normally expired four years after paying the tax, the statute of limitations was extended to 90 days after the final Court decision. On a number of occasions, it has been publicly stated and written that the last day to submit any property tax refund claims is 90 days after-the-"Remittitur"is issued by the Court of Appeal. The Remittitur�cas issued on October 3, 2003,,herefore the 90t' day will be January 1,2004. As \FIELD12003 MemosliltA-Refunds.doc Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Huntington Beach September 23, 2003 Page 2 I January 1 is a holiday, Janua y2,-2004 is the deadline for the filing of timely claims for those individuals who paid the tax from June 1098 through December 1999. Many of these claims would be time-barred but for the adoption of Resolution 2001-19. However,please note that Resolution 2001-19 does not terminate the ability of individuals who paid the tax between January 2000 through April 2001 from filing a claim within the four-year statute of limitations. To make this point clear, let me give a few examples. Retirement property tax were collected for tax years 1997/98, 1998/99, 1999/00 and 2000/01. Because taxes are typically paid in December and April of each tax year,that meant that the last tax payment was paid in April 2001. This would mean that the statute of limitations on this last tax payment would not expire until April 2005. On the other hand, absent the City—Council extending the statute of limitations,the limitations would have already expired for taxes paid through April 1999, and will soon expire for taxes paid in December 1999. It also should be noted that there are other circumstances where the tax may have been paid later than April 2001, such as when property is sold and a supplemental tax bill is issued. Again,the limitation period would run from four years after the supplemental tax bill was paid... The effect.of the fact that claims may be received for property tax refunds through April 2005 or even later means that there will be some uncertainty about the total of amount refunds due,even after the bulk of the refund claims are received by the end of the year. The potential for additional claims being received later can be estimated in January 2004 by comparing the claims actually received to the potential claims still outstanding. IJIFER McGRATH City Attorney Enclosures as noted GAFIELD\2003 Memos\HJ?A-Refunds.doc 10/17/2003 _ RESOLUTION NO. 2001-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .EXTENDING THE MM TO FILE TAX.REFUND CLALMS AND LAWSUITS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE ENTITIED HOWARD JAR VIS TAXPA YERS ASSO CIA TION V. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND REAL PARTYMMTEREST CITY OF HUTNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUN`1 Y SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 818780 WHEREAS,the City first contracted ?.Zth the California Public Employees Retirement .- System('PERS')in 1945 in order to provide retirement benefits to City employees;and As part of the City Charter elections of 1966, and later, 1978,Huntington Beach voters authorized a property tax override to pay for employee retirement benefits; and Since at least 1966,the.City has.levied a property taz override to pay for employee retirement benefits;and Since 1981-82, the City of Huntington Beach has levied a property tax override in the amount of 0.0493 percent of assessed value to support its employee retirement system; and The Orange County Superior Court declared pursuant to a judgment filed on April 2, 2001 in the case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v County of Orange and Real Party in Interest City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior.Court Case No.818780 ("Case No. 818780')that.the Cit)'s property tax override violates Proposition 13"to the extent.' that the tax exceeds the City's employer contribution for PERS retirement benefits that were in effect prior to July 1, 1978';and The City Council has authorized an appeal of the judgment in Case No. 818780;and It is likely that the appellate process%vill not be completed in less than three years,and even longer, should any party seek Supreme Court review; and - -�-•--,: T;--T,,RerimdChula ` Many property owners already have filed refund claims based upon the Superior Court judgment in Case No. 818780; and Section 5097 of the Revenue and Taxation-Code of the State of California provides that refund claims may be submitted within four years of having paid the property tax..Further, Section 5141 provides that if a refund claim is made,and denied by the City, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit based upon the claim.failure to file such a lawsuit results in forfeiture of the claim; and The City Council Nvishes to establish an orderly procedure so that any claims filed can be addressed after all appellate proceedings in Case No.818780 have been completed; " NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby resolves as follows: . - SECTION 1. Notivithstariding Section 5097 oftheRevenue and Taxation Code' a property tax refund claim may be filed with the City Clerk to include any property tax payments made after July 1, 1997 to the present provided the claim for a refund is filed no later than within 90 days following issuance of a remittitur by an appellate court affirming,modifying or reversing the judgment of the trial court in Case No.818780("the Remittitur'). SECTION 2. Notwithstanding Section 5141 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, any person having filed a_claim for refund after January l;200I,based upon the judgment in Case No. 818780 may commence such action'within I80 days after issuance of the Remittitur: SECTION 3. Should the Remittitur either affirm or modify the April 2,2001 judgment in Case No. 818780,declaring that a portion of the property tax override violates Proposition 13, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to refund within a reasonable time all property taxes paid from July 1, 1997 to the present consistent with the Rerriittitur.upon Co 4 presentation of a refund claim in compliance with the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Any person issued a,-refund based iipon the final judgment shall be entitled to interest pursuant to Section 5151-.of the California Revenue a.nd.Taxation Code at the B eater of three' percent(3%) per annum or,the County pool apportioned rate,when that interest is Ten Dollars ($10.00)or more. The interest computation period will commence as of April 1,2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th m day of April , 2001. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk a1-19'�t ....City .CityAttorney REVIEWED AND.APPROVED: INITIATED . APPRO — - t1l"', L� Cityl-dministrator 11 ector o Administrative Services 10 a 3 -- SF•200I Resolutions:Extending Time—Tax Rcrund Claims Res. No. 2001-19 " STATE OF CALIFORNIA } . .COUNTY OF GRANGE ss.: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -) j { I I, CONNIE BROCKW_AY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk-of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said i. 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 the 16th day of April, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None } City Clerk and ex-offfido C erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G e ' April 17,2001 To All Property Owners in the City of Huntington Beach In 1945,the City first contracted with the California Public Employees Retirement System("PERS") in order to provide retirement benefits to the City employees. As part of the City Charter elections of 1966 and 1979, Huntington Beach voters approved aprop- erry tax override to pay for City employee retirement benefits. Also in 1978,California voters approved Proposition 13. While Proposition 13 sets the maximum rate for property taxes at one percent(1%) of assessed value,it also permits additional taxes to be levied to pay debts approved by voters prior to July 1, 1978. In several decisions,the courts have held that,taxes to supportretire- ment programs qualify as such debts. Consequently,the City has continued to levy the property tax override from 1978 to the present. Since 1981-82,the tax has remained constant at.0493%of assessed value. On April 2,2001,the Orange County Superior Court entered a judgment in the case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. County of Orange, and Real Party in Interest,City of Huntington Beach,Case No. 818780. The Court declared that the City's property tax override violates Proposi- tion 13 "to the extent that the tax exceeds the City's employer contribution for PERS retirement benefits that were in effect prior to July 1, 1978." Specifically at issue in the Howard Jarvis suit was the tax for the fiscal year 1999 through 2000. In that year,the City levied a retirement tax as it has for the past 34 years. The proceeds of that tax were used to pay for employee retirementben- efits. However,the specific retirement benefits paid with the tax have changed over the years since 1978. In the.Howard Jarvis lawsuit,the Plaintiffs claimed that the City could only pay for those specific retirement programs that the City provided in 1978. On.April 2, 2001,the Court agreed, holding that such tax could only be used to pay for those benefits offered before July 1,1978. In response to this decision,the City Council has filed an appeal. It is anticipated that it will take three years to resolve the appellate process and possibly longer,if either party seeks review from the California Supreme Court. It is the intent of the City Council that if, after the end of the appellate process,the final judgment should indicate that the taxpayers were overcharged,then all taxpayers that apply for a refund will receive a refund for Fiscal Years 1997-98 through the present. Normally, in order to apply for a tax refund, the property owner must file a claim within four years e ` of having paid the tax. Then,the City has up to six months to act on the claim. If the City does not act within six months,the claim is automatically denied. At that point,the property owner has six months to file his own lawsuit or else forfeit the claim. The City sees no need for taxpayers to go through this process while the appeal is still pending. Consequently,the City has waived the necessity of filing a claim at this time. Instead, any person may file a claim at any time no later than 90 days after-there is a final decision on the tax from the - Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. The City will promptly announce any such decision. In the meanwhile,property owners still may file refund claims now if they wish. If they do file such claims,they will not be paid while the City's appeal is pending; instead they will be deemed denied six months after having been filed. However,the time to file a suit will be extended until 1 80 days after a final decision in the case. While individual property owners may sue earlier,that is unneces- sary because the City will continue to accept claims until 90 days after the final decision of the - appellate courts in the Howard Jarvis lawsuit. In summary,the City wishes to treat all property owners equally. At this time,the Howard Jarvis lawsuit does not give anyone tax refunds because the City is appealing. The appellate process is lengthy and will take three years or more. No one need file a tax refund now,because if the City loses the appeal in part or whole,it will accept refund claims.for up to 90 days after the appellate decision: Sincerely, I GAIL HUTTON City Attorney B 3 f t 4 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648- Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Property Tax/Payment Claimant's Name: Assessor's Parcel No. Parcel Address: Claimant's Address [if different than parcel address]: t Phone Number&E-Mail Address foptional] Years for which you are seeldng a refund [circle all those years during which you paid the property taxes]: July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998 July 1, 1998-June 30,1999 July 1, 1999-June 30,2000 July 1,2000-June 30,2001. CLAIM FOR REFUND Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096,et seq., Claimant seeks the refund of Claimant's share of that portion of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach that exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. _- GROUNDS The claimed portion of the City's property tax was"illegally assessed or levied"and/or"illegally collected"as those.tenns are used in_Revenue and Taxation Code_§ 509.6. Proposition 13 caps ad valorem property taxes at one percent of the property's assessed value. Cal.Const.,art.XIIIA,sec. 1 (a). An exception permits the one percent cap to be exceeded to repay an"indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978" Id.,Sec. I(b). I The Court ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Chy of Huntington Beach,Change County Superior Court Case No. 818780,that the City's property tax,to the extent it exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978,violated Propo- sition 13 and was therefore levied and collected illegally. Idl a a PAYMENT OF TAXES I certify that I paid the property-tax, or am the guardian,executor or administrator ofthe person who paid the tax on the above-mentioned Assessor's Parcel during the years described above. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons,Claimant requests the refund of the amount determined by the City to represent the difference between Claimant's payments and Claimant's lawful share of the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Hunting= ton Beach,California. ; DATED: SIGNED: Please Note: It may be necessary in the future for you to provide evidence that you were the person who paid the tax. It is recommended that you retain any cancelled checks or other evidence you may have showing payment of property taxes. ho ,�ytUilp� OFFICE OF = _ CITY ATTORN EY `F�p»T 1 P.O. BOX 190 2000 Main Street Telephone Gail Hutton Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5555 City Anorney Fax (714) 374-1590 April 17,2001 To All Property Owners in the City of Huntington Beach In 1945,the City first contracted with the California Public Employees Retirement System ("PERS")in order to provide retirement benefits to the City employees. As part of the City Charter elections of 1966 and 1978,Huntington Beach voters approved a property tax override to pay for City employee retirement benefits. Also in 1978, California voters approved Proposition 13. While Proposition 13 sets the maximum rate for property taxes at one percent(1%)of assessed value,it also permits additional taxes.to he levied to pay debts -approved by.voters prior to.July. 1, 1978. In several decisions,the courts have held that.taxes to support retirement programs qualify as such debts... Consequently,the City has continued to levy. the property tax override from 1918 to the present Since 1981-82,the tax has remained constant at .04936/o of assessed value. On April 2,2001,the Orange County Superior Court entered a judgment in the case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association V. County of Orange, and Real Party in Interest, City of Huntington Beach, Case No. 818780. The Court declared that the City's property tax override violates Proposition 13"to the extent that the tax exceeds the City's employer contribution for PERS retirement benefits that were in effect prior to July 1, 1978." Specifically at issue in the Howard Jarvis suit was the tax for the fiscal year 1999 through 2000. In that year,the City levied a retirement tax as it has for the past 34 years. The proceeds of that tax were used to pay for employee retirement benefits. However,the specific retirement benefits paid with the tax _ have changed over the years since 1978. In the Howard Jarvis lawsuit,the Plaintiffs claimed that the City could only pay for those specific retirement programs that the City provided.in. 1978. On April 2,2001,the Court agreed,holding that such tax could only be used to pay for those benefits offered before July 1, 1978. In response to this decision,the City Council has filed an appeal. It is anticipated that it will take three years to resolve the appellate process and possibly longer,if either party seeks review from the California Supreme Court. It is the intent of the City Council that if, after the end of the appellate process, the final judgment should indicate that the taxpayers were overcharged,then all taxpayers that apply for a refund will receive a refund for Fiscal Years 1997-98 through the present. SF-2000 Plead:Jarvis:Corres:Letter to all property owners Normally,in order to apply for a tax refund, the property owner must file a claim within four years of having paid the tax. Then,the City has up to six months to act on the claim. If the City does not act within six months,the claim is automatically denied. At that point, the property owner has six months to file his own lawsuit or else forfeit the claim. The City sees no need for taxpayers to go through this process while the appeal is still pending. Consequently,the City has waived the necessity,of filing a claim at this time. Instead, any perion may file a claim at any time no later than days after there is a final deoision on the tax from the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. The City will promptly announce any such decision. In the meanwhile,property owners still may file refund claims now if they wish. If they do file such claims,they will not be paid while the City's appeal is pending; instead they will be deemed denied six months after having been filed. However,the time to file a suit will be extended until 180 days after a final decision in the case. While individual property owners may sue earlier, that is unnecessary because the City will continue to accept claims until 90 days after the final decision of the appellate courts in the Howard Jarvis lawsuit. In summary,the City wishes to treat all property owners equally. At this time, the Howard Jarvis lawsuit does not give anyone tax refunds because the City is appealing. The appellate process is lengthy and will take three years or more. No one need file a tax refund now,because. if the City loses the appeal in part or whole,it will accept refund claims for-up.to-90.days after. the appellate decision: Sincerely, 7� GAIL HUTTON ; City Attorney - 2 f SF-2000 Plead:Jarvis:Corres:Letter to all property owners Mar 14 04 09: 20a Kevin G. Geyer GG1 -718-0488 P. 1 Kevin G. Geyer, M.D. —' Dolores A. Geyer ; 1- "! C:!-, Y OF 4027 Via Barbara H W" -�C)` t , r 4. ,'A Lancaster CA 93536 A A 8: 0 L, Tel. (661) 718-0468 Facsimile: (661) 718-048R March 14, 2004 Via Facsimile only to (714)3 74-155 7 UO City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Fluntigton Beach CA 92648 Re: Claim for Refund of Property Tax Payments Parcel No. 149-371-05 Address: 9421 Gateshead Drive, HB July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998 July 1, 1998-June 30, 1999 July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 July 1, 2000-dan. 23, 2001 (partial to sale date) Dear City Clerk: 1 submitted a claim for a refund of property taxes by the announced deadline of January 4, 2004 for the period referenced above but have not heard anything from your office. Attached is a copy of the U.S. post office delivery confirmation receipt showing it was delivered to your office on December 27, 2003. I'm attaching a copy of my original letter for your information. Please advise me of the status of this refund request. You may reach me directly by telephone at (661) 718-0468, by facsimile at (661) 718-0488, or by email at DoloresGqyer g( earthlink.net. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Sinter y rs, 'r olores A. Geyer (Mrs. Kevin G. Geyer) Encl./ L copy of original letter of December 20, 2. copy of Claim for Refund of Property Tax Payment 3. Copy of I TSPS tracking information showing claim delivered on Dec. 27, 2003 Mar 14 04 09: 20a Kevin G. Geyer GG1 -718-0488 p. 2 Kevin G. Geyer, -M-,D. Dolores Al Geyer 4027 Via Barbara Lancaster CA 93536 Tel: (661) 718-N68 FAX.- (661) 71&0488 December 20, 2003 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re: Claim for Refund of Property Tax Payments Parcel No.149-371-05 Address: 9421 Gateshead Drive,HB July 1,1997-June 3o, 1998 July 1, 1998-June 30, 1999 July 1, x99g-June 30,2000 July 1,2000-Jan. 23,2001 (partial to sale date) Dear City Clerk: Enclosed please find the claim for refund of the portion of property taxes overcollected by the City of Huntington Beach.Pursuant to the Judgment in the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v.County o,f Orange,and Real Party in Kderest,City of Huntington Reach lawsuit you are required to refund property taxes collected that exceed the Howard Jarvis maximum on the propertypy husband and I owned at 9421 Gateshead Drive,Htan6 ngton Beach. We were the legal owners-occupiers of the property from December 1982 until we closed escrow on the sale of the property to Frank August on January 23,2001. All property takes due were paid in full for the entire period of this claim. I understand that you will calculate the amount of refund of the portion of property taxes that relate to the Judgmentfor the above claimed period on presentation of this claim and pay that sun promptly to the undersigned. Should you need to contact me,you may reach me directly at(661) 718-0468,or contact me by email at DoloresGUyer@earthlink.net. Sincerely yours, dfi4�uk 4� .`. Dolores A.Geyer (Mrs. Kevin G.Geyer) Encl./copy of claim and supporting documents(tax bill 1997--98,and escrow papers showing closing date) Mar 14 04 09: 20a Kevin G. Geyer GG1 -718-0488 p. 3 City of Huntington Beach �yiii�as 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund-of Property Tax Payment For Office Use Only Filed Date(mm/dd5%J Claim Number Assessor's Parcel Number(APN#can be found on property tax bill) D o ®- IN Ed 10 oEl Last Name First Name as®a�OOOOOOO❑ �oaoaaOOO Business Name (If Applicable) �~--�(�''� ❑OOOOOCIOOOOOC]OOOOOOOOO❑ ParceUProperty Address in City of Huntington Beach aodoD[ aIn �aaa aaaoo OO❑ Zip Cade ®❑�' OQL�1 Mailing Address (if different from parcel address) r�a�oOQaoc�ooDadoOQaag DOD Mailing City a®a©®a©©®OOOOOOdOO❑ Mailing State Mailing Zip o® E]T Ub W Phone Number Email Address(optional) Years,for which you are seeking a refund (Check all those years during which you paid the property taxes) © July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998 ® July 1, 1999 to June 30,2000 ® July 1,1998 to June 30,1999 ®July 1,20M to June 30,2001 DYJt on *D Clairn for Refund ��" �a*x , 23y�� Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code 5096,et seq.,Claimant seeks the refund of Claimant's share of that portion of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach that exceeded Mar 14 04 09: 20a Kevin G. Geyer 661 -718-0488 p. 4 the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. Grounds The claimed portion of tha City's property tax was"illegally assessed or levied"and/or"illegally collected"as those terms are used in Revenue and Taxation Code 5096. Proposition 13 caps ad valorem property taxes at ore percent of the property's assessed value.Cal Const.,art.XIIIA, sec. 1 (a).An exemption permits the one percent cap to be exceeded to repay an `indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978".Id.,Sec.1(b). The Court ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.vs City of Huntington Beach,Orange County Superior Court Case No.818780,that the City's property tax.to the extent it exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978,violated Proposition 13 and was therefore levied and collected Illegally_ Payment of Taxes I certify that I paid the property tax,or am the guardian, executor or administrator of the person who paid the tax on the above mentioned Assessor's Parcel during the years described above. Prayer For the foregoing reasons,Claimant"uests the refund of the amount determined by the City to represent the difference between Claimant's payments and Claimant's lawful share of the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978_ Verification I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: �' "Signed: Please Note: It may be necessary in the future for you to provide evidence that you were the person who paid the tax. It is recommended that you retain any cancelled checks or other evidence you may have showing the payment of property taxes. Headline for claim submittal is January 4, 2004 for taxes paid prior to December 1999. For all other tax payments,a claim must be submitted within four years of the date of the payment. November 2003 To All Property Owners in the City of Huntington BeachY 4aCpG•kTY_,�, ' In 1945, the City first contracted with the California Public Employees Retirement System ("PERS")in order to provide retirement benefits to the City employees. As part of the City Charter elections of 1966 and 1978, Huntington Beach voters approved a property tax override to pay for City employee retirement benefits.Also in 1978, California voters approved Proposition 13.While Proposition 13 sets the maximum rate for property taxes at one percent(1%)of assessed value, it also permits additional taxes to be levied to pay debts approved by voters prior to July 1, 1978. In several decisions,the courts have held that taxes to support retirement programs qualify as such debts. Consequently,the City has continued to levy the property tax override from 1978 to the present. Since 1981-82, the tax has remained constant at.0493%of assessed value. On April 2, 2001, the Orange County Superior Court entered a judgment in the case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. County of Orange, and Real Party in Interest, City of Huntington Beach, Case No. 818780. The Court declared that the City's property tax override violates Proposition 13"to the extent that the tax exceeds the City's employer contribution for PERS retirement benefits that were in effect prior to July 1, 1978."Specifically at issue in the Howard Jarvis suit was the tax for the fiscal year 1999 through 2000. In that year,the City levied a retirement tax as it has for the past 34 years.The proceeds of that tax were used to pay for employee retirement benefits. However,the specific retirement benefits paid with the tax have changed over the years since 1978. In the Howard Jarvis lawsuit,the Plaintiffs claimed that the City could only pay for those specific retirement programs that the City provided in 1978. On April 2, 2001, the Court agreed, holding that such tax could only be used to pay for those benefits offered before July 1, 1978. In July of 2003,the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision.The City has begun the refund process and is currently accepting claim forms. Claims for tax years July 1, 1997 to June 30, 2001 are eligible for refund for four years from the date the taxes were paid. Sincerely, Jennifer McGrath City Attorney Brockway, Connie From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:45 PM To: Brockway, Connie Subject: FW: property tax claims -----Original Message----- From: Brockway,Connie Sent: Thursday, December 11,2003 2:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: McGrath,Jennifer Subject: property tax claims Approximately 400 claims per week are being received. Claims received through the middle of September have been input. As of 12/8/03: 30,516 in database-25,000 claims are validated for database and ready for web. Approximately 7500 claims are being worked on by the temporary workers to obtain signatures, Assessor Parcel Numbers, zip codes. It is planned very soon to have the 25,000 claims on the web (Claim Number, Assessor's Parcel Number, and Last Name) so that property owners can access the web using their Assessor's Parcel Number and last name. The Information Systems Dept and my staff are working on it. This will be a great help, as answering people who call to see if their claim has been filed as it has been almost two years since they filed, they forget. The foot traffic is heavy at the counter with filings and people inquiring if their claim has been received. I have been trying to keep the three temporary workers inputting and sending back insufficient claims to be corrected by the filer. That leaves the regular staff with the counter and many of the calls. When people can access the clerk's website---especially during the last days of filing ------where hundreds of calls will come in -the website will be very valuable. I anticipate 40,000 to 45,000 as being the total by the deadline. Connie Brockway City Clerk 1 Jones, Dale From: McGrath, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:11 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: RE: Property Tax Deadline Postmarked by 1/4 Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney City of Huntington Beach ph. (714)536-5555 fax(714)374-1590 -----Original Message----- From: Jones, Dale Sent: Thursday, November 20,2003 1:30 PM To: McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Brockway,Connie; Ehring,Liz Subject: Property Tax Deadline Good afternoon, Thank you for confirming the deadline is January 4, 2004 for claims for taxes paid from 1998-1999... Does the City Clerk's Office have to receive them by Jan 4 or is a claim still valid if postmarked by Jan 4. Thank you. Dale 1 Jones, Dale From: Jones, Dale Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:47 AM To: Grant, Peter Subject: November 3 Property Tax Override Refund Update Question Importance: High Good morning, I was reading through the Property Tax Override Refund Update and need clarification regarding the deadline. In reading the Administrator's report the dealine for claims refund is January 4, 2004 for property taxes paid from 1998-1999. In reading the City Attorney's Inter-Department Communication dated September 23, 2003 it states "The Remittitur was issued on October 3, 2003, therefore the 90th day will be January 1, 2004. As January 1 is a holiday, January 2, 2004 is the deadline for the filing of timely claims...etc. Thank you. Dale Jones Sr Deputy City Clerk — 1k CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk DATE: October 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Report Relative to Property Tax Claim Work Progress in City Clerk's Office —Refund Claim Database Following, is a little more detail regarding the work in progress on the Property Tax Refund Claims filed in the City Clerk's Office. Number of Claims Filed Since February 13, 2001 approximately 35,0.00 property tax refund claims have been received in the City Clerk's Office. Approximately 15,000 claims were entered into the Clerk's database by staff and City Clerk's Office volunteers through August 2003. Following City Council's decision on August 4, 2003 to refrain from filing an appeal, there were approximately 20,000 additional property tax refund claims filed. Temporary Clerical Employees Two temporary 40 hour per week clerical employees were hired on August 22, 2003. They and the City Clerk volunteers have entered approximately 9,000 more claims into the database. Database & Outreach to Citizens to Gather Missing Information on Some Claims In August 2003, the Information Systems Department and Clerk's staff reviewed the categories of information gathered on the Excel Database and the Information Systems Department is converting the Excel database to Access database. All the previously entered information will remain, other than two categories relative to the tracking of missing information on some of the claims that were filed, such as unsigned claims, missing assessor parcel numbers and addresses. The City Clerk has reviewed with the City Attorney's Office the types of omissions on claims that must be corrected, as there are several thousand incomplete claims. However, these citizens are being contacted by phone and mail by the City Clerk's Office to gather the needed information. Forms Sent to Property Owners When Their Claim is Submitted Incomplete Attached is a sample of the forms the Clerk's Office uses to send to the public to obtain missing information. a Telephone Information The City Clerk's Office has a telephone line dedicated to the public to take information so claims can be mailed or to answer questions such as if we have received their claim. Website Access To Confirm with Property Owners That Their Claims Have Been Received The Information Services Department is working on placing the Assessor Parcel Number and last name of property owner on the website so that the property owners can access the website and receive assurance that their claim has been received. This will be very helpful as the Clerk's Office has received hundreds of calls from property owners requesting assurance that their claim has been received. Submitted by: Connie Brockway City Clerk Attachment: (1) Jones, Dale From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:57 PM To: Grant, Peter Cc: Brockway, Connie; Jones, Dale Subject: RE: Property Tax Refund Claim Temporary Employees Pete- please refer to my e-mail of 10/23 below, which answers both of your concerns: 1. - Since Admin also approved Jo-Ann, her bills have also been sent to Admin Svcs for payment processing, and Bill also has the payroll slips for her. and 2. -As you can see from the temp payment history below, again in my e-mail of 10/23, since Jo-Ann left on 9/14, we have not retained more than 2 temps at any one time. Please check the dates below in my e-mal to verify. I do realize It is confusing, with Mack appearing to be a 3rd temp, but he was only Kristie's replacement and he was also replaced when he left on 10/3; in other words, , there have been no overlap and only 2 temps have been in place since Jo-Ann. I realize this is confusing, but the payroll slips sent by Focus on Temps, all of which have all been forwarded to Bill McReynolds will confirm what we have shown here. But we appreciate your mention that a 3rd temp has been approved at our 10/1 meeting, and it is looking more and more like we will need one. Thanks too, Pete. Please let me know if there is anything else. Liz -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Peter Sent: Tuesday,October 28,2003 4:19 PM To: Brockway,Connie; Ehring, Liz Cc: Silver, Ray; Workman,William P. Subject: Property Tax Refund Claim Temporary Employees Thank you, Connie and Liz, for helping to resolve the confusion surrounding the invoices that were forward to Administrative Services for payment as property tax refund claim processing expenses. You are right, it is very important for the city to track costs related to the property tax refund claim processing so we can recoup them as part of a judgment bond issue. Please let me know how you would like to handle paying for the temporary employee (Jo-Ann Riley)who did not work on the property tax refund claim processing. She has total billings of$1,583.47. Also please let me know if you expect to retain the third temporary employee you requested, and received approval for, at our October 1, 2003 meeting. Thanks in advance, Pete -----Original Message----- 1 From: Brockway,Connie Sent: Thursday,October 23,2003 6:45 PM To: Silver, Ray;Workman,William P.;Grant, Peter Subject: FW: correct information As you can see below, Pete received the information he needed regarding the tax claims for your C-Item. However, he emailed back that he needed information regarding the temporary positions as it was thought there were 4 temps etc; --- so below are the records reflecting that there have been only two temps at one time working on the tax claims. The other temp was for a two week period during the time that the Clerk's Office was still short on the permanent staff. This is being sent to you and W. Workman and to Pete as I believe you needed this info for the costs involved in returning the money. Please advise me if you have questions. Connie Brockway, City clerk -----Original Message----- From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Thursday,October 23, 2003 6:31 PM To: Grant, Peter Cc: Brockway,Connie;Jones, Dale Subject: FW: correct information Pete, We have retained only 2 temps at any one time for tax refund work(the initial two were Kristie and Eileen). However, a third temp, Jo-Ann, was here for a two-week period to provide other services due to our shortage of Deputies. (Admin approved this temporary position to fill a vacant, permanent Full-time position from 8/31-9/14. On 9/15, the new Deputy City Clerk began and Jo-Ann, the temp left.) The succession of other temps are replacements working on tax refunds following the departure of the initial two- Kristie and Eileen. Please refer to the following per my payroll records, on the work history of the temps: FOCUS ON TEMP EMPLOYEE DATES OF EMPLOYMENT Kristie Dowe 8/22- 10/3/03 Eileen Koellner 8/22 - 9/21/03 Jo-Ann Carla Riley 8/31 -9/14/03 (DID NOT WORK ON TAX REFUNDS) Mack J. McCurthon 9/28- 10/3/03 (REPLACEMENT FOR EILEEN) Amanda Diaz 10/12 through present(REPLACEMENT FOR MACK) Alexandra Whittaker 10/9 through present(REPLACEMENT FOR KRISTIE) Please let me know if there is anything else. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Peter 2 Page 2 of 2 1(b). The Court ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 818780, that the City's property tax, to the extent it exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978, violated Proposition 13 and was therefore levied and collected illegally. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Claimant requests the refund of the amount determined by the City to represent the difference between Claimant's payments and Claimant's lawful share of the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Huntington Beach, California. DATED: 3//9 1®/ SIGNED: zVa(qqq) - g6 -� 713 U we 3// / /-7 4 nTTP://nome.socai.rr.com/nDTax/rormLTrL..nTM 3/lo/Vl Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale From: Allannah Molloy[amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 12:05 PM To: Jones, Dale Cc: Kathryn Beseau; Brenda Grubbs; Mindy Jacobs Subject: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Hi Dale, Can you please pull the following claim and fax to me. Claim No. 132 Carol White 6232 Vatcher Dr. (may show 6282 Vatcher but sh/be 6232.) Thanks 3/7/2005 Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale From: Allannah Molloy [amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:34 AM To: Jones, Dale Cc: Kathryn Beseau Subject: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Dale, Can you please pull the following claims: Claim No. 488 Melvin M. &Judith M. Goldberg 8341 Hurstwell APN. 15360520 Date filed: 3/26/01 Also: Claim No. 46451 Melvin Goldberg 207 Indianapolis APN. 02505422 Date filed:ed: 7/1 7/12/04 Please call me asap and let me know what you find. We need to respond to Clay Martin asap. Thanks, Allannah 12/7/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale To: Allannah Molloy Subject: RE: Claim to be pulled by City Clerk's Office I am faxing to you now...Dale -----Original Message----- From: Allannah Molloy [mailto:amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 12:17 PM To: djones@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Claim to be pulled by City Clerk's Office Hi Dale, Can you please pull the following claim and fax the claim and any attachments to me: Claim No. 29932 Mani L. Bhaumik 7051 Maddox Thanks 1/7/2005 Page 1 of 1 Jones, ®ale From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:46 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: FW: Mail Received at City Clerk's Office FYI --thanks -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:45 PM To: Flynn, Joan Subject: FW: Mail Received at City Clerk's Office Hi Joan, Can you please ask your staff to retain all the envelopes for the retirement tax refund mail they open and to attach the envelope to the contents for Moreland to pick-up. Have a happy Thanksgiving, Pete -----Original Message----- From: Allannah Molloy [mailto:amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:28 PM To: Grant, Peter Cc: Brenda Grubbs; Mindy Jacobs; Kathryn Beseau Subject: Mail Received at City Clerk's Office Pete, Since the City Clerk's office is now opening, date/time stamping and copying all the mail to the Huntington Beach Property Tax Refund before sending over to us, can you please advise the City Clerk to have her staff be very sure to attach the envelope to the article. It is important that we have the envelope for possible forwarding addresses, reason for returned mail, postmarks, etc. This information is entered into the database for future questions/problems from the claimant and to allow for remailing of returned checks to correct addresses. Thanks 12/6/2004 Page 1 of 1 .bones, Dale From: Allannah Molloy [amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:51 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: Claims to be pulled by City Clerk's Office Hi Dale, Can you please check to see if you have a claim for the following: Michael Zimmerman 2001 Delaware APN No. 02508119 He says he walked it into the Clerk's office about 7 or eight months ago. We have no record in the system. Thanks 11/30/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jones Dal From: Allannah Molloy [amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:45 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Hi Dale, Can you please pull claim no. 4r230 Yavari, Parviz 16642 Jib Dircle Claimant says he file -two clams at the same time and that both were initially lost. He says he re-filed. One claim o. 18017 w 6 approved for all four years. The other, above claim no., was denied for 98&99 or g on time (1/4/04). I need to see the claims. Please fax. Thanks Allannah 10/29/2004 Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale From: Allannah Molloy [amolloy@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:58 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: Claim to be Pulled by City Clerk's Office Dale, Here's another one, if you have it. Claimant sent in copy of claim he says he filed. Signed 8/15/03. No City of HB stamp, so I assume he mailed it in. Can you please see if you have it? It's not in the database. John W. Adsit, Sr. 9162 Paddock Cr. APN 151-041-37 � n Also, Kent W. Evans CQ 17192 Autumn Cr. APN 110-302-26 He too says he filed a claim but we don't have it in database. He sent us a copy he signed but did not date. Thanks 10/29/2004 . . INSJpy< City of Huntington Beach Property Tax Refund Processing PO Box 848 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 QUESTIONS&ANSWERS ABOUT YOUR RETIREMENT TAX REFUND 1. Why am I receiving a retirement tax refund? The city is refunding the portion of the employee retirement taxes collected from July 1, 1997 through June 30,2001 that were determined to be in excess of Proposition 13 limits. 2. Who is entitled to a refund? Any person or business that paid the retirement tax during any of the refund years and filed a timely, verifiable claim is entitled to a refund. Claims filed by individuals on behalf of businesses are refunded to the owner of record on file with the County of Orange. 3. Where did the information to verify my claim and calculate my refund come from? The County of Orange provided tax information and payment data. 4. How do I read the remittance stub included with my refund check? Item Description A Total property tax paid(including the tax being refunded) B Total property tax penalty paid,if an C Huntington Beach Employee Retirement tax paid (identified on your tax bill.as HT BCH CITY EMP RET)—a portion of this tax is being refunded Question 5) D I Property tax penalty,if any,associated with the Retirement tax E Huntington Beach Employee Retirement tax refund F Interest due on the Huntington Beach Employee Retirement tax refund(Question 6 G Legal fee paid to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association(Question 7 H Total refund due=tax refund(Item E +interest due(Item F -the legal fee Item G 5. How was the refund calculated? The retirement tax the city is refunding represented less than five percent of your total property tax bill and the following percentage of the retirement tax was determined by the Court to be eligible for refund in each year: Fiscal Year % of Retirement Tax Being Refunded 1997-98 31.8% 1998-99 41.9% 1999-00 84.5% 2000-01 100% For example, if your property had an assessed value of$100,000, you paid a retirement tax of approximately$49 (tax penalties are not eligible for refund). In 1997-98, 31.8% of the $49 you paid in retirement tax,or$15.58,is eligible for refund. 6_ How was interest on my refund calculated? Simple interest is paid on all refunds from April 2,2001,or the date the retirement tax was paid, whichever is later, through 30 days prior to issuance of the refund. The interest rate is 3.86% from April 2001 through March 2002 and 3% per year thereafter. Interest is only paid if more than$10 of interest is due on an individual refund. I ,zINS City of Huntington Beach .�� ,a w Property Tax Refund Processing PO Box 848 �`''� ►��'`� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7. Why is a legal fee being deducted from my refund? The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers"Association sued the city and established that an excessive retirement tax was charged from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001. For performing this work, the Court awarded the Association$250,000 from the tax refund,representing approximately 2.5 percent of the tax refund. 8. I filed more than one claim,but received only one refund. If you filed multiple claims for the same parcel, the city consolidated the duplicate claims and paid one of them. If you filed multiple claims for multiple pieces of property, you will receive a separate refund for each valid claim. 9. Why did I receive a refund for some,but not all,the refund years? If you owned/paid.the retirement taxes for only a portion of the refund period (July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001), your refund includes only those years. Also, if you filed your claim after January 4, 2004, your refund only includes retirement taxes paid within four years of the date of your claim. 10.I believe there was an error in my refund. ..what may I do? First, please contact us at 1-866-528-2703. Second, you may appeal your refund by filing a Retirement Tax Refund Appeal with the City Clerk by no later than 5:00 pm on November 8, 2004. 11.What is the appeal process? To start an appeal, you must submit an appeal form to the City Clerk by November 8, 2004. If the city does not receive your appeal by November 8, 2004, you waive your right to challenge the calculation or denial of your claim. Please understand that calling the city does not extend the period to file appeals and that appeals must be received in the City Clerk's office by November 8, 2004 to be timely. The Retirement Tax Refund Appeal form is available in the City Clerk's office at 2000 Main Street, by calling 714-536-5227, or from the city's website at www.surfcity:hb.org/taxrefund. You may wish to file the appeal in person in the City Clerk's office or to use an overnight mail service to insure it is filed timely. Once your appeal is filed, the city will notify you of your hearing date. Following your hearing, you will be notified of the hearing officer's decision by mail. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you may sue the city for a refund within six months of the denial of your claim. 12.Is my tax refund taxable? This refund may affect your income taxes. You may wish to consult a tax advisor for more information. The city cannot provide any information about your tax liabilities. If you have additional questions about your refund please call 1-866-528-2703. 1 v Property Tax Override Refund September 22, 2004 1. Claim Processing ® Attached . 2. Check and Communications Materials • Sample check (attached) • ' FINAL refund letter (attached) • DRAFT appeal form (attached) • Moreland phone system 3. Bond status • Bond closed, without incident, morning of 9/22/04 • Wire transfer of$12,436,662.21 received 4. On-going Processes • Post 7/30 claims & database for City Clerk • Appeals process details • Transition Moreland off project 5. Timeline review/update ✓ January 4, 2004 Postmark deadline for.refund.claims for taxes paid thru 1998-99 April 19, 2004 City Council asked to initiate judgment bond issue ✓ April 19, 2004 County delivers database ✓ April 21, 2004 City files validation action ✓ May 1, 2004 Maximum exposure, based on claims received, determined ✓ May 19, 2004 D-base comparison complete, review of exception claims begins ✓ August 16, 2004 Bonds validated ✓ September 8, 2004 Bonds go on sale ✓ September 22, 2004 Bond proceeds delivered to city ✓ September 27, 2004 City begins issuing refunds (bulk mailing complete 9/30).. October 4, 2004 Refund checks begin arriving in the mail October 11, 2004 Denied claim letters mailed October 31, 2004 All pre-July 30, 2004 claims processed November 1, 2004 Post-July 30, 2004 claims processing begins (Moreland not involved) FTApril 2006 Refund claim deadline expires for all timely taxpayers Status of Claims as of 9/21/04 at 8:30 PM WS u i�cate ° oflon-tluptfe ,btj �,. _ c - Desch tton ... ,.CoUn# a of T©falb Cfatms ,,�.,; ..d ( ims Non-c ended f iFx►s Total Claims 46,815 100.00% N/A NIA Total Non-duplicate Claims 36,472 77.91% 100.00% N/A Claims with Checks. 34,763 74.26% 95.31% 98.43% Duplicate Claims 40,343 22.09% 28:36% N/A Denied Letter Claims 1,156 2.47% 3.17% NIA Pending Claims 358 0.76% 0.98% 1.01% Valid and Denied Claims 195 0.42% 0.53% 0.55% Other Claims -1 0.00%1 0.00%1 0.00% Summary Data for Claims Included in First Check Run as of 9/21/04 at 8:30 PM Re Tax, #uncf _ ,...' ,Interest x" lntrest ptaez` L Rat Fee - Tat3I Due $8,995,027.04 1 $988,807.85 1 $934,227.17 $250,00148 $9;$79,252:73 Check printing beings 9/27/04. fi)GW" BNY can print 10,000 checks each day. Print run will take until Thursday 9/30/04. Checks are mailed 1-2 days after being printed. Mailing(from New York)will be complete 10/4/04. Refunds are being processed from first to last received. All checks will be dated 9/30/04. Appeals will be due 11/04/04. `7?ell Ehring, Liz From: Grant, Peter Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:40 AM To: Flynn, Joan Cc: CITY CLERK; Workman, William P. Subject: Inquiries about Property Tax Bills Joan, Clay asked me to pass this along: The answer to questions about the Huntington Beach Employee's Retirement Tax appearing on property tax bills is that the courts only found a portion of the tax to be illegal and the City Council voted to continue to collect the legal portion of the tax. If the caller has questions beyond that, please refer them to Dan Villella at 536-5225. i Ehring, Liz From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:33 PM To: CITY CLERK Subject: FW: Tax Bills in the Mail Box Any questions about tax bills should be sent to Administrative Services--Clay Martin -- unless Liz brings back another contact after her 2:00 meeting tomorrow. Thanks all! -----Original Message----- From: Workman,William P. Sent: Tuesday,September 21,2004 4:15 PM To: Martin,Clay Subject: Tax Bills in the Mail Box Apparently, property tax bills arrived in the mail boxes of residents this week. The County refuses to answer questions about the bills when the questions are about city, school or college taxes ... especially things like the high school district's new bond issue and the city retirement tax rate. Please let your staff know that some tax calls may be forwarded to your Department for answers about city taxes. 1 s F ' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Via: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator From: Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services Date: September 23, 2004 Subject: Retirement Tax Refund Status Update This memorandum provides an update of the retirement tax refund process. Judgment Obligation Bond On September 8, 2004 the city successfully sold $12.5 million of judgment obligation bonds. The bonds mature over the next 15 years and the last two years of bonds (2018 and 2019) have call provisions should the city have excess proceeds after all tax refunds are issued/expired. Total cost to repay the bonds is approximately $16.4 million and annual debt service is between $1.1 million and $1.2 million. The bond sale closed the morning of September 22, 2004 and the City Treasurer received a wire transfer of $12,436,662.21. Refund Claim Processing The following table presents claims processing status as of Thursday, September 23, 2004: Description Number of claims Percent of claims Claims to be paid 34,769 74.3% Duplicate claims 10,347 22.1% Denied claims 1,341 2.9% Pending claims 358 0.7% Total Claims 46,815 100% Processing of 34,769 checks will begin on September 27, 2004 and should be complete on October 4, 2004. Checks should begin arriving Saturday, October 1 and Monday, October 4, 2004. This first check run represents 99% of the non- duplicate, valid claims received prior to July 30, 2004. The first check run will provide refunds (including interest) of$9,688,730.19. Each refund check includes a two-page insert (attached) designed to answer questions about the refund, how it was processed, and what claimants can do if they believe their refund is incorrect. In addition to the letter, the city's consultant will be adding additional phone lines and staff to the toll-free telephone number to handle claimant inquiries. However, even with additional phone lines and staff, it may be difficult to reach a customer service representative in the first days after the refund checks are delivered. Next Steps While the check run represents the resolution of nearly all the claims the city has received, staff is still working on several significant elements of the project, including: • Notifying claimants whose refund was denied' (planned for the week of October 11, 2004); • Resolving the remaining 358 pending claims2 (planned before the end of October 2004); • Processing approximately 120.submitted after the July 30, 2004 processing cut-off(these claims will not be paid until at least late- November); • Activating and staffing the appeals process; • Transitioning claims processing and customer service from the consultant to city staff; and • Resolving refund checks that cannot be delivered (incorrect mailing addresses) or are not redeemed before the check is void(six months from the date the check is issued) Conclusion Staff will continue to keep the City Council appraised of refund processing developments until the anticipated conclusion of the project in April 2006. In the meantime, if you have any questions or I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 536-5236. In the last update to the City Council on August 9, 2004, 4,609 claims were set to be denied. The additional research the city's consultant conducted at the county greatly reduced the number of claims set for denial. 2 In the last update to the City Council on August 9, 2004, 2,912 claims were pending. The additional research the city's consultant conducted at the county greatly reduced the number of pending claims. Finally, I would like to recognize the excellent work the following members of the retirement tax refund team performed over the past 13 months: Peter Grant, Project Manager, Principal Administrative Analyst William P. Workman, Assistant City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney Janis Ingels, Director of Information Services Dan Villella, Finance Officer John Fujii, Deputy City Attorney Robert-Sedlak, Principal Accountant Laurie Payne, Community Relations Officer Karin Reed, Administrative Assistant Nicole Arms, IS Analyst John Carpenter, Systems Administrator Joan Flynn, City Clerk Liz Ehring, Assistant City Clerk Dale Jones, Deputy City Clerk. Attachment c: Retirement Tax Refund Project Team �a City of Huntington Beach Property 'Tax Refund Processing P®Box 848 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ABOUT YOUR RETIREMENT TAX REFUND I. Why am I receiving a retirement tax refund? The city is refunding the portion of the employee retirement taxes collected from July 1, 1997 through June 30,2001 that were determined to be in excess of Proposition 13 limits. 2. Who is entitled to a refund? Any person or business that paid the retirement tax during any of the refund years and filed a. timely, verifiable claim is entitled to a refund Claims filed by individuals on behalf of businesses are refunded to the owner of record on file with the County of Orange. 3. Where did the information to verify my claim and calculate my refund come from? The County of Orange provided tax information and payment data. 4. How do I read the remittance stub included with my refund check? Item Description A Total property tax paid(including the tax being refunded) B Total property tax penalty paid,if an C Huntington Beach Employee Retirement tax paid (identified on your tax bill as HT BCH CITY EMP RET)—a portion of this tax is being refunded Question 5) D Property tax penalty,if any,associated with the Retirement tax E Huntington Beach Employee Retirement tax refund F Interest due on the Huntington Beach Employee Retirement tax refund(Question 6 G Legal fee paid to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association(Question 7 H Total refund due=tax refund Item E)+interest due(Item F)-the legal fee Item G 5. How was the refund calculated? The retirement tax the city is refunding represented less than five percent of your total property tax bill and the following percentage of the retirement tax was determined by the Court to be eligible for refund in each year: Fiscal Year % of Retirement Tax Being Refunded 1997-98 31.8% 1998-99 41.9% 1999-00 84.5% 2000-01 100% For example, if your property had an assessed value of$100,000, you paid a retirement tax of approximately $49 (tax penalties are not eligible for refund). In 1997-98, 31.8% of the $49 you paid in retirement tax,or$15.58,is eligible for refund. 6. How was interest on my refund calculated? Simple interest is paid on all refunds from April 2,2001,or the date the retirement tax was paid, whichever is later, through 30 days prior to issuance of the refund. The interest rate is 3.86% from April 2001 through March 2002 and 3% per year thereafter. Interest is only paid if more than$10 of interest is due on an individual refund. 6 uarsr� City of Huntington Beach Property Tag Refund Processing „ � PO Box 848 NTY *` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7. Why is a legal fee being deducted from my refund? The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued the city and established that an excessive retirement tax was charged from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001. For performing this work, the Court awarded the Association$250,000 from the tax refund,representing approximately 2.5 percent of the tax refund. 8. I filed more than one claim, but received only one refund. If you filed multiple claims for the same parcel, the city consolidated the duplicate claims and paid one of them. If you filed multiple claims for multiple pieces of property,you will receive a separate refund for each valid claim. 9. Why did I receive a refund for some,but not all,the refund years? If you owned/paid the retirement taxes for only a portion of the refund period (July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001), your refund includes only those years. Also, if you filed your claim after January 4, 2004, your refund only includes retirement taxes paid within four years of the date of your claim. 10.I believe there was an error in my refund. ..what may I do? First, please contact us at 1-866-528-2703. Second, you may appeal your refund by filing a Retirement Tax Refund Appeal with the City Clerk by no later than 5:00 pm on November 8, 2004. 11.What is the appeal process? To start an appeal, you must submit an appeal form to the City Clerk by November 8, 2004. If the city does not receive your appeal by November 8, 2004, you waive your right to challenge the calculation or denial of your claim. Please understand that calling the city does not extend the period to file appeals and that appeals must be received in the City Clerk's office by November 8, 2004 to be timely. The Retirement Tax Refund Appeal form is available in the City Clerk's office at 2000 Main Street, by calling 714-536-5227, or from the city's website at www.surfciW-hb.org/taxrefund. You may wish to file the appeal in person in the City Clerk's office or to use an overnight mail service to insure it is filed timely. Once your appeal is filed, the city will notify you of your hearing date. Following your hearing, you will be notified of the hearing officer's decision by mail. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you may sue the city for a refund within six months of the denial of your claim. 12.Is my tax refund taxable? This refund may affect your income taxes. You may wish to consult a tax advisor for more information. The city cannot provide any information about your tax liabilities. 1f you have additional questions about your refund please call 1-866-528-2703. Property Tax Override Refund September 22, 2004 1. Claim Processing • Attached 2. Check and Communications Materials • Sample check (attached) • ' FINAL refund letter(attached) • DRAFT appeal form (attached) • Moreland phone system 3. Bond status • Bond closed, without incident, morning of 9/22/04 • Wire transfer of$12,436,662.21 received 4. On-going Processes • Post 7/30 claims & database for City Clerk • Appeals process details • Transition Moreland off project 5. Timeline review/update ✓ January 4, 2004 Postmark deadline for refund claims for taxes paid thru 1998-99 ✓ April 19, 2004 City Council asked to initiate judgment bond issue ✓ April 19, 2004 County delivers database ✓ April 21, 2004 City files validation action ✓ May 1, 2004 Maximum exposure, based on claims received, determined ✓ May 19, 2004 D-base comparison complete, review of exception claims begins ✓ August 16, 2004 Bonds validated ✓ September 8, 2004 Bonds go on sale ✓ September 22, 2004 Bond proceeds delivered to city ✓ September 27, 2004 City begins issuing refunds (bulk mailing complete 9/30) October 4, 2004 Refund checks begin arriving in the mail October 11, 2004 Denied claim letters mailed October 31, 2004 All pre-July 30, 2004 claims processed November 1, 2004 Post-July 30, 2004 claims processing begins (Moreland not involved) April 2006 Refund claim deadline expires for all timely taxpayers Status of Claims as of 9/21/04 at 8:30 PM \ �• it Q OWt �` KA r � (' Total Claims 46,815 100.00% N/A N/A Total Non-duplicate Claims 36,472 77.91% 100.00% N/A Claims with Checks 34,763 74.26% 95.31% 98.43% Duplicate Claims 10,343 22.09% 28.36% N/A Denied Letter Claims 1,156 2.47% 3.17% N/A Pending Claims 358 0.76% 0.98% 1.01% Valid and Denied Claims 195 0.42% 0.53% 0.55% Other Claims -1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Summary Data for Claims Included in First Check Run as of 9/21/04 at 8:30 PM $8,995,027.04 1 $988,807.85 1 $934,227.17 $250,001.48 Check printing beings 9/27/04. /9)A4," zlljiejh ( lql- � BNY can print 10,000 checks each day. Print run will take until Thursday 9/30/04. Checks are mailed 1-2 days after being printed. Mailing(from New York)will be complete 10/4/04. Refunds are being processed from first to last received. All checks will be dated 9/30/04. Appeals will be due 11/04/04. SS 7��Lir� /.2- 6 Page 1 of 2 Ehring, Liz From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:14 PM To: CITY CLERK Subject: FW: Change of Information If you handle any portion of the Moreland/City Tax rebate program, please note the request from Pete Grant below. -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Peter Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:42 AM To: Flynn,Joan Cc: Moreland Group (E-mail); Moreland Group (E-mail 2); Moreland Group (E-mail 3) Subject: FW: Change of Information Joan, Can you please ask City Clerk staff not to take these changes, but rather direct these claimants to the toll free number. This approach will avoid information getting lost in transmission and the staff at Moreland can potentially address other details with the claimant. Thanks, Pete -----Original Message----- From: Mindy Jacobs [mai Ito:MJacobs@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:12 PM To: Grant, Peter Cc: Kathryn Beseau; Brenda Grubbs; Allannah Molloy; knobriga@dcse.com Subject: Change of Information Pete, I just wanted to let you know that we received the copies of the original claim forms that we requested from the City Clerk's office. We also received an additional stack of corrections from Patricia in the City Clerk's office. She realized that the database was "read only"and began accepting changes of information manually since she couldn't input it into the computer. We will make those corrections as well. I do not know if she (or others) are still accepting changes of information with the expectation that they can send them to us for input. Mindy Jacobs Manager, Temporary Personnel Services Moreland &Associates, Inc. 1201 Dove Street, Suite 680 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 221-0025 x226 (949) 221-0035 fax (949) 310-6362 cell Website: www.moreland-assoc.com 8/9/2004 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: August 9, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: Council/Agency Meeting Held: O b Deferred/Continued to Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City I k's ignatur Council Meeting Date: August 9, 2004 Department umber: CITE OF HUN N INGTON BEACH N_ C REQUEST FOR ACTION T - G7 - SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE M YOR AND ME BBEER,5 OF THE CITY COUI4CIL ' SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE C LBRE H-GRAFT, City �dinistrator > PREPARED BY: CLAY MARTIN, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Property Tax Override Refund Update Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Periodic update to the City Council on the progress of the property tax override refund. Funding Source: N/A Recommended Action: Receive and file the update. Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): Provide staff with appropriate direction. INTRODUCTION As has been staffs custom throughout the project, this report contains an update of the city's efforts to process the property tax override refund. The report contains three elements: a H:\Property Tax Override\080904 Update to Council.doc 0 8/3/2004 4:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 9, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: refund claims processing update; estimates of the size of the refund and the bond to fund it; and the major project.milestones and timeline. CLAIMS PROCESSING As of July 7, 2004, the city had received 46,533 refund claims. Each of the claims has been compared to the property tax records provided by the county and categorized as verified, pending (designated for follow-up with the claimant), denied, or to be processed (requiring human intervention to enable the computer to compare the data). When the city first compared its data against the county's, the database reported the following outcome: 26.9% verified claims 0.0% pending claims 6.0% denied claims 67.1% claims to be processed 1 ° Staff had expected a relatively low match between the city and county data,. but was extremely concerned when less than one-third of the claims matched. Since the first data match, staff has worked closely with Moreland & Associates, the CPA/auditing firm selected to assist with the project, to resolve the claims to be processed. Resolving the claims to be processed required a considerable amount of work on the city's database and manual review and comparison of thousands of individual claims. The following chart shows the progress made since early May: Claims to be Processed 80.0°i° 70.06i° • 60.0% L 50.0% w 40.0% 30.0% u 20.0% p 10.0% 0.0% \�\FOOD` ��\FOOD` �1\�OO� �\�OOD` \FOOD` \FOOD` \FOOD` \BOOR H:\Property Tax Override\080904 Update to Council.doc -3,/ 8/3/2004 4:31 PM 2 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 9, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: As the chart indicates, all of the claims the city has received have now been verified, denied, or designated as pending. 62.6% verified claims 6.3% pending claims 31.1% denied claims 0% claims to be processed 100% Verified Claims 62.6 percent (29,132) of the claims the city has received have been successfully compared to the county data and approved for refund. Pending Claims Another 6.3 percent (2,912) have been designated as pending and the city, through Moreland & Associates, has contacted these claimants.to request additional information (typically a copy of the property tax bill and proof of payment). Pending claim letters were mailed in mid-July. As the City Council directed with the incomplete claim letters, claimants will have 35 calendar days to respond to the city's request for additional information or the claim will be denied. The primary reasons claims have been designated pending are that the name of the person filing the claim does not match the owner of record in the county database or claims were filed by multiple parties for the same property in the same tax year (staff refers to these as competing claims). Denied Claims Finally, 31.1 percent have been denied. The reasons for a claim being denied are: Reasons for Glaim:D.0110 68.0% Duplicate claim (9,824 claims) Property owners filed multiple claims — one claim is verified, the rest are denied 23.3% Claimant .name did not match owner .of Most of these claims are verged for some, record on county data (3,366 claims) but not all, years as. ownership changed during the refund period 3.5% Not filed by deadline (506 claims) Most of these claims are verified for some, but not all, years as the claim missed one of the deadlines 3.4% Claimant did not respond to the incomplete claim letter(491 claims) 0.9% Incomplete claim letter could not be All letters were mailed at least twice and delivered (131 claims) additional research was done to determine the proper address after the letter was returned the first time 0.8% Property taxes were not paid (115 claims) 100% H:\Property Tax Override\080904 Update to Council.doc -44' 8/3/2004 4:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 9, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: SIZE OF THE PROPERTY TAX OVERRIDE REFUND . .With the majority of the property tax override refunds received to date verified or denied, staff is able to estimate the size of the property tax override refund with some confidence. • • - • $8,641,294 verified claims 945,815 interest due on verified claims 191,283 pending claims (all pending claims are assumed verified) 20,935 interest due on pending claims (250,000) attorneys'fee recovery ja,§42M Estimated Property Tax Override Refund To estimate the amount of the property tax override refund bond, in addition to funding the estimated property tax override refund, the city needs to account for the remainder of the impounded property tax override revenues collected in FY 2000-01, the cost to process claims, the cost to issue refund checks, the cost to issue the bonds, and the moneys required to process unsecured, unknown, and appealed claims the city will be receiving until at least April 2006. Eseirytoted . . • $9,600,000 verified claims (rounded from above) 3,670,000 reserve for unsecured, unknown, and appealed claims 600,000 claims processing and check printing* 330,000 bond issuance (1,700,000) 2000-01 impounded revenues 112,500,000 Estimated Property Tax Override Refund *To date, the City Council has appropriated $250,000 toward claims processing from the property tax override revenues impounded in FY 2000-01. When that appropriation was made, staff was concerned that, given the scope and unusual nature of the project, additional funding would be required. At this point in the project, due in large part to the very low initial match between. the city and county data, it appears additional moneys will be required.to complete the claims verification and payment process. Staff has been working with the consultant to develop an on-going scope of work and budget that balances proper claims processing with good customer service, and transitions the project to city staff. HAProperty Tax Override1080904 Update to Council.doc -5- 8/3/2004 4:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 9, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: MAJOR PROJECT MILESTONES & TIMELINE The following table identifies and provides information about the progress toward each major project milestone. fcj. . ted COmplation :, Milpgtone 'Status Date* Processing &Paymg Refund ClamsI AM Develop an Access database for City Clerk's office to use when entering refund claims into the city database and convert Complete N/A existing Excel files into the new Access database Enter refund claims received prior to 01/04/04 into city database Complete N/A Select and hire consultant to process and pay refund claims Complete N/A (Moreland & Associates) Negotiate a MOU with the county to clarify roles and responsibilities and to provide efficient and affordable access to Complete N/A county database records Determine the methodology for refund, interest rate, and attorneys' fee calculations Complete N/A Resolve incomplete refund claims Complete N/A Develop a property tax override refund portion of the city's Complete N/A website Obtain a copy of the county's property tax database for Complete N/A comparison with the city's database Develop criteria defining a verified refund claim for use when Complete N/A comparing the city's and county's databases Present a refund processing ordinance to the City Council Complete N/A Develop methodology for researching and accepting/rejecting Complete N/A claims that do not meet the definition of a verified claim Establish methodology for processing and mailing refund checks, including remittance advice and a refund/claim denial In progress 9/1/04 explanation letter Develop a strategy for processing claims and providing In progress 9/1/04 customer service after Moreland separates Develop an appeals process for denied claims In progress 9/6/04 Develop a strategy for denied appeals that become lawsuits In progress 9/6/04 Complete claims processing (resolve pending claims) In progress 9/10/04 HAProperty Tax Override1080904 Update to Council.doc -6- 8/3/2004 4:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 9, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: Anti . . - . pletion Com stat Us Date* �Processmg & IPaymg Refund Claims 3� � � � _ � � y � Issue refund checks In progress Late Sept. - Oct. 2004 Issue denial letters In progress Late Sept. - Oct. 2004 �Is'",u ng Deb#to Func1 Payment of RefundCla,ms � Select and hire a financial advisor Complete N/A Select and hire bond counsel Complete N/A Select and hire bond disclosure counsel Complete N/A Select and hire bond trustee Complete N/A Develop a financing plan recommendation, alternatives, and Complete N/A associated timelines Determine estimated maximum refund exposure .. Complete N/A File bond validation action Complete N/A Determine final refund exposure Complete N/A Present RCA recommending bond approval to City Council In-progress 8/9/04 Complete bond validation action In-progress 8/16/04 Close and deliver bond proceeds to city In-progress 9/2MZI * The completion of the actions/events in progress assumes that the court validation action is not appealed within the allowed 30-day timeframe. CONCLUSION As the project milestones and timeline table demonstrates, staff has made significant progress with the refund process and financing, however there is a significant amount of work to be accomplished in the coming months. Staff will continue to update the City Council regularly and keep you informed of significant developments related to the project. Attachment(s): 'City Clerk's . None HAProperty Tax Override\080904 Update to Council.doc -7 8/3/2004 4:31 PM JUL-22-2004 12:07 FROM:OC TAX COLLECTOR 714-834-4342 TO:918776601086 P.002/004 i Page : 1 Document Name: untitled ... __...... .._.._.—,---.. _... —...._.........._ — _ ._—....... _ ...._. . PAID - PURGED 07/21/04 ASSESSMENT TAX SYSTEM CURR PA.11 TCIC101 TCIC101 CURRENT YEAR SECURED BILL INFO / HISTORY NEXT PA].0 TAX-YR 1999 PARCEL 933-3.30-51.00 ROLL DATE 09/23/99 REV 09/23/99 RETN PA1.0 ASSESSEE CARTE., DEBORAH A CNTRL A0400981 SITUS 17912 P014ALARD LN 51 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1ST PAID 12/10/1999 OTHER BILLS YR03 2ND PAID 04/10/2000 INFO AVAIL No COL -•-------------T----------- SECURED BILL INFORMATION ----- - --- ----- ..------ -- 1tST 5581' 14 BASIC 0 . 00 1ST FEE 0. 00 2ND FEE 0 . 00 21..,TD 55.8114 BASIC 0 . 00 COST 0 .00 TOT-TX-PEN 1, 116 .28 VAL/EXEMP LAND 55, 678 OTHS 0 NET 97, 292 MINRT' 0 PERS 0 PENAL 0/ IMPS 48, 614 XMP 7, 000- (07) HOMEOWNER TRA 04-010 RATE TRA 04-010 RATE YR 1999 TRA RATE 1. 05B20 T.x ALL PRQP AV TAX 1029.54 744 VECTOR CONTROL CHG 0. 66 820 MWD WAtER STDBY C 10 . 08 918 OCSD SEWER USER FEE 76 . 00 BOR DATE NO BATCH RSN CDF. GRACE REASON MISC MSG PROJEr-T LOCATED ON AP 167-531-03 PFnY: 3 :END 4':PRT 5:TAXES 6 :MSGS 9 :AGENCY 11:SH0 PRTR 12 :RETN 93313051*CARTE* ORANGE COUNTY TREASURER•TAX COLLECTOR CERTIFICATE OF REDEMPTION DAW Wr t sK,,(A CAI, Date: 7/21/2004 Time: 4 . 35:46 PM V 0 JUL•;22-2004 12:07 FROM:OC TAX COLLECTOR 714-834-4342 T0:918776601086 P.003/004 Page: 1 Documen4 Name: untitled 0'7/21/04 ASSESSMENT TAX SYSTEM TCIC118 TCIC11q CURRENT YEAR SECURED BILL INFO / HIST TAX-YR 1999 PARCEL 933-130-51. 00 TOTAL TAXES: 1116 . 28 ASSESSEE CARTED, DEBORAH A TRA 04010 TYP SERVICE AG*NCY - ---- ----- VALUE -- -- -- RATE ----- -- -- ----- AMOUNT A-1 BASIC LEVY kATE 97, 292 1 . 00000 972 . 92 A]. HT BCH CITY'EMP RETR 97, 292 . 04930 47 . 96 A,I METRO WATER'D-MWOOC 97,292 . 00890 8 . 66 SAL ASMNT UER FEES**** . 00 93 VECTOR CONY OL CHG (800) 273-5167 MONROE BURCH • 66 C7 MWD WATER StDBY CHG (800) 755-6864 MARK RISCO 10 ' 08 U3 OC$D SEWER IPSER FEF (714) 593-7281 TARA HILL 76 . 00 PF KEYS: 1 :HEL)? 3:END 7 :UP 8 :00WN 12 :END Date: 7/21/200f Time: 4: 35:49 PM C-4 r r .j DEECRAH ANN CARTER 9MISS/1211 � � 4ru r - � •F bate 1 � -- '� - -J M Pay to the ".�•°f"` . . 0 Order of — 0-�� - .��• o LIP X _ r r • m WORLD SAVINGS's 0 RAW fso viUa Padg, cslifimft 92861 Memo mp w .A .WR _ N I O i0 cc . 0) m r m co a) m m m m Page 1 of 2 Ehring, Liz From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:06 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: FW: Pending Mailing -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Peter Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 3:05 PM To: Workman, William P.; Payne, Laurie; McGrath, Jennifer; Culbreth-Graft, Penelope; Flynn, Joan; Freidenrich, Shari Subject: FW: Pending Mailing FYI. Evidently, Moreland matched the wrong mailing address to correct names, APNs, and parcel address and wound up sending out 1,209 letters requesting additional information for refund claims to the wrong addresses. A replacement mailing (and manual address verification) is underway at no cost to us. While embarrassing, this doesn't interfere with the processing/payment timeline. I'll let you know if there's more to the story. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Kathryn Beseau [mailto:KBeseau@moreland-assoc.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 2:57 PM To: Grant, Peter Cc: Mindy Jacobs; Brenda Grubbs; Wanda Davis; Kevin Shirah; Erica Waddell Subject: Pending Mailing Pete, On Friday July 9, 1209 "pending letters" were mailed. It appears that all of these letters were mailed to the incorrect mailing address. On the letters the information is correct regarding the claimant name, parcel number and parcel address but the letters were mailed to the wrong mailing address. In addition, the volume of calls has shut down the phone system with the overload of calls. We have a call in to the phone system technical support. Once the phone system is functioning we will record a message detailing the error and for the recipients of the letters to disregard the letters. We will inform you when the phone system is reinstated. In the meantime, I wanted to alert you that calls may be coming to the City. We will rerun the letters tonight and tomorrow we will manually select a sample for testing. We do apologize for this error and will make sure that it does not happen again. We will not bill the City for the extra mailing costs or the time in reprinting the letters. We will keep track of the staff time spent on the phone and will adjust our billing to you accordingly. 7/13/2004 Ehring, Liz From: Jones, Dale Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:42 PM To: Grant, Peter Cc: Brockway, Connie; Ehring, Liz Subject: Tax Claims Good afternoon, As for a meeting date, Wednesday Feb 18 would be best for our office. Please check with Moreland if this will work for them. Our office would like InfoSys to burn a CD of a read only version of the Incomplete data base for our records prior to Moreland working on this file. Also when we are ready to turn over the Main file to Moreland we would like a CD of a read only version for our records. In preparation for Moreland, I need a read only version of the two Excel datasheets (NC2000-63 and 13100-20500) placed back into our G drive. I was not aware that it had been removed until today. Based on today's meeting it appears that all claims even duplicates should be entered into the database. We are in the process of researching this now. We have entered into the database claims that are possible duplicates (name and APN match as a minimum) regardless of date received, as January 4, 2004 claims since the original claim was filed timely. If we remove those claims from the Main database, since they were received after Jan 4, the new claim number will disappear and will have to be documented that it does not exist, and then entered into the Jan 5 new database. There was mention at the meeting that Moreland will be handling the claims received after Jan 5 up to a date uncertain. If this is the case, would it not be better to keep the duplicate claims already entered in Main database and change the date filed to the actual date? Also, continue adding the claims received after Jan 5 into the database Main database as date filed (received) as a search for claims received Jan 5 forward could be done if the refund is to be calculated based on the Jan 4 deadline. Please advise and thank you. Dale 1 fi Y Y �g.��yp gay BEACH CITY OF 0 YUNTINGTON IS.I'EACH MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 04-02 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2004 Department ID Number: 04-02 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION 0- SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCILS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator �IzA�2 C7v PREPARED BY: PETER GRANT, Principal Administrative Analy 4m_,�_ SUBJECT: Selection of a Project Manager to Assist in Processing Property Tax Refund Claims Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should the City Council approve an agreement with Moreland & Associates, Inc. to assist in processing property tax refund claims? Funding Source: Sufficient funds (not-to-exceed $250,000) exist as part of the $2.2 million property tax override revenue that was impounded in FY 2000-01. Because it is likely city will be required to expend the impounded $2.2 million as part of processing or paying refund claims before it is able to issue a judgment or refunding bond to cover the total cost of the refunds staff is recommending that the City Council appropriate the impounded moneys to fund refund-processing costs. Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to approve an agreement with Moreland & Associates, Inc. to assist in processing property tax refund claims; 2. Appropriate $250,000 from Fund 707, the Employees' Rate Contingency fund (identified as impounded property tax override revenue from FY 2000-01) to fund the agreement. Alternative Action(s): G:\Grant\Property Tax Override\RCA Approving Contract with Moreland.doc 1126/200410:06 AM 4 A REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 04-02 The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. Do not approve the agreement and provide staff with appropriate direction. BACKGROUND In October 2003, in an update on the property tax override refund progress, staff identified a need to secure additional resources, in particular a project manager, to process refund claims. The special project team assigned to refund processing identified five primary roles for the project manager to play: 1. The project manager will be tasked to work with the city's refund claim database and the county property tax payment database to compare and verify claims electronically; 2. The project manager will manually verify all claims that could not be sufficiently matched electronically and will resolve incomplete refund claims; 3. The project manager will respond to public inquiries regarding refund claim status, payments, and related issues; 4. The project manager will calculate refund amounts and coordinate the refund distributions. Staff will be preparing reports to City Council to solicit direction regarding claim verification procedures and thresholds prior to processing refund claims; and 5. The project manager will assist city staff in developing a system by which the city will process refund claims received after the bulk of the claims are paid in the summer of 2004 and the project manager's work ends (projected in September 2004). This process will be in place and operating until at least 2006. PROJECT MANAGER SELECTION The city received responses to its Request for Qualifications from the following firms: 1. Moreland & Associates, Inc. 2. CBIZ Accounting, Tax & Advisory of Orange County, Inc. 3. David Taussig & Associates, Inc. 4. HdL Coren & Cone 5. Munifinancial After a review of the written proposals, Moreland, HdL Coren & Cone, and Munifinancial were invited to participate in interviews with the City Treasurer, Finance Officer, Director of Information Services, and the Principal Administrative Analyst in the City Administrator's office. The interview panel voted to recommend Moreland & Associates because of their previous experience processing property tax refunds (in both California and Florida) and they will use certified public accountants and auditors to perform exception claim verification. Moreland & Associates has assigned Kathryn Beseau as the project manager. Ms. Beseau has over twenty years of experience in local government. Prior to joining Moreland, she G:\Grant\Property Tax Override\RCA Approving Contract with Moreland.doc !` 57, 3� 1/26/2004 9:41 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 04-02 served as the Controller of the Irvine Ranch Water District. While at the water district, Ms. Beseau coordinated a property tax rebate and worked. closely with Orange County to levy and calculate property tax assessments: PROJECT COSTS All the firms offering their services as project manager proposed fees on a time and materials basis. Moreland's hourly costs were among the lowest, ranging from $55 - $95 for accountant and auditor staff and $120 - $200 for database consultants. Based on preliminary project scoping discussions, staff estimates the cost of the project could range from $250,000 to $500,000 depending on the volume of (yet unknown) exception claims and the extent to which they are examined. This initial agreement is proposed not-to-exceed $250,000. AGREEMENT DETAILS The City Administrator and special project team members will serve as the project managers for this project. Staff is proposing to extend the normal three-year expiration deadline for the contract to five years to ensure Moreland's availability to assist the city through the full refund claim period and subsequent accounting and auditing. Finally,given the uniqueness of this. project, the City Attorney has drafted custom hold harmless language in the agreement (section eight on page three of the agreement). The custom language places greater potential liability on the city than does that city's standard professional services agreement. All the consultants the city interviewed requested similar hold harmless language. RECOMMENDATION In order to properly process and examine the property tax override refund claims in a timely manner, the special project team recommends the City Council: 1. Authorize . the Mayor and City Clerk to approve an agreement with Moreland & Associates, Inc. to assist in processing property tax refund claims. 2. Appropriate $250,000 from Fund 707, the Employees' Rate Contingency fund (identified as impounded property tax override from FY 2000-01) to fund the agreement. Attachment(s): Cit P- . on 1 Professional Service Agreement with Moreland & Associates, Inc. 2 Financial Impact Statement C) G:\Grant\Property Tax Override\RCA Approving Contract with Moreland.doc 1/26/2004 9:41 AM 3 Attachment 1 � - 1Sy PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND MORELAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROJECT MANAGER ASSISTANCE PROCESSING PROPERTY TAX OVERRIDE REFUNDS THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of 20 , by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and MORELAND & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to,assist in processing property tax override refunds; and Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional service contracts have been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform these services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the "PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby designates Kathryn Beseau who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this Agreement. A 04agree/morel and/1/22/04 1 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of.this Agreement. 3. TERM: TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this Agreement by CITY(the "Commencement Date"). This Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2008, unless sooner terminated as provided herein. All tasks specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than December 31, 2008. These times may be extended with the written permission of CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be shown in Exhibit "A." This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed to in writing by CITY and CONSULTANT. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT on a time and materials basis at the rates specified in Exhibit "B," which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference into this Agreement, a fee, including all costs and expenses, not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00). 5. EXTRA WORK In the event CITY requires (a) additional services not included in Exhibit "A" and/or (b) changes in the scope of services described in Exhibit "A," CONSULTANT will undertake such work only after receiving written authorization from 04aaree/moreland/l/22/04 2 —�~ CITY. Additional compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. 6. METHOD OF PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid pursuant to the terms of Exhibit "B." 7. DISPOSITION OF PLANS ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that title to all materials prepared hereunder, including, without limitation, all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, computer code, language, data or programs, maps, memoranda, letters and other documents, shall belong to CITY, and CONSULTANT shall turn these materials over to CITY upon expiration or termination of this Agreement or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. These materials may be used by CITY as it sees fit. 8. HOLD HARMLESS CITY hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT, its directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, successors, and assignees from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, expenses, judgments, demands and defense costs (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigation of every nature or liability of any kind or nature) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT. CITY will conduct all defense at its sole cost and expense. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by CITY. l 04agree/more land/122/04 9. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY a professional liability insurance policy covering the work performed by it hereunder. This policy shall.provide coverage for CONSULTANT's professional liability in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and in the aggregate. The above- mentioned insurance shall not contain a self-insured retention, "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage greater than $10,000 except with the express written consent of CITY. A claims-made policy shall be acceptable if the policy further provides that: A. The policy retroactive date coincides with or precedes the initiation of the scope of work (including subsequent policies purchased as renewals or replacements). B. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of circumstances or incidents that might give rise to future claims. CONSULTANT will make every effort to maintain similar insurance during the required extended period of coverage following PROJECT completion. If insurance is terminated for any reason, CONSULTANT agrees to purchase an extended reporting provision of at least two (2). years.to report claims arising from work performed in connection with this Agreement. 10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY INSURANCE Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of this Code, which requires every 04agree/moreland/122/04 4 / YYP g employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder. CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to City workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance in an amount of not less than the State statutory limits. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance for all of the subcontractors' employees. CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation. 11. INSURANCE In addition to the workers' compensation and empIoyer's liability,insurance, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT. This policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, employees and agents while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out or in connection with the PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability and blanket contractual liability, of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form which includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for this PROJECT. This policy shall name CITY, its officers, elected or appointed officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically 04aaree/morel and/U2/04 5 provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT-shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary. Under no circumstances shall said above-mentioned insurance contain a self- insured retention, or a "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage greater than$10,000. 12. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE; ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENTS Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as required by this Agreement; the certificates shall: 1. provide the name and policy-number of each carrier and policy; 2. state that the policy is currently in force; and 3. promise to provide that such policies will not be canceled or modified without thirty(30)days' prior written notice of CITY. CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this Agreement is fully completed and accepted by CITY. CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all the policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a.prompt and timely manner,the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. CONSULTANT shall provide a separate copy of the additional insured endorsement to each of CONSULTANT's insurance policies, naming CITY, its officers, 04asree/morel and/1/2104 6 � elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and volunteers as Additional Insureds, to the City Attorney for approval prior to any payment hereunder. 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this Agreement as an independent contractor herein and not as an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT shall secure at its own cost and expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the PROJECT and/or the services to be performed hereunder. 14. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder, shall be.performed in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANTS services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not the PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this Agreement by CITY shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided herein. In the event of termination, all finished and unfinished documents, exhibits, reports, and evidence shall, at the option of CITY, become its property and shall be promptly delivered to it by CONSULTANT. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION This Agreement is a personal service contract and the work hereunder shall not be assigned, delegated or subcontracted by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the prior express written consent of CITY; provided, however, those subcontractors set forth in CONSULTANT's proposal to CITY, including. but not limited 04agree/morel and/1/22/04 7 to, Dr. Ali Diba, DCSE, INC., shall be deemed to have been consented to by CITY.--If an assignment, delegation or subcontract is approved, all approved assignees, delegates and subconsultants must satisfy the insurance requirements as set forth in Sections 9 and 10 hereinabove. 16. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this Agreement. 17. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this Agreement in violation of the applicable provisions of the California.Government Code. 18. NOTICES Any notices, certificates, or other communications hereunder shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent (as designated in Section 1 hereinabove) or to CITY as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Service, to the addresses specified below. CITY and CONSULTANT may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent by notifying the other party via personal delivery, a reputable overnight carrier or U. S. certified mail-return receipt requested: TO CITY: TO CONSULTANT: City of Huntington Beach Moreland& Associates, Inc. ATTN: Pete Grant ATTN: Kathryn Beseau 04nree/moreland/1.22/04 8 E � /) 2000 Main Street 1201 Dove Street, Suite 680 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 19. CONSENT When CITY's consent/approval is required under this Agreement, its consent/approval for one transaction or event shall not be deemed to be a consent/approval to any subsequent occurrence of the same or any other transaction or event. 20. MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of any language in this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by both parties. 21. SECTION HEADINGS The titles, captions, section,paragraph and subject headings, and descriptive phrases at the beginning of the various sections in this Agreement are merely descriptive and are included solely for convenience of reference only and are not representative of matters included or excluded from such provisions, and do not interpret, define, limit or describe, or construe the intent of the parties or affect the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. 22. INTERPRETATION OF THIS AGREEMENT The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the parties. If any provision of this Agreement is held by an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, void, illegal or invalid, such holding shall not invalidate or affect the remaining covenants and provisions of this Agreement. No covenant or provision shall be deemed dependent upon any other unless so expressly provided here. l 0 04aeree/moreland/1/22/04 9 As used in this Agreement, the masculine or neuter gender and singular or plural number shall be deemed to include the other whenever the context so indicates or requires. Nothing contained herein shall be construed so as to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and wherever there is any conflict between any provision contained herein and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation contrary to which the parties have no right to contract, then the latter shall prevail, and the provision of this Agreement which is hereby affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to bring it within the requirements of the law. 23. DUPLICATE ORIGINAL The original of this Agreement and one or more copies hereto have been prepared and signed in counterparts as duplicate originals, each of which so executed shall, irrespective of the date. of its execution and delivery, be deemed an original. Each duplicate original shall be deemed an original instrument as against any party who has signed it. 24. IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. 25. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive 0 lagree/moreland/122/0 3 10 I-q, 0 legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. 26. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event suit is brought by either party to construe, interpret and/or enforce the terms and/or provisions of this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees, such that the prevailing party shall not be entitled to recover its attorney's fees from the non-prevailing party. 27. SURVIVAL Terms and conditions of this Agreement, which by their sense and context survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, shall so survive. 28. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed and construed in,accordance with the laws of the State of California. 29. ENTIRETY The parties acknowledge and agree that they are entering into this Agreement freely and voluntarily following extensive arm's length negotiation, and that each has had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to executing this Agreement. The parties also acknowledge and agree that no representations, inducements, promises, agreements or warranties, oral or otherwise, have been made by that party or anyone acting on that party's behalf, which are not embodied in this Agreement, and that that party has not executed this Agreement in reliance on any representation, inducement, promise, agreement, warranty, fact or circumstance not expressly set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement, and the attached exhibits, contain the entire agreement j 04ame/moreland/12J04 1 1 between the parties respecting the subject matter of this Agreement, and supercede all prior understandings and agreements whether oral or in writing between the parties respecting the.subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. MORELAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California By: , Michael C. Moreland, Secretary AND Mayor g % . L j �,C ATTEST: . y Kathr eseau, Vice President City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 0 1 210 jxf 8q REVIEWED, INITIATED AND APPROVED: City inistrator 04asree/moreland/1/22/04 12 Exhibit A PROJECT APPROACH This property tax refund project will require adjustments and modifications throughout.the implementation process. Therefore,we have developed a flexible approach to meet the needs of the City of Huntington Beach. The work plan described below is intended as a starting point for.further discussions and the development of a final plan. It is fully anticipated that it will be modified to meet the changing needs of the City of Huntington Beach. We have developed a three-phase approach to this project and identified a timeline for completion of each phase. Phase I involves the identification of claims requiring further investigation. Phase II involves the resolution of those claims that require further investigation. Phase III involves the production and distribution of refund checks. Planning and coordination between our team management and Peter Grant and his team members are a continuing part of our work plan. We have identified major planning meetings in our work plan,but we anticipate other meetings in order to keep the City fully informed of our progress on the project. As indicated above, our work plan is not in detail because we recognize that is only a starting point in an evolving process. NVORK PLAN PHASE I The key elements ofPhase.I will include: • Document review • Planning meetings • Obtain an understanding of parameters for a valid claim and the amount of refund • Development of an exception report • Citizen relations A document review will be conducted by Kathryn Beseau, the Engagement Partner and Brenda Grubbs, the Manager of Operations. This Rill include a review all relevant documents from the court, City, and other sources. Ideally, this review will take place prior to the planning meeting so that pertinent issues arising from the document review can be discussed at our initial planning meeting. The planning meeting will allow the Engagement Partner, and her key managers and Database Consultant to meet with key City staff to finalize expectations and timelines for Phase I of the project. We will provide a written synopsis in bullet-point form within two days of the planning meeting to all of the participants. The combination of both oral and written communication will help solidify the understanding of everyone involved in the project and allow potential problems to be quickly identified and corrected. Following the planning meeting, and with appropriate input from the City, we will design an exception report in conjunction with our Database Consultant. The exception report will provide all Exhibit A of the information needed to research a claim. Once the report format is designed, our Database Consultant will compare the two databases and provide the results in the exception report format so that the identified exceptions can be investigated during Phase II of the project. Moreland will, at a time to be determined, assume primary customer service. and inquiry responsibilities. PHASE H The key elements of Phase II will include: • Planning meetings • Review and research exceptions • Determine the validity of claims A second major planning meeting will allow the Engagement Partner, the Manager of Operations, and key City staff to finalize expectations and timelines for resolving the exceptions identified in Phase L Again, following the meeting, we will provide a written synopsis in bullet-point form within two days to all meeting participants in order to avoid misunderstandings. Following the identification of exceptions during Phase I of the project, we will develop a written process and time budget for processing the exceptions using the criteria established by the City. The written process and time budget will be provided to the City for approval. Once the process is approved,our staff will begin processing the exceptions. Once all information is gathered and analyzed for each claim with an identified exception, a determination will be made as to the validity of the claim. Valid claims will be processed as a part of Phase III of the project. Information on claims determined to be invalid will be transmitted to the City for the notification of the claimants. PHASE III The key elements of Phase III will include: ® Planning meetings • Calculate refunds • Issue refunds A third major planning meeting will allow the Engagement Partner, the Database Consultant, the Manager of Operations and key City staff to finalize expectations and timelines for preparation and distribution of refund checks. We will provide a written synopsis in bullet-point form within two days of the planning meeting to avoid misunderstandings. The data file of all verified claims will be processed in order to calculate the appropriate amount of the refund. The resulting electronic file will be the basis for refunds issued by the city's bank or l / 0 Exhibit A other agreed upon sub-consultant. Moreland&Associates will also coordinate the metering;sorting and mailing or refunds. PHASE IV The key elements of Phase IV will include: • Planning meetings • Developing an on-going process for claim verification and payment 9 Exhibit A WORK PLAN FLOW CHART Phases I H z — Phase I No Yes �a No t a - Yes - Phase 11 No 1 i ' Yes a _ ELM _ a No Phase 111 A Exhibit A TIMELINE AND ABILITY TO COMPLETE PROJECT Deadline for refund claims January 4,2004 All claims entered into City database April 2004 Phase I Planning meetings December 2003—April 2004 Refund claims verification begins April 2004 Phase II Planning meetings March 2004—July 2004 Begin review of exception claims April 2004 Phase III Planning meetings June 2004—September 2004 Begin issuing refund checks July 1,2004 Phase IV Planning meetings August 2004—September 2004 On-going process established/ September 2004 Project complete EXHIBIT "B" Payment Schedule A. Hourly Rate: CONSULTANT'S fees for services shall be based upon the following hourly rates: Engagement Partner and Project Advisor $95 Manager of Operations and Manager of Customer Relations $75 Professional staff of Moreland&Associates $55 Database Consultant $200 Professional staff of Database Consultant $120 B. Out of Pocket Expenses Out of pocket expenses will be billed at cost. C. Refund Check Printing and Mailing Refund check printing and mailing expenses will be paid directly by the city or billed at cost. D. Billina 1. Billing shall be done monthly. 2. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice for each payment due. Such invoice shall: A) Reference this Agreement; B) Provide a detailed accounting of the level,of work performed including the hours worked and rate billed; C) Identify out of pocket expenses billed; and D) Show the total amount of the payment due and the total amount billed to date. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this Agreement, CITY shall approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for non-approval and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit "A" may at the option of CITY be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this Agreement has expired or is terminated as provided herein. 3. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized in advance and in writing by CITY shall be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this Agreement. ® a Jan-26-2004 10:41am. F.cm_ T-626 P.002/002 r--439 1 1-23'.04- PRODUCER ""IS CERTIFICATE 13 ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INMfIU TION ?RILIP B. ROBINSON INSURANCE ONLY AND CONFEAS N122r RIL'KM UPON THE CER7IFlCATE- 2081 BUS�VESS CENTER DR. # 200 ALTEHOLDR THR. E COVERAGEAFFORDEED BYrTHE POLICIES BEL IRVINE, CA 92612 9454749300 _ INSURERS AFFORDING COIIERAOR j nau,OMAM3RICAN STATES INSURANCE Co. MO.RELAND ASSOCIATES wwFER a:PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INS 1201 DOV3 ST # 680 c: NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Et Linea o: 9d -2�1-0025 CCYEAAO>:S - TriZ POUCES Q<M uFt*CE USTe'7. BELCW HAVE SEEN ISSUED TD THE INSURED NAMED A80YE Fri THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY AZ-:CU1A6ML%T.TEAM CR CII41MON OF ANY r1'*n"UrT nR QTHF.P 0W.WlENT WITH AC.SPEC'T TO WHICH TSIS CERTIFICATE UAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIµ THE INSURANCE M:OROBD By TKi POLICIES DeM ISED NFMIN IS SUEUECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EKCLUS GNS AND CONDITIONS OF SUgH POLICIES.AGGRE ATE LIMITS SFZWN MAY HAVE BEEN REMUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. TYCe W WWRANCP P=Y NUue � lroucv - oM LIUM I 1 eENMLLASLTY 02P0769819 3-26-03 ' 3-26-04 !rAexoccummm +�s1,t7001000 A OCMMIRCX QENETiAL LI4MM i Fits DAMAor:m ene Iml 111 000,000 I CWdAS LIADa U+L tt - :A1L�6!L`Nr r one oersep) .110 s-000 H3 .;y, IP�SONALaAovInAw i$1 00o, 0do EBL t IV.cv: ti oMuu ACM-Son s2 Q 0 0 0 Q 0 cast ArsABGI`.=UMrt APPuGS PM �iZt� 'PI?CQU=-CDWXP AGG SIP 000 0 Q O n POLICY F7 I - AUTouO�e uamtart cm awo ZMGLE uw ANY AUTO $1, 0 0 0, 0 Q,,b ALL OM ED A= eWLY i"M SCHEOUl.ED eUT09 �-' PO10O� � A r aurrs 02130769819 3-26=03 3-26-04 eacs.Yw. M a NCN oMR+C urtos (Per A-w4 q 3 ;� PRCPSM tAMAGE g n/AAGC LIABIttTT AUTO ONLY-El ACCO2LVT 4 1 AM Amp EA A= S. i 1 A=CW*f: AGO S lI { Lac m ummm 2ACH OCOUARBNGE ®Z 0'D 0, 0 cro A�OecvA -7CAmMA7E 01CT001899 3 -26-03 3-26-04 AaaAeoATL _ sl 000, 00'0 cecLlerta6E a 1 aE�evrox s = WeUlA6 CO WMAMON AND Utpur ou LumuTM - EL E�ACLtiL7ENT sl 00 0 0 0 A CL �.rA ,� ll 01 a0o 000 IOIWC925745 4-1-03 14-1-04 : 6L.oeEA=-poxrLwm s1 000 000 oTt�A B PROFESS_ONtZL � PESZ)058662 7 1-03 7-Z-04 ( 11000,000 3SSGRL7TG+ ar OoEAA.aNS,COGAq�py_ aw►uerw,r ylgpgl 9Y DID RnMEXTFML1A1.PROYL=n i CPA * IF CANCELED FOR No�?AYMENT 10 DAY NOTZCE,WILL BE GIVEN I 4 I ' CITY, ITS OFFICERS, ELECTED OR APPOINTED UYbUC:LALS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AM VOLL"NTEERS ARE NPZl2D AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CERTIFICATE HOLDER aaorstoNaL LWSNmzl arS mim Len-cu CANCELLATION � CITY OF H N TINGTON BEACH s„ouLo ANY OF"E ANOW 11MR sel POI IO BE CANCm I in BERM TNq'cspaursoo 2000 MAIN STREET uV.THEIMP,TlNP t=MQ LNSILREA WU tWMsVR-!6 PAL 30 o'Ya Trnr TMI. F-n.-TINGTOIT BEACH, CA .92648 aatua Tc the CERTV IM MOLOM sAmo Ta T}1e UK 1-0 00 AU rKWU20 w tTAma '; I ACORD 25-S (7197) 6ACOM CORPORATION 1NO' s T2 3JCc NOSNI130al NVIL+E 291:)0bL:SVS 8Z:Lt b00Z/EZ/T2 Attachment 2 � — IS. av CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IOU INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICA TION To: Ray Silver, City Administrator From: Clay Martin, Director Of Administrative Services Subject: FIS 2004-1 ij Date: January 15, 2004 Selection of a Project Manager to Assist in Processing Property Tax Refund Claims As required by Resolution 4832, this Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for "Selection of a Project Manager to Assist in Processing Property Tax Refund Claims." If the City Council approves this request (total year appropriation $250,000) the estimated undesignated fund balance of the Tax Override Fund at September 30, 2004 will be reduced to $2,118,000. Clay Martin Di rectororAdministrative Services CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 04-04 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2004 Department ID Number: 04-04 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH o REQUEST FOR ACTION z SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY C(J1N&L . T1 , SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator o.x-;49 �? �� C-13 PREPARED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratoX1146 JENNIFER MCGRATH, City Aft CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk PETER GRANT, Principal Administrative AnalA-".( SUBJECT: Incomplete Property Tax Refund.Claim`Processing =atemetof Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: How should the city process incomplete property tax refund claims? Funding Source: All expenditures related to this RCA will be funded by the property tax override refund bond. Recommended Action: 1.. Allow property tax.refund. claims without original signatures to be processed when the claim can be verified electronically; and 2. Allow incomplete property tax refund claims received before January 5, 2004 to be completed and refiled within 30 days of the date the city mails notification of an incomplete claim to the claim filer. Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. Continue to require original signatures on all property tax refund claims; T G:\Grant\Property Tax Override\RCA Approving Incomplete Claim Process.doc 1/26/2004 8:10 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 04-04 2. Direct the City Administrator, City Attorney, and City Clerk to reject all incomplete claims without providing an opportunity for the claim.filer to correct their claim; or 3. Direct the City Administrator, City Attorney, and City Clerk to continue to work to cure incomplete claims with no deadline in place. BACKGROUND The city has received approximately 7,500 incomplete claims since April 2001, representing slightly more than 16 percent of the total claims filed (estimated to be 46,000). Incomplete claims are typically missing one of the required fields from the claim form, are unsigned, or could not be entered into the city's database for a variety of reasons, including illegible handwriting. The City Clerk's Office has been working to resolve incomplete claims since shortly after the city began receiving claims. In that time, the City Clerk's Office has cured approximately 3,900 claims, leaving about 3,600 incomplete claims .unresolved. In addition to these 3,600 claims, there are an undetermined.number of incomplete.claims among the claims yet to be entered into the database. ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION With the deadline for the first two refund years (FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99) having passed on January 4, 2004 and the project manager-consultant about to come aboard, staff is preparing to begin verifying claims as soon as data entry is complete. In order to ensure the timely verification and processing of claims, the city needs to resolve the incomplete claims received before the January 4, 2004 deadline. To accomplish this goal, staff recommends the City Council approve the following process: 1. The city will no.longer require original signatures on claims,when the claim can be verified electronically. However, original signatures may be required, along with other supporting documentation, for claims that cannot be verified electronically. Staff expects that the majority of claims will be verified electronically by comparing the city's database against the county's database to determine if the information on a claim matches the county's property tax payment records. The electronic verification will require (at least) that the claim information match the county's record regarding assessor's parcel number (APN), property address, and owner's name in each refund year. Iq G:\Grant\Property Tax Override\RCA Approving Incomplete Claim Process.doc 1/26/2004 4:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 04-04 This process modification will enable staff to quickly resolve hundreds of claims that are not materially affected by lack of.an original signature. It will also allow the city to receive and process claims received via fax and e-mail. 2. The city will notify all incomplete claim filers, in writing, that their claim is incomplete and will provide them a 30-day deadline (from the date the notice is mailed) to cure their claim. Staff will also re-notify any filer who has previously been notified and has yet to respond in order to provide them with a 30-day deadline. Imposing the 30-day deadline will enable all the incomplete claims received prior to the January 4, 2004 deadline to be included in the bulk processing Moreland & Associates has been retained to assist with. It will also resolve incomplete claim notifications that have been mailed but not returned. In some cases, a filer who misses the 30-day deadline will have their claim for the first two tax years expire. In other cases, a filer who misses the 30-day deadline will still have time to refile a timely claim for one or all of the tax years. The city's notification letter will advise the filer of these possibilities. ALTERNATIVES While staff does not recommend any of the following alternatives, they are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Continue to require original signatures on all property tax refund claims. This requirement would be consistent with the city's normal claims process. However, as stated above, staff, including the City Attorney, does not believe an original signature adds any certainty to claims that can be verified electronically. Staff expects to require original signatures when requesting additional information to verify claims. Maintaining this requirement will also result in additional time and costs to process claims. 2. Reject all incomplete claims without providing an opportunity for the claim filer to correct their claim. Rejecting incomplete claims would also be consistent with the city's normal claims process. Filers with rejected claims would still have the ability to refile for tax payments made within four years of the claim date, however many claims for the first two tax years will expire. This alternative would result in savings, as the city would have to process and pay fewer claims. However, given the City Clerk's past practice of resolving incomplete claims, staff is concerned that such a change of direction would be perceived as unfair and difficult to G:\Grant\Prope Tax Override\RCA Approving Incomplete Claim Process.doc Iq 3 1/26/2004 4:26 PM 64 3 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 04-04 justify. The city would be forced to distinguish between two filers who had both. filed timely claims for all four years based on when, within the deadline, they filed their claim. 3. Continue to work to cure incomplete claims with no deadline in place. This alternative would create an additional administrative burden on staff as non- responsive claim filers would have to be repeatedly contacted and the city could, potentially, never be able to close the books on this project as incomplete claims returned to be completed would never expire. CONCLUSION As staff and the project manager-consultant move through the claims verification and payment process, the City Council will be asked to provide direction on a variety of processes and guidelines. The recommendations presented in this report to are designed to expedite claims processing, maintain the integrity of the claims verification process, enable staff to define the universe of claims to be processed this summer, and lay the ground work for the on-going claims process that will carry the city through the conclusion of this project in 2006. Accordingly, staff recommends that the city: 1. Allow property tax refund claims without original signatures to be processed when the claim can be verified electronically; and 2. Allow incomplete property tax refund claims received before January 5, 2004 to be completed and refiled within 30 days of the date the city mails notification of an incomplete claim to the claim filer. Attachment(s): Page Number N'O'.;1' Opscripti6n J G.-Grant+.Property Tax Override\RCA Approving Incomplete Claim Process.doc 1/26/2004 4:26 PM L J ORDINANCE NO. 3 6 6 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MODIFYING ORDINANCE NO. 3653 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR TAX REFUND CLAIMS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE ENTITLED HOTYARD.JARVIS TAXPAYERSASSOCIATIOrV.V. COUNTYOF ORANGE AND REAL PARTY IN INTEREST CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 818780 WHEREAS,on April 19,2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3653 entitled "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach directing the City Administrator to approve all valid tax refund claims filed in connection with the case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. County of Orange and Real Party in Interest City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 818780 and establishing procedures to determine their validity;" and WHEREAS,the City Council intends to extend the fourteen(14) day deadline for filing an appeal from the date of a decision on the validity of an individual claim which was established in Ordinance No. 3653; and NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Seetian 9`of Ordinance.No 3653 is amended to read as follows: (a) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the City Administrator shall be required to comply with the appeals procedure of this section. Compliance with this section shall be a prerequisite to a suit thereon. [See Revenue &Taxation Code § 5141.] Nothing herein shall permit the filing of a claim or action on behalf of a class or group of taxpayers. (b) If any person is aggrieved by any decision of the City Administrator, he or she may appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within thirty-five(35) days of the date of the decision. (c) The matter shall be set for hearing no more than.ninety (90) days from the receipt of the appeal. The appellant shall be served with notice of the tirrie and place of the hearing;as well as any relevant materials;at least thirty(30) calendar days prior to the hearing.` The hearing may be continued from time to time upon mutual consent. At the time of the hearing,the claimant,the City Administrator, and any other interested person may present such relevant evidence as he or she may have relating to the determination from which the appeal is taken. (d) Based upon the submission of such evidence and the review of the City's files,the Hearing Officer shall issue a written notice and order upholding,modifying or reversing the determination from which the appeal is taken. The notice shall be given within fourteen(14) days after the conclusion of the hearing and shall state the reasons for the decision. The notice shall specify that the decision is final and that any suit for judicial review pursuant to Revenue& Taxation Code § 5141 shall be filed within six months from the date of the decision. If the 1 D:\Documents and Settings`mc_grathj\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LKB3\.mending Appeals Process-Tar Refund CWrns.doc 91 t 3l04 Ordinance No. 3663 Hearing Officer fails or refuses to act on a refund claim within the fourteen(14) day period, the claim shall be deemed to have been rejected on the fourteenth(14th)day. (e) All notices under this section may be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. (f) The City Administrator, in consultation.with the City Attorney, shall appoint the Hearing Officer. SECTION 2. All remaining Sections of Ordinance No. 3653 remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of September , 2004. Ma APPROVED AS TO FORTH: City Cier City ttorney fQL/ INITIATED AND APPROVED: i Cit Administrator 2 DADocuments and Settings\mcgrsthj\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\0LKB3\Amending Appeals Process-Tar Refund Claims.doe 9/13/04 Ord. No. 3663 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON.BEACH ) I, JOANT L. FLYNN,the duly appointed, 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of September, 2004, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of September,2004, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Sullivan, Coerper,Hardy, Green,Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: Cook,Vacant Position Unfilled ABSTAIN: None I,Joan L.Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-O,Mcio Clerk.of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on September 30,2004. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L.Flvnn,City Clerk rityClerk and ex-off ex-offi(a Clerk Deputv Citv Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • /. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: City Attorney, City Treasurer, Principal Administration Analyst FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk SUBJECT: Tax Claim Update DATE: January 7, 2004 The City Clerks Office as of January 7, 2004 has entered 36,600 claims into the city's database. We have approximately 3600 claims to "clean-up". These claims are incomplete (missing zip codes, parcel numbers, multiple APN's, etc.) We have to approximately 350 claims that are in the process of mailing back to claimant for completion. The clerk's office received approximately 3000 claims on January 4, 2004. We have approximately 46,000 claims. Agenda January 7, 2004 Property Tax Refund Claims Issues 1. Processing of claims from City Treasurers drop box on 1/5/04 2. Processing of claims post-marked on or before 1/4/04 3. Processing claims received after 8 am on 1/5/04 and/or post-marked after 1/4/04 4. Processing incomplete claims Huntington Beach - Official City Web site - Announcements Page 1 of 4 search fags slap contact us e � k � hJCYI(: :p i3.l1ltflUGBf'#'ke3'!f5 Property Tax Refund FAQ's r F I Elected Officials Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Property Tax Refund City Departments Other Services ► • Why is the city refunding property taxes? About Huntington Beach ► • Who can file a refund claim? ____._._.�.__......_._ Newsroom • When must a refund claim be filed to be valid? Calendar of Events • I received a letter from the city saying my refund claim is incomplete. What should I do? • Will I be paid interest on my tax refund? • When can I expect to receive my refund? • How much will my refund be? • Can I still file a refund claim?Has the refund claim deadline expired? • What is the status of my refund claim? • Where can I get a refund claim form? • Can I file a refund claim for property taxes paid on my RV, boat, mobile home, or business equipment? • Who can I contact with questions about my refund claim? • I've moved, how do I change my mailing address? Why is the city refunding property taxes? In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. County of Orange, the Court held that Proposition 13 only authorized the city's retirement tax to pay for those retirement benefits that the city provided prior to July 1, 1978. Because the city collected retirement taxes for the four tax years from 1997 to 2001 in excess of the amount needed to pay for pre-1978 retirement benefits, the city will issue refunds of the excess tax upon receipt of a valid refund claim. Who can file a refund claim? A refund claim may be submitted by: • The owner of the property who paid the tax; • His or her guardian, executor, or administrator; • Claims filed on behalf of business, partnerships, and other entities should be filed by the person/entity who paid the property taxes. When must a refund claim be filed to be valid? Pursuant to the California Revenue and Taxation Code, claims must be submitted within four years from the date the property taxes were paid. If refund claims must be filed within four years of the date the taxes were paid, why were claims for taxes paid from 1997 through 1999 being accepted until January 4, 2004? The City Council voted to extend the statute of limitations for claims from 1997 through 1999 to 90 days after the lawsuit regarding the retirement tax was resolved. Effective January 5, 2004, the normal four-year statute of limitations http://www.surfcity-hb.org/taxrefund/tax—refund—faq.cfm 7/7/2004 Huntington Beach - Official City Web site - Announcements Page 2 of 4 is in effect. I received a letter from the city saying my refund claim is incomplete. What should I do? If you receive a letter indicating your refund claim is incomplete, you must correct the refund claim (the letter will specify what information is needed)and return the original letter to the city within 35 days from the date it was mailed to you. If you fail to return the letter with the information the city requests your refund claim will be denied on the thirty-fifth day after the city mailed the letter. If you fail to respond in time and your refund claim is rejected, you may then file a lawsuit for a refund within six months after the day your refund claim is denied and/or submit a new refund claim. However, the statute of limitations will limit the refund period of a new refund claim to four years preceding the filing of the refund claim. For example, if you filed a refund claim on April 15, 2004, you could only receive a refund for taxes paid after April 15, 2000. If you have specific questions about the incomplete claim letter, call 866-528- 2703. Will I be paid interest on my tax refund? Interest shall be paid on Retirement Tax refunds, pursuant to California Revenue &Taxation Code Section 5151, which specifies that interest is due if at least ten dollars ($10) or more of interest is due. Simple interest shall be paid on all refunds from April 2, 2001, or the date the Retirement Tax was paid, whichever is later, through 30 days prior to issuance of the refund checks. The interest rate shall be 3.86%for the one year from April 2001 through March 2002, and 3% per year thereafter. For purposes of determining if at least$10 in interest is due, the interest shall be accumulated for all tax years that a single claimant seeks a refund for a single parcel. When can I expect to receive my refund? The city expects to begin issuing refunds in the late summer of 2004. This date is subject to change. How much will my refund be? Refunds will vary based on the number of tax years you are eligible to receive a refund for and the assessed value of your property. The tax the city was collecting was a very small percentage of your total property tax bill (about 0.05 percent)and only a portion of that amount is eligible for refund in each year. Between 1997 and 2001, the retirement tax was approximately$49 per $100,000 of assessed value. The percentage of the tax to be refunded is: FY %retirement tax that is being refunded 1997-98 31.8% 1998-99 41.9% 1999-00 84.5% 2000-01 100% If your property had an assessed value of$100,000 each year, you paid approximately $49 of retirement tax each year. In 1997-98, 31.8% of the $49 you paid in retirement tax, or$15.58, plus interest is eligible for refund. The same calculation applies for each year. Can I still file a refund claim? Has the refund claim deadline expired? Refund claims for property taxes from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 2001 must be filed within four years from the date the tax was paid. Please consult your own http://www.surfcity-hb.org/taxrefund/tax—refund—faq.cfin 7/7/2004 Huntington Beach - Official City Web site -Announcements Page 3 of 4 records to determine the date you paid your property taxes. However, the city has agreed to waive the four-year requirement for all refund claims filed prior to January 4, 2004. What is the status of my refund claim? The city is processing approximately 45,000 claims. Refund payments should begin late in the summer of 2004. Information regarding the status of your refund claim, other than that it was received, is not currently available. Where can I get a refund claim form? Click here to download or print a refund claim form . Refund claims forms are also available from the City Clerk's office on the second floor of city hall at 2000 Main Street. Can I file a refund claim for property taxes paid on my RV, boat, mobile home, or business equipment? Yes, a portion of both secured (land and houses) and unsecured (RVs, boats, mobile homes, business equipment, etc:) property taxes assessed from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 2001 are eligible for a refund if the refund claim is filed within four years of the date the taxes were paid. Who can I contact with questions about my refund claim? The city currently has very little information available about individual claims. However, you can email propertytaxrefund@surfcity-hb.org or call 866-528- 2703. I've moved, how do I change my mailing address? If you have moved since filing your property tax refund claim, please complete this Change of Address Form, sign it, and mail or fax it back to the city. Your refund will be calculated on the property tax payments you made on property owned from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 2001. http://www.surfcity-hb.org/taxrefund/tax refund faq.cfm 7/7/2004 L ' tv of Huntinoton beach roperq TavRefuud Processing B 84 A, J arch 1 , 2004 Re. PROPER]"Y TAX REFUND CLAJIM Dc,'ir Propert • Tax Refund Claimant- 'The City of Huntington Beach has received "y€ur Prop rry Tax Refund Claim, l�llfortttrtatck% the clahn is niissitrg some of the ittl"orilrzation the city° needs to de terrrr:atc if it is eligible for a refund, This letter, updated itlr the inibr;`aaeatiti rr c:lraarke below. must be r,°iurned to the city and tasr-m r d ,within 35 days(no later than . r i] 2 1. '2 r 4) for your claim t r :ess YLEA E PRINT I.aECIBL fi t' USE AN INK E'EN TO COMPLETE If Von have more than-one parcel,plense complete a aTlrt€! letter for each parcel, cs 1:1 D-E] 1:1 tr's L Ferrel .. For Secured Property<(land. home r condo,business building) R Assessor',- Parcel 9 ")can found in the tapper tel'th and earner cal your property tax-bill Or at the c`oaan,vis vebskty lrti )'"'AUX.O �ta�;�Ora �, `� t�rt �.IE] L-1 E- Parce For Unsecured Property (mobile home.RV, boat, business equipment) Last Name D J El 7 1] E] 1:1110 D E E First Name Li 111:1 Li 1:11:10 0 El 1:1 D El El 0 - D D Fif l: trsrr tiaraEl � E L � — t. Business Name I Addre:ii f'or ldr lira l wbicla raNe,s ,,..�. Nvere paid in L EHIE] I-Itzn in:zton %ddre s Line Bach L-] D D--J ;"iP Cod ' i DAddress (if - 1,11 0 Address I b 'r v'�mvm•a �y y+�fF y�e _ pf.irc e'l/prope 3y Ell 0 El 11 El , �.v�u� [-1, D', �..i. 0 E wuwvu�u E-1 address) Address DOE, DO D D F-1011 [1 �1 [I D11 DFIE., City El EJ EJ D El , Zip gods Your phone ttcaataber andfor email address will be used only if additional questions arise about your claim. Phone Number El F-1 D-10 D LE7 L D El D art y ypon malty ofp rjarry, iond r the Prim'°(if theState c:fCrrqaraM that the,for ing it Irtie and c rre Verification clriglj ri,gi:Ec' a Dated its,of- unt n tea Reach Property Tax Refund Processing PO Box 848 Huntington Beach.CA 92648 ' - S IF YOU FAIL TO CO',\,,IPI,,ETE AND RETURN THIS LEI'TER BY April 21. 2004, OR IF YOU URN THE LETTER, BLFIAAff, TO CONIPLFTF . IJ, YOU CLAIM IS DENJED. TT U, CALL 866-528-2,703. f your cl aint is denied,you have recourses,two s : YOU tttA Brio the City for at r fund, You have six tt ontf s after year Claim is denied, until October 21. 2004,to sue the cite, It'you fail to sago the city° Within the six«tiiontit perjod, +.t.>.,aar suit will be time-barred are pur ant to California Revenue rd axittion��odll ��9a.oion *ld t. t,�`I ou r°sat`want tc',"t cons, uIt aan aattorne r,°g,aardi��taat��?Il; s tt�'. You ataay also fee a refund claim votell the city ficT property tsars that %vere I aid witl"€In`four years 4'f Imo date The city MOL'I'M es )'Our rto% cltlitt<. ror examifle, i4`you paid the first i asta.titttot4;t of your 2 at"0-01 proptzty taxes on D c tr r 15, 2W,). you tave until December 15, 2004 to filar as refund H iatt.. Refund rl<airn fortwas are available from the city'city's wrebsite r It rae3 a,` From c? the City Clerk's rl 's of twe Bata the sttcood floor' cat" t` hall t 2 t� :fair? Street, 1luntit`r-tuts Beach. CA Visit Our vveb te: or call 6-5- -2103- i 1 JENNIFER McGRATH, State Bar#179917 2 City Attorney SCOTT F. FIELD, State Bar#105709 3 Assistant City Attorney CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 5 Telephone: (714) 536-5555 6 Facsimile: (714) 374-1590 E-Mail:jmcgrath@surfcity-hb.org 7 CHARLES F. ADAMS, State Bar#69952 8 JONES HALL, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 9 650 California Street, 18ih Floor 10 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 391-5780 11 Facsimile: (415) 391-5784 E-Mail: cadams@joneshall.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 17 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ) No. 18 ) Plaintiff, ) 19 ) SUMMONS V. ) 20 ) 21 ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER ) of the Issuance and Sale of Bonds for the Purpose ) 22 of Refinancing Certain Obligations Arising From a ) Judgment of the Superior Court of the County of ) [Fee Exemption: 23 Orange, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, ) Govt. Code § 6103] Including the Adoption of a Resolution ) 24 Authorizing the Issuance of Such Bonds, a Trust ) 25 Agreement and Related Contracts, ) 26 Defendants. ) 27 ) 28 ) Summons -1- 1 NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST 2 YOU WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND NOT LATER THAN 3 .TUNE 15, 2004,WHICH IS 10 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PUBLICATION 4 OF THIS SUMMONS. READ THE INFORMATION BELOW. 5 ;AVISO! USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO. EL TRIBUNAL PUEDE DECIDIR 6 CONTRA LISTED SIN AUDIENCIA A MENOS QUE USTED RESPONDA NO MAS 7 TARDE QUE EL 15 DE .IUNIO 2004, QUE ES DIEZ (10) DIAS DESPUtS DE 8 TERMINACION DE PUBLICATION DE ESTA CITACION. LEA LA INFORMATION 9 QUE SIGUE. 10 TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER of the Issuance and Sale of Bonds 11 for the Purpose of Refinancing Certain Obligations Arising From a Judgment of the Superior 12 Court of the County of Orange, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, Including the Adoption of 13 a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Such Bonds, a Trust Agreement and Related Contracts. 14 The plaintiff, the City of Huntington Beach(the"City'),has filed a civil complaint 15 against you. If you wish to defend this lawsuit, you may contest the legality or validity of the 16 matter by appearing and filing a written answer to the complaint not later than June 15, 2004, 17 which is 10 days after the completion of publication of this summons. Your pleading must be in 18 the form required by the California Rules of Court. Your original pleading must be filed in this 19 Court with proper filing fees and proof that a copy thereof was served on the City's attorneys. 20 The matter the City seeks to validate is the issuance of its Judgment Obligation Bonds. 21 Proceeds of the Bonds will be applied solely to refund certain property taxes to property owners 22 in the City,which are required to be refunded by a judgment of the Orange County Superior 23 Court and by applicable California law. 24 Unless you so respond, your default will be entered upon the City's application and this 25 Court may enter a judgment against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 26 27 28 Summons -2- 1 PERSONS WHO CONTEST THE LEGALITY OR VALIDITY OF THE MATTED 2 WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO PUNITIVE ACTION, SUCH AS WAGE GARNISHMENT 3 OR SEIZURE OF THEIR REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. 4 YOU MAY SEED THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY IN ANY MATTER i 5 CONNECTED WITH THE COMPLAINT OR THIS SUMMONS. SUCH ATTORNEY 6 SHOULD BE CONSULTED PROMPTLY SO THAT YOUR PLEADING MAY BE FILED 7 OR ENTERED WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY THIS SUMMONS. 8 USTED PUEDE SOLICITAR EL CONSE.IO DE UN ABOGADO EN ESTE 9 ASUNTO. DEBERIA HACERLO INMEDIATAMENTE,DE ESTA MANERA, SU 10 REPUESTA ESCRITA, SI HAY ALGUNA, PUEDE SER REGISTRADA AL TIEMPO 11 REQUERIDO SEGITN ESTA CITACI®N. 12 The name and address of the Court is (El nombre y direccion del Superior Tribunal es): 13 Superior Court of the State of California 14 In and for the County of Orange 15 16 17 The names and addresses of Plaintiffs attorneys are (Los nombres y direcciones del 18 abogado del demandante son): 19 20 JENNIFER McGRATH 21 City Attorney SCOTT F. FIELD 22 Assistant City Attorney 23 City of Huntington Beach 24 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 25 (714) 536-5555 26 I 27 28 Summons -3- I CHARLES F. ADAMS 2 JONES HALL, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 3 650 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, California 94109 4 (415) 391-5780 5 6 Dated: May_, 2004 7 (_Mayo, 2004) 8 9 By. Clerk 10 (Actuario) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Summons -4- I JENNIFER McGRATH, State Bar#179917 2 City Attorney SCOTT F. FIELD, State Bar#105709 3 Assistant City Attorney CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 5 Telephone: (714) 536-5555 6 Facsimile: (714) 536-5555 E-Mail:jmcgrath@surfcity-hb.org 7 CHARLES F. ADAMS, State Bar#69952 8 JONES HALL, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 9 650 California Street, 18th Floor 10 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 391-5780 11 Facsimile: (415) 391-5784 E-Mail: cadams@joneshall.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 17 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ) No. 18 ) Plaintiff, ) 19 ) [PROPOSED] V. ) ORDER FOR PUBLISHING, 20 ) POSTING AND MAILING OF 21 ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER ) SUMMONS of the Issuance and Sale of Bonds for the Purpose } 22 of Refinancing Certain Obligations Arising From a ) (C.C.P. § 860-870.5; Gov't Code § Judgment of the Superior Court of the County of ) 6063) 23 Orange, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, ) Including the Adoption of a Resolution ) 24 Authorizing the Issuance of Such Bonds, a Trust ) 25 Agreement and Related Contracts, ) [Fee Exemption: Govt. Code § 6103] 26 Defendants. ) 27 28 WHEREAS, the Complaint and the Ex Parte Application for Order for Publishing, Proposed Order For Publishing Summons, Case No. 320757 -1- F 1 Posting and Mailing of Summons have been duly submitted to this Court in accordance with 2 Code of Civil Procedure Sections 860-870.5 and Government Code Section 53511 and GOOD 3 CAUSE APPEARING, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 5 1. Jurisdiction of all interested persons in this action shall be had by(a)publishing 6 the Summons pursuant to Government Code Section 6063 in the Huntington Beach Independent, 7 commencing May 13, 2004, or as soon thereafter as is practicable; (b)posting a copy of said 8 Summons in three (3)public places within the boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach(the 9 "City"); and(c)mailing copies of the Summons and Complaint to those persons, if any, or their 10 attorneys of record, who, not later than 10 days after completion of publication of the summons, 11 either have expressly notified in writing the City's attorneys of record herein of their interest in 12 this matter or have filed and served legal actions against the City challenging, inter alia, the 13 validity of the Resolution, the Bonds, the Trust Agreement or any other related contracts or 14 agreements approved by the Resolution or contemplated by the City Council in connection with 15 the issuance of the Bonds. The Clerk shall issue the Summons in the form on file with the Clerk 16 and which has been approved by the Order for Publishing, Posting and Mailing of Summons. 17 2. Jurisdiction of all interested persons in this action shall be complete on the date 18 stated in the Summons,which date shall not be less than 10 days after the completion of 19 publication of said Summons pursuant to Government Code Section 6063, and jurisdiction is 20 otherwise had in conformance with paragraph 1 above. 21 3. The notice described herein shall be sufficient for purposes of California Code of Civil 22 Procedure Section 861. 23 Dated: i 24 25 Judge of the Superior Court 26 27 28 Proposed Order For Publishinq Summons, Case No.320757 -2- Jones, Dale From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:57 PM To: Fujii, John Cc: Jones, Dale Subject: RE: Judgment Bonds Validation Action -Summons John - I e-mailed you under separate cover re: billing. I will make sure about the Summons posting per your message below. You're welcome, Liz Ehring Assistant City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Fujii, John Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2 :40 PM To: Ehring, Liz Cc: Field, Scott; 'cadams@joneshall.com' Subject: RE: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons Liz, As we discussed, I am hand delivering to you a hard copy of the Summons for posting. Please post the hard copy of the Summons and not the electronic version I sent you earlier today. You informed me that there are five library locations for posting. Even though we only have to post the Summons in 3 public locations, please post ALL 4 PAGES of the Summons at the 5 library locations and at City Hall (6 total locations) . Post all 4 pages of the Summons through June 15, 2004. Please check on the posting locations every week to ensure that the postings are not taken down early. Thank you. John M. Fujii Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach City Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 phone: (714) 536-5623 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----- 1 From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:17 PM To: Fujii, John Cc: Jones, Dale; Ross, Rebecca Subject: RE: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons John - Dale hs a call-in to Pete regarding billing. If Admin does not have their own account, certainly you may have Susan bill us and I will have Rebecca forward the charges when we receive our invoice from Community News. Thanks everyone. -----Original Message----- From: Fujii, John Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 12 :18 PM To: Ehring, Liz Subject: FW: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons Liz, Can I bill the City Clerk's account for publishing the Summons? Thanks. John M. Fujii Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach City Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 phone: (714) 536-5623 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: Grant, Peter Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:47 AM To: Field, Scott; Fujii, John; ' 'Chick Adams' ' Subject: RE: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons Please let the Clerk know when the bill comes, if they send me a copy we'll reimburse. I want to meet our legal obligation for noticing, if the Legal Notices section accomplishes that, then leave the ad there. P 2 -----Original Message----- From: Field, Scott To: Fujii, John; 'Chick Adams' ; Grant, Peter Sent: 5/4/2004 8:37 AM Subject: RE: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons John, 1. Have the clerk arrange for publication on her account. Pete, do you want to reimburse the Clerk from the account we established to pay for refunds? 2 . Don't bother with the seal and signature 3 . Legal notices are fine with me, but Pete, do you want to pay the extra for running the ads in the main section of the paper? Scott Field Assistant City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)536-5662 Important Notice-The preceeding message is confidential and protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by unintended persons. If you believe 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: Fujii, John Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 5:39 PM To: 'Chick Adams' ; Field, Scott Subject: RE: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons Chick and Scott, I just spoke with Susan at the LA Times (who must own the Huntington Beach Independent) . She said that the price depends on whether we want the Summons published in the Legal Notices Section of the Huntington Beach Independent or the main section of the paper. In which section do we want to publish the Summons? 3 Also, she said that they usually publish a Summons without the Court seal and Court Clerk's signature. Our Summons has a Court seal and Court Clerk's signature on page 4. Do we want the Summons published with the Court seal and Court Clerk's signature? Finally, Scott, she told me that we need to pre-pay or open an account. However, the City Clerk's Office has an account. Should I ask the City Clerk if we can use their account number to pay for the publishing of the Summons? Thanks. John M. Fujii Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach City Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 phone: (714) 536-5623 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: Fujii, John Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 5:17 PM To: 'Chick Adams' ; Fujii, John; Field, Scott Subject: RE: Judgment Bonds validation Action Summons Chick, I have the wrong phone number for Susan at the Huntington Beach Independent. Can you give me her phone number again? Thanks. John M. Fujii Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach City Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 phone: (714) 536-5623 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: Chick Adams [mailto:cadams@joneshall.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 5:13 PM To: Fujii, John; Field, Scott Subject: Re: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons I concur with everything you've mentioned. I don't see the incorrect fax number as being a fatal defect, and I'm also assuming that it cannot be easily fixed by substituting a corrected page. Let me know if we can be of any help. Chick From: "Fujii, John" <jfujii@surfcity-hb.org> Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:08 :41 -0700 To: "Field, Scott" <sfield@surfcity-hb.org>, " 'cadams@joneshall.com"' <cadams@joneshall.com> Subject: Judgment Bonds Validation Action - Summons Scott, I just spoke with Chick Adams. Pursuant to the Order, we need to serve the Summons in the following manner: 1. Post it in at least three public places in the City. I will contact the City Clerks' office and ask them to post all 4 pages of the Summons and ensure that the Summons remains posted until and including June 15, 2004. 2 . Publish in the Huntington Beach Independent for three 5 4 weeks. Chick told me that the Huntington Beach Independent publishes every Thursday and they need a copy of the Summons and Order by noon next Monday (5/10) to publish on 5/13. I will call Susan (547-4251) in the paper's legal notices department and request that all 4 pages of the Summons be published on 5/13, 5/20 and 5/27. 3 . Mail to interested parties. Chick thought that to be safe, we should mail a copy of the Summons (via registered mail, return receipt requested) to the named individual Plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit. Do you agree? Finally, I pointed out to Chick that the City Attorney's fax number on the first page caption is incorrectly listed as (714) 536-5555. Chick did not think this was a problem. Chick, please add any comments. John M. Fujii Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach City Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 phone: (714) 536-5623 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. 6 F Jones, Dale From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:08 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: City of Huntington Beach v.All Persons Summons -----Original Message----- From: Fujii,John Sent: Tuesday, May 04,2004 12:12 PM To: 'mike.sletten@latimes.com' Cc: Field,Scott;'cadams@joneshall.com';Grant,Peter; Ehring,Liz Subject: City of Huntington Beach v.All Persons Summons Susan, It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday evening. As you requested, I attach to this e-mail a copy of the (1)Summons and (2)Order for Publishing Summons, Posting and Mailing of Summons. As you requested, I will also fax a copy of both of these documents to you at(949)646-5008. 1 request that all 4 pages of the Summons be printed in their entirety in the Legal Notices Section of the Huntington Beach Independent for 3 weeks beginning on Thursday, May 13, 2004. As I understand, the Huntington Beach Independent is published every Thursday, so please publish the Summons on May 13, May 20 and May 27, 2004. You informed me that the City's Clerk's office has an account with the LA Times. Does the City Administrator or City Administration Office have an account with the LA Times? I still need to talk to the City Clerk to obtain her approval for billing the City Clerk's account. You will notice that the faxed Summons has a stamped Case No. and Judge assignment on page 1 and a Judicial Seal and Court Clerk's signature and date on page 4. These items were inputted by the Court. Please include these items in the Published Summons. In you have difficulty with scanning Court Clerk's signature and seal on page 4, please call me. If you like, I can messenger you a hard-copy of the Summons. The Summons has a minor error. The fax no. on the upper right corner of the first page for the City's Attorney's office is (714)374-1590, not(714)536-5555. 1 corrected this error in the attached electronic Summons attached to this e-mail. You will notice that the faxed Summons is corrected by a typewritten change. If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you. John M.Fujii Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach City Attorney's Office 2000 Main Street,4th Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 1 phone: (714)536-5623 fax: (714)374-1590 4-Summons.doc 3-Order Publication.doc IMPORTANT NOTICE.- The preceding message maybe confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. Ifyou believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender thatyou have received the message in error, then destroy it. Thank you. 2 Jones, Dale From: Jones, Dale Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:59 AM To: 'colleen@socal.rr.com' Subject: Tax refund Good morning, I was in the process of filing away my correspondence and could not find an attachment to your email request of Jan 31, 2004. We do have three claims on file for you and the numbers are 28697, 28696, and 28902. The refunds have not been processed as of yet. The last update our office received was the fourth Quarter of 2004. If you have any further questions, please call 1-866-528-2703. Thank you. Dale Jones Sr. Deputy City Clerk Jones, Dale From: Grant, Peter Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:45 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: Claims with future dates Hi Dale, In.the last update we did from the city dbase to Moreland's dbase, a number of records had incorrect"date received" information. Can you please review the claims detailed in this spreadsheet and correct them. If you could then update the spreadsheet with the proper"date received" and return it to me, I'd appreciate it. Pete Future dated claims.xls a 1 iled,aate L stName' � arr arcelAddfes tairnNumber Ali; � '.., 0-3 14907 16325231 13-Aug Dubich Francis S. 5411 Barwood Dr 92649 63 15004 15940315 13-Aug- Peterson Marvin & Karin 6732 Alamitos Cir 92648 22539 15102101 Lugio o Elizabeth 8732 Adams Ave. 92646 ✓/ 23913 15501111 28-Aug- Beckers Manfred & Carol 10131 Forrestal Drive 92646 23931 93716202 28-Aug- Abe to Marva & Manuel 7291 Coho Drive 105 92648 3 25811 14642203 28-Aug-09 Fritz Eileen TTEE 16282 Angler Lane 92647 / +� 3 37732 16312309 25-Nov-M Bishop David 5082 Dunbar Ave 92649 �3 40189 14235114 111-Dec-@@ Alvarez Jose R 7121 Bluesails Drive 92647 41435 15141129 23-Dec-&&Allerton Samuel &Theresa 9572 Smokey Circle 92646 �l 42325 14506322 02-Jan-GiR Gingerly Rosalie 15762 Bluebird Lane 92649 dy 42600 02515275 02-Jan-95 Rogers George 1412 Arrow Lane 92648 44748 16535223 01-Dec-04 Haggard Ralph TR 17851 Carranza Lane 92647 44803 15140104 04-Dec-94 Lamle Francis &Ann 9651 Olympic Drive 92646 45314 16745501 06-Jan-Oe Nguyen Mai Linh 17471 Jefferson Lane 92647 3'�� 46079 15121140 16-JoK04 Cashion Donald E. 20441 Tideland Lane 92646 „; ll i lin Address.,„ Mail r _ , State Mai r ' l' Tail , 17551 Still Harbor Lane Huntington Beach CA 92647 19451 Pompano Lane#107 Huntington Beach CA 92648 5267 Warner Ave#184 Huntington Beach CA 92649 P.O. Box 2060 Huntington Beach CA 92647 22172 Wood Island Lane Huntington Beach CA 92646 10016 1 m oft, TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE 7149645413 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 7149602512 TRUE TRUE 7148460023 TRUE TRUE 7148464706 jbishopl @socal.rr.com TRUE TRUE 7145965457 FALSE FALSE 7149631062 TRUE TRUE 7148975008 TRUE TRUE 7149696989 TRUE TRUE 7148480442 TRUE TRUE 7149621180 TRUE TRUE 7148416100 TRUE TRUE 7143780137 TRUE TRUE d Sent: Thursday,October 23,2003 4:22 PM To: Brockway,Connie Cc: Ehring,Liz;Jones, Dale Subject: RE: correct information Hi Connie, Liz and Dale, The City Clerk's office has submitted invoices to Administrative Services relating to property tax refund claim data entry that show 2-3 employees each week averaging 90 hours a week since late August. In addition to this, at a meeting on October 1, you requested, and Ray approved, an additional temporary position for data entry. This is different than the information you have asked be included in the report to the City Council. I want the report to be completely accurate, can you help me understand why there is a difference? Thanks, Pete -----Original Message----- From: Brockway,Connie Sent: Thursday,October 23,2003 3:31 PM To: Grant,Peter Cc: Ehring, Liz;Jones, Dale Subject: correct information Refund Claim Database Since February 13, 2001 approximately 35,000 property tax refund claims have been received in the City Clerk's Office. Approximately 15,000 claims were entered into the City Clerk's database by staff and City Clerk's Office volunteers through August 2003. . Following City Council's decision on August 4, 2003 to refrain from filing appeal, approximately 20,000 additional property tax refund claims have been received in the City Clerk's Office. Two temporary 40 hour per week clerical employees and volunteers have entered approximately 9,000 more claims into the database. The Information Systems Department and City Clerk's Office staff in August 2003 reviewed the categories of information gathered on the Excel Database and the Information Systems Department converted the Excel database to an Access database retaining all the previously entered information other than two categories relative to the tracking of missing information on some of the claims that were filed, such as unsigned claims, missing assessor parcel numbers and addresses. The City Clerk has reviewed with the City Attorney's Office the types of omissions on claims that must be corrected as there are several hundred incomplete claims, however, these citizens are being contacted by phone and mail to gather the needed information. 3 J .. - 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFOCE OF THE MY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 1, 2003 Example of excel database - Example of forms we are mailing Our department has received approximately 33,500 tax claims. We have two temporary employees processing the claims. Their duties are receiving and opening the mail, assigning claim number, input claims into database, processing the incomplete claims. How many claims are not complete, signature or parcel numbers missing: 1,800. Process for incomplete claims: We are calling to see if claimant can come and sign or bring in parcel number. If we cannot reach them by phone, we copy the claim, attach a letter and mail original to claimant, keeping a copy on file. We have approximately 20,200 claims in database. Approximately 350-400 claims are input daily into database. Our department receives approximately 220-300 claims daily. Our department receives approximately 40-phone calls daily asking for a claim form or confirming that we have received their claim. (Telephone:714-536-5227) DATE FILED CLAIM# LAST NAME FIRST NAME PARCEL# PARCEL ADDRESS LP CODE MAILING ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT ZJp CODE YEARS CLAIMED AM1-CLAIMED NOT SIGNED 8877 Lauderdale Cl.#21 4/52001 2810 Smith Hazel Jean 933.52-092 D 92646 1997-2001 4%5/2001 2811 Bellettlere Samuel&Dorothy_ 023_421-30 19425 Merlon Clr. 92648 1099.2000 $145.68 -- - -- _-_4/52001- 2872 Dlrksen Evelyn_ 148-034-07 2/211 Lochlea 92648 1997.2001 _ 4/5/2001 2813 Steiner Ronald&Maureen 178.421-15 3281 Falkland Cir. 1697.2,001 4/52001 2814 Maurel TR Deane A. 155.195.05 _10072 Stonybrook Dr. 92646 1997.2001 4/52001 2815 Ma nuson Ronald 148-091-24 8511 Martinique 175 Putney Cr. 92649 1997-2001 4/5/2001 2816 Magnuson Ronald _ 163.252-36 1752tPutne Clr. 1997-2001_ _ 4/52001 ,2817 Mapneson Roanld 145-041-12 5001:Pa_rtddge Clr_ 17521 Putney Clr`--92849 -1927-22001 __ Platt Donald M_ _-_105.031_55 _6101 Larchwood Dr.- _.---_^_- 1907-2001 4/52001 2818 Cress Michael_M,_8,Sharon A. --185.042 78 _-_-_ f1582.Dohm Cir..,_- 02B4j199_7•_2.001._.-- 4152001 2820 Grondslall Ronald W. __ 937-15.029 7805 Seabraeze Dr. 92846 Grandslafl Ronald W. 832.24-123 6702 Sun Dr, 7805 Seabreeze 92048 - --- -- --- - --- -- -. _- ------�_...- - -- - - - - - --- ---'--------- br --- ---- - - .._ -------- -- -..... ___4/52001 _2821_ Meltzer Trust-- _Martin 935_241-28 8646 Butte Cir.#605D 92646_ -_ _ 1997-2001 4/52001 2822 Martens Romeo J. 146-561-20 6891 Lala elte Dr. 92647 4/52001 2823_ _ Veysoply, Mural&Guth 146-441•24 6392 Bellinger Dr. 92647 1997.2001 _ 4/5/2.601 2824 Wilson Gary L. 155.071-03 10261 Pua Dr. 92646 1997.2001 4/5/2001 2825 Darlinfl Robert E. 165-152.27 6512 Jardlnes Dr. 1997-2001 4/5/2001 2826_ Vendetta Anthony J. 157-363-18 18512 Vallarta Dr. 1997-2001 4l5%2001 2827 Rosencrans Vivian A. 935.75-025 8566 Fallbrook Cr. - 1997.2001.- - -- - -- -------------- ------------ 4/5/2001 2826 - Creighton - _Dennis_ 937.19-098 7532 Seaprinp Dr.#104 1997-2001. 4/t12001 -__ 2826 Kennedy Ronald W. _�_ 110.302-12 17172 Treshaven Ln. --� 1997.2001 __ 4/6/2001 2830 Rome!- Joseph Z.&Caddad A. 165-194.05 1796�2 FemFem Int clrcir. 92647 1997.2001 4/62001 2831 Choi Marc 151-371•05 20892 Queens Park Ln. 1997-20D1 4/82001 2832 Sarh Branko&Malhilda 937-19-046 19542 Pompano Ln.#107 92648 1997-2001 _41W001 2833 -Semler Judy 148-054-15 -16402 Santa Anita Ln. 1997-2001 4/62001 2834` Aphazarian Sarkis 932-80-055 8777 Coral Springs Cr.ME 92648 1997-2001 4/62001 2835 - Glam letro - Jana M. 025.063-36 2606-D Del Way 1997.2001 _ 4/62001 2836 Keeler James D.&Janice P, 145.293-07 15822 Plymouth Ln. 92647 1997.2001 Tipple Revocable - 4/6/2001 2837 Kenneth W.&Gladys 1.. 938.18.108 8815 Yuba Cf. 1997-2001 _Living Trust - _ 4/62 8777 001 2836 Wapeley Mary C. 932.60.030 Coral Springs Ct.#4d 02848 - 1987.2001 ...----..--...---- - We ----- -- -- --=-- - ----- -- ------ 4/6/2001 _2839 Rodenbau h Robert J. 183.211•11 17851 Shoreham Ln. 92849 1997.2001 4/8/2001 2840 - ` Tess - Ben P. 935-75-039 8565-7 0B Vanness 92646 1997=2001 John W. _...._._ .._....----..._163.114.05--_.__. 6631 Kem.Dr.. ... _...-92648._........._. .. .. .. -4/0/2001 .. „2842._ -, . ..., You...,_.__. .._.. ..,, _ .,.Alton -_ ., _.-,. „165.044.07..__- . ._402B1 Cully SarkDr.. 82046.. - _ - - -1807.2001 - 4/0/2001.--- 2843.-_` ---..._. Rodl.._-_.. _ ......John. .._....__._...._.. 103..142.02_.-__ ----5522.Wondy Cr.__- ......_...._. ._._........ ..... ..._.. _._ _.. . ._....._--_.. .. ._1007.2001 -. . __4l82001_- 2644_-__ Tucker Donald B_8 Sharon L. 169_193_18 - -18853 Mil Clc 92648 1997.2001. 4/8/2001_ _ 2845 lea Raimtond 151•161•1A20551 Tobermo Ck. ----- 4/8/2001 2846 _ Gallagher - Carol C. 178.352-10 41_51 Pierson Dr. --_ 1997.2001 check RM _ 4182001 2847 Scott David R. 159-254-07 18252 Fleldbury Ln. 92648 1997.2001_ 41 2001 2848 Hams James R.&Nancy L. 183-233.17 18002 Hadfield Cir. 92649 1997.2001 ORIGINAL. Property Tax Refund Request NC-2000.63. Printed 1282002 61 J, tip Claim for Partial Refund of Property Tax In order to process your claim regarding your property tax refund, we are returning your claim because we need your Assessor's Parcel Number. To locate your parcel number you can: 1) Locate your parcel number in the upper left hand corner of your tax bill; 2) Available at http://tax.ocgov.com/tcweb/search page-asp; or 3) Call the Assessor's Office at 714-834-6077. Please mail or drop off at your earliest convenience to the address below. The deadline has not yet been ascertained; however, to ensure timely receipt please return to the City Clerk's Office by December 4, 20030 Thank you. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 Claim for Partial Refund of Property Tax In order to process your claim regarding your property tax refund, we are returning your claim for your signature. Please sign your attached claim, date it, and mail or drop off at your earliest convenience to the address below. The deadline has not yet been ascertained; however, to ensure timely receipt please return to the City Clerk's Office by December 4, 2003. Thank you. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 Claim for Partial Refund of Property Tax In order to process your claim regarding your property tax refund, we are returning your claim for your signature. Please sign your attached claim, date it, and mail or drop off at your earliest convenience to the address below. The deadline has not yet been ascertained; however, to ensure timely receipt please return to the City Clerk's Office by December 4, 2003e Thank you. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 Jones, Dale From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:58 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: RE: claim questions Dale -This is fine. When you get it all done. Give to Liz to proof. Please tell Liz that I said the format of our material for this meeting does not have to be perfect or finished --we just have to get the point across, as you have on this. If you want you could put the subject ie; Change of Addressess Multiple AP Numbers on one Claim Final Filing Date Faxed claims on very last day just if you want -----Original Message----- From: Jones, Dale Sent: Wednesday,October 01,2003 8:53 AM To: Brockway,Connie Cc: Ehring, Liz Subject: claim questions Connie,below are still issues we need to ask Jennifer...Please review and advise if this is OK to send to Jennifer. Thank you. Based on your(City Attorney) email response to our questions effective September 4, 2003 the City Clerk's Office will confirm all changes to an existing claim in writing. Further clarification is needed on the following: The volume has not allowed the Clerk's office to document all of the phone calls (changing addresses)nor to check for duplicate claims being filed. Our database information will be different than what is on the original claim in some instances. City Attorney response The database should reflect what is actually received in writing. In some cases the original claim will be different than what is in the database because we changed the database while the person was on the phone. In those cases the database is correct(new mailing address, etc.). Should the Trust claims be handled any different? 1 Can there be multiple claims on one claim form or must we have a separate claim per parcel number? Do we know what the final date for filing is? When the final date to file a claim is decided...can the City Clerk's office accept a faxed claim and then hold for original signature to be mailed or dropped off? City Attorney responded...The tax claims should be treated in the same way standard tort claims are currently treated. The City Clerk's role regarding tort claims is that we receive the claim, assign a claim number, copy it and deliver original to Risk Management. City Attorney responded If there is additional information missing, the claim should be rejected as incomplete. The City Clerk's Office will keep a copy and return the original claim for the missing information...Risk Management is the department who rejects claims as incomplete. z Jones, Dale From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:39 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: RE: more claim questions Dale, add this info in - be sure to somewhere note that Risk Management has original claims. -----Original Message----- From: )ones, Dale Sent: Wednesday,October 01,2003 9:01 AM To: Brockway,Connie Cc: Ehring,Liz Subject: more claim questions More questions? Does Janis want us to input the phone numbers on future claims? Our department has not throughly checked for duplications...can this be done when we change from excel to access? The first 15000 claims or so that we received if we had any questions we would remark check with risk management(signature missing, parcel number, etc), someone needs to look at those claims and return them for signatures, etc. We have a copy and in some cases we need to check the original because some of the claims were not completely copied. 1 r Jones, Dale From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:58 AM To: Jones, Dale Subject: RE: claim questions Dale-This is fine. When you get it all done. Give to Liz to proof. Please tell Liz that I said the format of our material for this meeting does not have to be perfect or finished --we just have to get the point across, as you have on this. If you want you could put the subject ie; Change of Addressess Multiple AP Numbers on one Claim Final Filing Date Faxed claims on very last day just if you want -----Original Message----- From: Jones, Dale Sent: Wednesday,October 01,2003 8:53 AM To: Brockway,Connie Cc: Ehring, Liz Subject: claim questions Connie,below are still issues we need to ask Jennifer...Please review and advise if this is OK to send to Jennifer. Thank you. Based on your(City Attorney) email response to our questions effective September 4, 2003 the City Clerk's Office will confirm all changes to an existing claim in writing. Further clarification is needed on the following: The volume has not allowed the Clerk's office to document all of the phone calls (changing addresses)nor to check for duplicate claims being filed. Our database information will be different than what is on the original claim in some instances. City Attorney response The database should reflect what is actually received in writing. In some cases the original claim will be different than what is in the database because we changed the database while the person was on the phone. In those cases the database is correct (new mailing address, etc.). Should the Trust claims be handled any different? 1 Can there be multiple claims on one claim form or must we have a separate claim per parcel number? Do we know what the final date for filing is? When the final date to file a claim is decided...can the City Clerk's office accept a faxed claim and then hold for original signature to be mailed or dropped off? City Attorney responded...The tax claims should be treated in the same way standard tort claims are currently treated. The City Clerk's role regarding tort claims is that we receive the claim, assign a claim number, copy it and deliver original to Risk Management. City Attorney responded If there is additional information missing, the claim should be rejected as incomplete. The City Clerk's Office will keep a copy and return the original claim for the missing information...Risk Management is the department who rejects claims as incomplete. 2 10/1/2003 Attendance at Meeting on 4th Floor—with City Treasurer, City Attorney, Administrative Services Director, IS Director, City Administrator, Admin. Analyst Peter Grant, and Clerk's staff—Liz Ehring, Assistant City Clerk and Dale Jones, Deputy City Clerk Sr. Discussion included: Form 1099 — Will they be needed Checks — The Assessor's Office practice is to issue refunds to the person whose name is on the check not who owns the property. City Attorney to check into whether city can issue to property owner. Website — Putting the AP # and last name and address on website is planned for November. This is for the purpose of assisting people who want to know if their claim has been received—they may have sent it in 1 V2 years ago and they are checking on it --- this will prevent being inundated with hundreds of calls near the final filing deadline. Discussion held regarding the Assessor's role. The next meeting with the Assessor may have to be rescheduled if the Assessor is not through with his studying the matter. The City Clerk's Office needs one additional temporary clerical for input and continued phoning people and mailing people their unsigned forms and forms with missing information. The City Clerk's database will be reviewed to separate the input that must be corrected. Clay Martin to coordinate locating a consultant to outsource the payment process. A report to Council will probably be made first meeting in November. . r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor Pro Tern and City Council Members From: Connie Boardman, Mayor G Aug ust ust 13 2003 ' 1 g Subject: H-ITEM FOR AUGUST 18, 2003, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— REIMPLEMENTATION OF RETIREMENT PROPERTY TAX FOR - -_ - FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 RQs 00, ;k00S (p :k --- - STATEMENT OF ISSUE -: In 1966, and again in 1978, the electorate of the City of Huntington Beach approved a City Charter revision authorizing the City to provide retirement benefits to its employees, and further directing the City to levy a property tax in excess of 1% of the full cash value of property "sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the retirement system in which the City participates.' The City currently provides retirement benefits,through a contract with the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). In addition, the City provides a Supplemental_ Retirement Program offering survivor's benefits that replace certain PERS benefits to employees hired before 1998 and a Retiree Medical Plan subsidizing the cost for retirees to participate in the City-sponsored Health Plans. Although the City has participated in PERS since 1945, it has modified its retirement programs since July 1, 1978. For example, after July 1, 1978, the City began reimbursing employees for their contribution to PERS, as well as offering the Supplemental Retirement Program and the Retiree Medical Plan. In December 1999, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (°HJTK) filed suit challenging whether the City's property tax override violates Proposition 13, in a case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, et al., v. County of Orange, and City of Huntington Beach as Real Party in Interest, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 81-87-80 (°Case.No 818780°). At issue was whether the override is limited to only those retirement benefits the City paid for as of July 1, 1978, or for all City-paid retirement benefits, including those benefits authorized after July 1, 1978. On April 2, 2001, the Superior Court held that under Proposition 13, the property tax override is unconstitutional °to the extent it exceeds the City's employer contribution for PERS retirement benefits that were in existence prior to July 1, 1978." This means that the property tax override can only be used to pay the employer's contribution to PERS, and cannot be used to fund the City's payment of the employees' member contributions, the Supplemental Retirement Program or the Retiree Medical Program. It also means that the retirement property tax cannot be used pay for post-1978 amendments to the City's retirment contract with PERS. For example, in 2001, the City altered its safety \A-s 03m.-more!FC0H-tax override1 ? H-ITEN,f FOR August 18,2003,CITY COUNCIL MEETING—R.ELNTLEINfENTATIONT OF RETIREMENT PROPERTY TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 2004August 13,2003 Page 2 employee retirement plan to 3% @ 50 from 2% at 50. Under the Court's decision, the City may not use the retirement tax to pay for the additional cost of offering the 3% @ 50 benefit. On July 30, 2003, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion regarding the City's retirement property tax. The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in virtually all respects by a 2-to-1 decision. Subsequently, under the Court of Appeal decision, the City may levy a retirement property tax to fund the employer's contribution to PIERS for pre-1978 retirement benefits. For fiscal year 2003/2004, PERS is requiring the City to contribute 8.997% of safety employee payroll as the City's employer's contribution for pre and post-1978 benefits. The City may levy a tax sufficient to pay that part of the employer's contribution that is attributable only to pre-1978 benefits. In December 2000, PIERS provided the City with a Cost Analysis for offering 3% @ So. It indicated that 4.589% of employee payroll was 'much more indicative of the long-term change in the employer contribution rate due to the plan amendment." Since 4.589% of the 8.997% rate represents the incremental cost of 3% @ 50, the remainder of 4.408% represents the pre-1978 benefit of 2% @50. 4.408% of the.safety employee payroll for 2003/04.is $11279,113.00. A tax levy sufficient to raise,this amount of money is 0.00696% of assessed value. This works out to approximately a.retirement tax of$6.96 per year per$100,000 of assessed value: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution to levy a tax rate at 4.4% that represents the cost of pre- 1978 benefits. Attachments: Cost Analysis dated June 30, 1999 from Kung-pei Hwang, Senior Pension Actuary, CalPERS Resolution No. 4A;I entitled A Resolution of the City of. Huntington Beach Levying a Retirement Property Tax for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 to pay for Pre-1978 Employee Retirement Benefits xc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Bill Workman, Asst. City Administrator Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services Connie Brockway, City Clerk Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney - a . CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS-VALUATION BASIS:JUNE 30,1999 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EMPLOYER NUMBER 97 Benefit Description:21362.2,3% 50 Full Formula The table below shows the change in the total present value of benefits for the proposed plan amendment. The present value.of benefits represents the total dollars needed today to fund all future benefits for ; current members of the plan,i.e.without regard to future employees. The difference between this amount and current plan assets must be paid by future employee and employer contributions. As such,the change in the present value of benefits due to the plan amendment represents the"cost"of the plan amendment However,for plans with excess assets some or all of this"cost"may already be covered by current excess assets. The Ca1PERS Board adopted a resolution providing a one-time increase in the actuarial value of assets to 95% of market value for the calculation of the employer rate when a rate plan adopts a contract amendment that increases the present value of benefits.-This resolution applies only to plans that(1)file a resolution of intention to amend their plan with Ca1PERS before June 30,2001 and that(2)amend their contract with an effective date on or before June 30,2002.If a plan amends more than once during the window period, only the first qualifying amendment will result in the asset increase to 95%of market value. Therefore, if your plan previously adopted an amendment which increased the actuarial value of assets to 95%of markef value,no increase in assets Ph11 bee shown in the tables below. If your plan's - actuarial value of assets was not previously increased to 95%of market value,the tables below show the effect on its assets due to this one-time change in actuarial method(i.e.,the 95%market value of assets). Change Due to Post-Amendment Pre-Amendment Plan Amendment Post Method &Method Change Change Total Present Value of Benefits S 263,664,509 S 22,909,322 S 286,573,831 Actuarial Value of Plan Assets 257,337,475 11,743,423 269,080,898 Present Value of Future Employer and Employee Contributions S 6,327,034 S 11,165,899 S 17,492,933 It is not required, nor necessarily desirable,to have accumulated assets sufficient to cover the total present value of benefits until every member has left employment. Instead,the actuarial funding process calculates a regular contribution schedule of employee contributions and employer contributions(called normal costs)which are designed to accumulate with interest to equal the total present value of benefits by the time every member has left employment. As of each June 30,the actuary calculates the. "desirable" level of plan assets as of that point in time by subtracting the present value of scheduled future employee contributions and future employer normal costs from the total present value of benefits. The resulting"desirable" level of assets is called the accrued liability. A plan with assets exactly equal to the plan's accrued liability is simply"on schedule"in funding that plan, and only future employee contributions and future employer normal costs are needed. A plan with assets below the accrued liability is"behind schedule",or is said to have an unfunded liability,and must temporarily increase contributions to get back on schedule. A plan with assets in excess of the plan's accrued liability is"ahead of schedule",or is said to have excess assets, and can temporarily reduce future contributions. A plan with assets in excess of the total present value of benefits is called super-funded, and neither future employer nor employee contributions are required. Of course,events such as plan amendments and investment or demographic gains or losses can change a plan's condition from year to v December 12,2000 Page I of 3 CONTRACT A.MENTI)I TENT COST ANALYSIS-VALUATION BASIS:JUNE 30, 1999 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ( - EtiIPLOYER NUMBER 97 Benefit Description:21362.2,3%Ca,50 Full Formula year. For example,a plan amendment could cause a plan to move all the way from being super-funded to.:. being in an unfunded position. The changes in your plan's accrued liability,unfunded accrued liability, and the funded ratio as of June 30, 1999 due to the plan amendment are shown in the table below. Change Due to Post-Amendment Pre-Amendment Plan Amendment Post Method Change &Method Change Accrued Liability S 217,156,760 S 20,150,034 S 237,306,794 Assets 257,337,475 1 I,743,47-3 269,080,898 Unfunded Liability S (40,180,715) S 8,406,611 S (31,774,104) Funded Ratio 118.5% 113.4% While the tables above give the changes in the"cost"and funded status of the plan due to the amendment, there remains the question of what will happen to the employer contribution rate because of the change in plan provisions. CalPERS policy is to implement rate changes due to plan amendments immediately on the effective date of the change in plan benefits. In general,-the policy also provides that the change in unfunded liability due to the plan amendment will be separately amortized over a period of 20 years from the effective date of the amendment and all other components of the plan's unfunded liability/excess assets will continue to be amortized separately. However,special rules have to be applied to plans with a current employer contribution rate of zero. The pre-amendment excess assets in these plans were sufficient to cover the employer's normal cost for one or more years into the future. A plan amendment will use up some or all of the pre-amendment excess assets. If there is still excess assets(i.e.if the plan is still ahead of schedule)after the plan amendment, the remaining excess assets were spread over the greater of 5 years or the number of years for which the excess assets would keep the employer rate equal to zero. If the amendment uses up all excess assets and creates an unfunded liability(i.e.from being ahead of schedule to behind schedule),the post-amendment unfunded liability was amortized over 20 years. The table below shows the immediate short-term change in your plan's employer contribution rate due to. the plan amendment. Rate Change Due to Post-Amendment Component Pre-Amendment Plan Amendment Post Method Change &Method Change Normal Cost 12A51% 4.589% 17.040'/0 Unfunded/Excess Asset Cost (12A51)% (4.589)% (17.040)% 1959 Survivor 0.000% 0.0000/0 0.0000/0 Total Emplover Rate 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Amortization Period 20 Years 8 Years _ H �(� 1 CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS-VALUATION BASIS: JUNE 30, 1999 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EMPLOYERNI)INIBER 97 Benefit Description,21362.2,3%Q 50 Full Formula Note that the change in normal cost in the table above may be much more indicative of the long term change in the employer contribution rate due to the plan amendment. The plan's unfunded liabilitylexcess asset cost shown in the table above is a temporary adjustment to the employer contribution to "get the plan back on schedule". This temporary adjustment to the employer rate varies in duration from plan: to plan. For example,a plan with initial excess assets being amortized over a short period of time will typically experience a large rate increase when excess assets are fully amortized. While a plan amendment for such a plan may produce little or no increase in the employer contribution rate now,the change in normal cost due to the plan amendment will become fully reflected in the employer contribution rate as soon as initial excess assets are fully amortized. If your agency is requesting cost information for two or more benefit changes,the cost of adopting more _ than one of these changes may not be obtained by adding the individual costs. Instead,a separate valuation should be done to provide a cost analysis for the combination of benefit changes. If the proposed plan amendment applies to only some of the employees.in the plan,the rate change due to the plan amendment still applies to the..entire plan, and is still based on.the total plan payroll. Please note that the cost analysis provided in this document may not be relied upon once the Ca1PERS actuarial staff have completed the next annual valuation,that is,the annual valuation as of June 30,2000. If you have not taken action to amend your contract, and we have already mailed the June 30,2000 - annual valuation report,you must contact our.office for an updated cost analysis,based on the new annual valuation This actuarial valuation for this proposed plan amendment is based on the,participant,benefits,and asset data used in the June 30, 1999 annual valuation,with the benefits modified if necessary to reflect what is currently provided under your contract with Ca1PERS,and further modified to reflect the proposed plan amendment. Descriptions of the actuarial methodologies,actuarial assumptions,and plan benefit provisions may be found in the appendices of the June 30, 1999 annual report. Please note that the results shown here are subject to change if any of the data or plan provisions changes from what was used in this study. It is our opinion that the valuation has been performed in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles, in accordance with standards of practice prescribed by the Actuarial Standards Board, and that the assumptions and methods are internally consistent and reasonable for this plan,as prescribed by the CalPERS Board of Administration according to provisions set forth in the California Public Employees' Retirement Law. Kuna Pei Hwang,A.SA.,M.A.AA. Senior Pension Actuary,Ca1PERS Fin Process Ids: Annual-49731 Base-53633 Proposal-53634 S December 12,2000 Pare 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTR GTON BEACH LEVYING A RETIREMENT PROPERTY TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 TO PAY FOR PRE-1978 EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT BENEFITS WHEREAS,Article XIII A, Section 1(a) of the California Constitution, which was enacted by Proposition 13 in 1978, limits the basic property tax to 1% of assessed value,but Section 1(b)provides that the 1%property tax limitation"shall not apply to ad valorem taxes. .. to pay the interest and redemption charges on. . . any indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978;"and In the case entitled Carman v. Alvord, 31 Cal. 3d 318 (1982), the California Supreme Court held that the"interest and redemption charges on . . . indebtedness" covered by Section 1(b) includes employee retirement obligations of the City; and Since 1948, the City has provided retirement benefits through a contract with the Public Employees Retirement System(PERS). Pursuant to the 1966 Charter,the City has levied a separate retirement property tax to fund the City's employer retirement obligation to PERS; and -Prior to 1978,the City was,responsible for the employer's portion of PERS contributions, which typically fluctuated from year to year. Employees paid the employee's portion of the PERS contribution(7%for miscellaneous employees and 9%for safety employees). However, after 1978,the City agreed to pay the employee's portion of the PERS contribution; and Proposition 13 was adopted on June 6, 1978. On the same date, Huntington Beach's voters approved a new City Charter,which contains several provisions regarding retirement . benefits for City employees. Section 403 of the Charter requires the City Council to "establish such reasonable compensation and fringe benefits as are appropriate by ordinance or resolution" for City officials and employees. Section 404 of the Charter requires the City to"participate in a retirement system,"and Section 607(b)(2)provides that the City may impose a retirement tax "sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the retirement system in which the City participates;"and Pursuant to these Charter provisions,the City-Council continued to levy after 1978 a retirement property tax above the 1% limit of Proposition 13. Since 1983-84, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 96.31(b) has limited the City to levying a maximum retirement property tax of Zero and 0.04930/100th Dollars($0.04930)per 5100 of assessed value to pay for its retirement system; and For many years after 1978, there was no question of which retirement-related benefits the City could pay for with the retirement property tax because the employer's contribution to PERS consumed all of the retirement property tax proceeds;and 03reso;oroeerzv tax override/8/1 a;o3 1 ' e k. As a result of the declining employer's contributions to PERS, during the several years prior to and including FY 2000/01, for the first time, the retirement proper-tax was used to pay for retirement-related benefits first offered after 1978 in addition to the Ciry s employer's contribution to PERS; and Although the City has participated in PERS since 1945. it has modified its retirement programs since July 1, 1978. For example, effective April 20,2000 the CivY amended its PERS. miscellaneous employee contract from 2% @ 60 to 2%@ 55 for all miscellaneous employees. Further, effective June 30,2001,the City amended its PERS firefighters retirement contract from 2% @ 50 to 3% @ 50,and effective October 5, 2001, the City amended its remaining safety, employees(police and lifeguards) PERS contract to 3%@ 50; and In December 1999,the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association("HJTA") filed suit challenging whether the City's retirement property tax violates Proposition 13,in a case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, et al., v. County of Orange, and Cir;of Huntington Beach as Real Party in Interest, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 81-87-80 ("Case No. 818780"). At issue was whether the retirement tax is limited to only those retirement benefits the City paid for as of July 1, 1978, or for all City-paid retirement benefits,including those benefits authorized after July 1, 1978; and Case No. 818780 was tried on February 26-27,2001 in the Orange County Superior Court. On April 2, 2001,the Court issued a final judgment. The Court held that under Proposition 1.3,the retirement property tax is unconstitutional Ito the extent it exceeds the City's employer contribution for PERS retirement.benefits that were inexistence prior to July l,'`1978.." The judgment was affirmed in Court of Appeal Case No. G029292. Consequently,the retirement property tax may only be levied to pay the employer's contribution to PERS for retirement benefits the City contracted for before July 1, 1978;and For fiscal year 2003/2004,PERS is requiring the City to contribute 8.997%of safety employee payroll as the City's employer's contribution. The City may levy a retirement property tax sufficient to pay this contribution provided that the employer's contribution is attributable only to the pre-1978, 2%@ 50 PERS contract, but not the 3% 50 PERS contract; and There is no exact means to precisely calculate what the PERS safety-employer contribution would be in 2003/04 had the City not amended its PERS contract to provide 3%@ 50 benefits. However,there is a reasonable actuarial method to identify the incremental cost of changing the safety employee retirement plan from 2% @ 50 to 3%@ 50;and In December 2000,PERS provided a"Contract Amendment Cost Analysis"for the 3% @ 50 safety employee retirement plan. The PERS Analysis indicated that according to special rules PERS has applied to all plans with a then-employer contribution rate of zero,no short-term cash flow impact of the contract amendment would be experienced for 8 Fears. Consequently, this portion of the Analysis suggests that all of the 8.997%employer contribution should be allocated to pre-1978 benefits and none of the contributions should be allocated to post-1978 benefits; and 03resolprepertp tar overridc8113103 r However,based upon historical averages,the PERS Analysis also identified 4.589°l0 of safety payroll as the change in the"Normal Cost"of safety retirement plan due to the Contract Amendment. Normal Cost represents the value of retirement benefit earned in the current year. Further,page 3 of the PERS Analysis states that"the change in normal cost. . . may be much more indicative of the long-term change in the employer contribution rate due to the plan amendment." Accordingly, going forward,the City Council will allocate 4.589%of any safety . employer's rate PERS imposes to the cost of the 3%@ 50 contract amendment, and the. remainder of the employer's rate to the pre-1978 safety benefits. Consequently, the retirement property tax for Fiscal Year 2003/04 will be used to pay 4.408% of safety employee payroll (8.997%-4.589%); and The estimated cost to the City of 4.408%of safety employee payroll for 2003/04 is $1,279,113. A retirement property tax levy sufficient to raise this amount of money is $0.00696 per$100 of assessed value. This amounts to a retirement tax of approximately$7.00 per $100,000 of assessed value;and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that a retirement property tax levy of Zero and 0.00696/100u'Dollars ($0.00696)per$100 of assessed value shall be levied for employee retirement costs for Fiscal Year 2003/04, and the remainder of the $0.04930 per$100 of assessed value levy authorized under Revenue & Taxation Code Section 96.3(b) is suspended_ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that to the extern the 2003/04 evy actually produces more.or less revenues than the actual.cost of 4.408% of safety employee payroll., then the - 2004/05 retirement property tax shall be adjusted accordingly to recover the shortfall or refund the excess. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council declares that although it is suspending a portion of the retirement property tax for Fiscal Year 2003/2004, it retains the authority to levy the tax in future years up to the rate of 50.0493%per$100 of assessed value. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of . 2003. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk f S ity A-o ey 6=9 REV .W_ ED AN APP 0 D: L\;ITL: APP VED: i • City Administrator i Directc_ of Administrative Services f 0 Filed 7/30/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS J ASSOCIATION et al., - - - G029292 Plaintiffs and Respondents, >> (Super. Ct. No. 818780) V. OPINION COUNTY OF ORANGE et al., i Defendants; i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert H. Gallivan, Judge. Motion to strike. Judgment affirmed as modified. Motion denied. Howard,Rice,Nemerovski, Cnady, Falk & Rabkin, Steven L. Mayer; Gail Hutton, City Attorney, and Scott F. Field, Assistant City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Trevor A. Grimm, Jonathan M. Coupal and Timothy A. Bitt1E for Plaintiffs and Respondents. No appearance for Defendants. Proposition 13 amended the California Constitution by prohibiting the imposition of ad valorem property taxes in excess of one percent of the cash value of property. It contains an exception allowing excess taxes or special assessments:"to pay the interest and redemption charges on any . . . [¶] (1) [i]ndebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978." (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (b).) The issue in this case is whether passage of a new city charter by the voters of real parry in interest City of Huntington Beach (City) in July 1978 constitutes prior voter approval of excess taxation for retirement benefits added after 1978. That charter (1) mandates City's participation in "a retirement system"; (2) gives the city council discretion to "establish such reasonable compensation and fringe benefits as are appropriate [for City employees] by ordinance or resolution"; and (3) expressly provides for an excess tax "sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the retirement system in which the City participates." We agree with the trial court that excess taxation for the added retirement benefits violates Proposition 13 and affirm the judgment. FACTS The parties stipulated to the facts. The voters of the City approved a charter in 1966. Section 1100 of that charter, entitled "RETIREMENT,"provides: "Authority and power are hereby vested in the City, its City Council and its several officers, agents, and employees to do and perform any act, and to exercise any authority granted, permitted, or required under the provisions of the State Employees' Retirement Act, as it now exists or hereafter may be amended, to enable the City to continue as a contracting City under the State Employees' Retirement System. The City Council may terminate any contract with . . . the State Employees' Retirement System only under authority granted by ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the electors of the City . . . ." 2 Section 1207 of the former charter stated: "(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 . . . . (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: [¶] . . . [¶] 2. A tax sufficient to meet all obligations of the City under the State Employees' Retirement System, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or other plan, for the retirement of City Employees, due and unpaid or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year." In 1976, City's voters approved amendments to the charter prohibiting the city council from taking any action which had "the effect of increasing the amount of tax payable" unless approved by a vote of at least three-fourths of the council... The amendments expressly excluded from this super-majority vote requirement increases in the retirement tax. In June 1978, City's voters approved a new charter. Some of the provisions which the city council considered "controversial" were presented to the voters as distinct propositions. The remaining provisions of the proposed charter, including those relating to the retirement system and its funding, were combined in "Proposition D." The "City Attorney's Impartial Analysis" described Proposition D as follows: "The existing City Charter contains a number of`housekeeping' provisions which will be.streamlined by approval of Proposition `D.' The controversial measures, Proposition `E,' `F,' `G,' `H,' and `J,' are in no way affected by the vote on Proposition `D.' There is insufficient space in this analysis to describe in detail each provision of the existing Charter which will be amended by the adoption of Proposition `D' and therefore, a close reading of the text of the proposed amendments is recommended." Y , The 1978 charter changed the prior charter by no longer mandating participation in the State Employees' Retirement System, now the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). Instead, the new charter merely provides: "The City shall participate in a retirement system." Additionally, the new charter requires that the council "establish such reasonable compensation and fringe benefits as are appropriate by ordinance or resolution for . . offices, officials and employees except as herein provided." Consistent with the 1966 charter, the new charter specifies that City may impose excess taxes sufficient to meet all its obligations "for the retirement system in which the City participates, due and unpaid or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year." As did the earlier one, the new charter imposes a general requirement that increases in taxes must be approved by 75 percent of the council, but again excludes the retirement tax from the super-majority vote. Some of City's employees have been members of PERS since 1945; all of them have been members since 1966. Benefits under the plan are funded by a combination of contributions from the public agency employers, contributions from employee members, and earnings from investments made by PERS. The employee contribution rates are set by the Legislature as a percentage of the employee's salary, while the employer contribution rates are set annually, as determined by actuarial valuations based on the employer's retirement formula, the makeup of employee groups, and PERS's earnings on investments. Since the early 1970's, virtually all City employees have been represented by employee associations; the associations and City have entered into collective bargaining agreements, known as Memoranda of Understanding (MOD's), which establish employee wages, hours, and working conditions, including retirement benefits. Between 1970 and the adoption of the 1978 charter, City made several changes liberalizing benefits under the PERS contract. It added survivor's benefits for the families of employees who died prior to retirement, provided for up to four years of 4 military service to count toward PERS benefits, and allowed certain employees' PERS benefits to be based on the employee's "single highest year" of compensation, rather than an average of the employee's highest three years. City continued to change its retirement package even after the adoption of its 1978 charter and the passage of Proposition 13. The first of the post-charter changes became effective the same date as Proposition 13. On July 1, 1978,pursuant to previously negotiated MOD's, City began paying part of its employees' portion of retirement contributions. During the ensuing years, as part of new MOD's, City gradually increased the percentage of the employee's portion of contributions it paid until the point where it now pays the employees' full PERS contribution. In 1987, City also added two new benefits: A "Self-Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit," initially provided for all employees, now applies only to employees hired before July 1998. A "Medical Insurance Retirement.Fund"permits an employee to continue participating in City's health insurance program after retirement, with a portion of the premiums subsidized by City. In 1999, PERS notified City that its retirement plan was "super-funded," meaning "the actuarial value of assets exceeds the present value of benefits." As a consequence, PERS substantially reduced City's employer contribution for fiscal year 1999-2000. Subsequently, PERS advised City that its employer contribution for fiscal years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 would be zero. But City remained obligated for the other provisions of its negotiated retirement packages, and it continued to fund at least a portion of those other benefits through the retirement tax override contained in the 1978 charter. Plaintiffs Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and one of its members, Charles Scheid, filed this suit. Scheid is a Huntington Beach resident who paid the property tax override under protest. The complaint seeks a refund of that portion of 5 Scheid's fiscal year 1999-2000 tax override payment that is attributable to retirement benefits, and a declaration prohibiting Huntington Beach from levying a tax override for retirement benefits not already being provided to employees in June 1978. After trial, the court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, concluding that the voters of Huntington Beach did not intend their approval of the retirement provisions of the 1978 charter "to commit the City to an indebtedness for future enhancements in the type or level of city employee retirement benefits beyond those to which city employees were entitled at the time of the election." (Italics added.) The court explained that "[t]he indebtedness approved by Huntington Beach voters prior to July 1, 1978, when they adopted Measure D, was an indebtedness to continue providing all retired, current, and future city employees with the retirement benefits to which city employees were entitled at the time of the election, either through PERS or some other singular retirement system, subject of course to any requirements imposed from time to time by the State Legislature. At the time of the election, the City was providing a PERS pension to all its employees and a PERS survivors' benefit to its firefighters." Consequently, in the absence of what it viewed as voter approval for the subsequently added retirement enhancements, the court concluded that allowing City to levy an excess tax to fund those enhancements violated Proposition 13. DISCUSSION Interpretation of Charter City challenges what it calls the trial court's "cramped interpretation" of the charter language in its finding that the voters "did not intend their approval of[the new charter] to commit the City to an indebtedness for future enhancements in the type or 6 level of city employee retirement benefits beyond those to which city employees were entitled at the time of the election." It contends that this conclusion is supported by neither the text of the charter nor its legislative history. Rather, it argues, charter , language stating it may impose excess taxes to satisfy its obligations "for the retirement system" clearly shows the voters empowered City to levy an excess tax to pay for any retirement benefit. City's position does not persuade. We review measures adopted by the voters in the same manner as we interpret statutes (see Hermosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v. City of Hermosa Beach (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 534, 548-549), using a de novo standard (Be v. Western Truck Exchange (1997) 55 Cal.AppAth 1139, 1143). When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we need not construe its meaning. (Downen's Inc. v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 856, 860.) Although we regard the language plainly not to support City's position, its interpretation is plausible if looking at the language in a vacuum. Therefore, because the provisions of the charter arguably are ambiguous, we will engage in statutory construction. (Ibid.) In interpreting the charter, our charge is "to give effect to the intent of the voters adopting it." (Diamond International Corp. v. Boas (1979) 92 Ca1.App.3d 1015, 1033-1034.) To do so, we must read the language to harmonize with the object and purpose of the new charter. (Id. at p. 1034.) We construe the words from the perspective of the voters, attributing the usual, ordinary, and commonsense meaning to them; we do not interpret them in a technical.sense or as terms of art. (Ibid. City's construction of the charter violates these principles in several respects. Throughout its brief it emphasizes the language that provides for an excess tax sufficient to pay for "all obligations of the retirement system . . . ." City then strains the language well beyond its plain meaning by concluding that "obligations" are the exact 7 equivalent of"benefits," stating, "Approval to pay `all' obligations obviously reflects the fact that retirement `obligations'—i.e., benefits—may change over time." (Italics omitted.) A more accurate reading is"all obligations," obligations being the operative word. (Italics added.) City's obligations do not include benefits added after Proposition 13. City of Watsonville v. Merrill (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 185 (Watsonville) is illustrative. Contrary to City's claim, Watsonville did not approve an excess tax "to pay for benefits increased after the effective date of Proposition 13." The case did mention that the city's contracts with PERS had been amended several times, the last after Proposition 13. But, as plaintiffs correctly point out, there are many reasons PERS contracts are amended other than an increase in benefits. Moreover, Watsonville found "the additional tax in dispute was necessary to discharge the City's obligation to PERS." (1d. at p. 194, italics added.) Nothing was said about added benefits. City relies on Carman v. Alvord(1982) 31 Cal.3d 318 (Carman) to support its interpretation. Hov"°ever, it is not persuasive when considered in the factual context of our case. There, in 1948 the voters approved a measure for the city to `fully participate" in the state sponsored retirement system, making the city's employees "members" of the system. (Id. at p. 322, fn. 2.) The city was empowered to "`levy and collect annually, as contemplated in [the statewide statute], a special tax sufficient to raise the amount estimated by [the City] Council to be required to meet . . ."' the city's obligations to the retirement system. (Id. at p. 322, fn. omitted.) After Proposition 13 was passed, the plaintiff challenged the levy of a tax in excess of the .1 percent maximum to.fund the amount due PERS. On appeal, the court found the tax was permissible because it was an "[i]ndebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978." (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (b) (subdivision (b).) City stresses the finding in Carman that by approving the city's participation in PERS and by authorizing a special tax to fund contributions, the voters 8 "[n]ecessarily . . . approved all indebtedness to employees, current and future, that would be incurred." (Carman, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 326.) Under the facts in Carman, that was a logical determination. But the conclusion City draws from that holding is not. It contends the Huntington Beach voters "`obviously understood' in 1978 that City's retirement benefits would not remain static . . ." and asserts that the rationale in Carman as to new employees "applies with equal force to benefits added [thereafter]." However, nothing in Carman authorizes an excess levy for new benefits extended after the passage of Proposition 13, even for employees hired before that date. In fact, it supports the opposite conclusion. The Carman court determined that subdivision (b) did not "exempt only traditional, fixed, long-term debt for borrowed funds" as the plaintiff had asserted. (Carman, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 325, 327.) Nor was it restricted to "indebtedness which was fixed and certain when approved." (Id. at p. 326, fn. 6.) Instead, the court.noted, subdivision (b) "speaks only of the time of approval, not the time an indebtedness is incurred or accrues." (Ibid.) However, when the "voters empowered [the city] to offer the pension plan provided by PERS[,] they authorized the special tax set by statute insofar as necessary to fund the obligations. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 325-326, italics added.) City seeks to avoid Proposition 13 by entering into contracts with added benefits funded through or in connection with a "retirement system," classify them as previously approved obligations, and then levy an excess tax to pay for them. Carman cautioned against this, prohibiting "open-ended voter approval, given before Proposition 13, to incur any government expense deemed desirable from year to year and to tax accordingly." (Carman, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 326, fn. 6.) It explained that subdivision (b)'s phrase "`interest and redemption charges' denotes no more or less than the sums 9 from time to time necessary to avoid default on obligations to pay money, including those for pensions." (Id. p. 328, fn. omitted.) The purpose of subdivision (b) is "to prevent the impairment of contracts approved by the voters in reliance upon the power of the district to levy the tax necessary to fulfill that contract. [Citation.]" (County of Shasta v. County of Trinity (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 30, 40, italics added.) Thus, Carman upheld only "a leNT for a narrowly defined purpose that necessarily would give rise to payment obligations in the future." (Carman, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 326, fa. 6.) Here, City's position is a far cry from "narrowly defined." In the trial court, City asserted that the new charter language gives it the right to levy an excess tax for virtually anything, including "giv[ing] a house . . . to every employee as they retire . . . [¶] . . . as long as it's a retirement related purpose." City's construction of the exception created by subdivision (b) eviscerates Proposition 13. As one court explained in another.context, "If we were to accept.the City's interpretation . . . we would-be turning [Proposition 13] on its head, by narrowly construing the . . . requirements and broadly construing the statutory exceptions to it. [Citation.]" (See Shapiro v. San Diego City Council(2002) 96 Cal.AppAth 904, 924.) City's obligation as authorized by the voters at the time Proposition 13 became effective was to participate in a retirement system. It was not to provide every benefit requested by city employees or advocated by the city council. Assume that the obligation was to provide a transportation system for employees, and Toyotas or Buicks were offered at the time Proposition 13 was enacted. No one could reasonably say.City was later authorized to levy an excess tax to provide Ferraris. Yet that philosophy is what City would have us validate. Under City's interpretation, it would have virtually unfettered power to spend whatever sum of money and levy- excess taxes to obtain the revenue, as long as the expenditure was designated "retirement." This was one of the very things Proposition 13 10 was enacted to combat. And the voters of Huntington Beach obviously favored fetters on City's taxing power. Simultaneously with approving the new charter, 70 percent of them voted in favor of Proposition 13. We must understand Proposition 13 to be able to properly construe the charter. The Proposition 13 ballot pamphlet stated the measure was "directed against `spendthrift politicians' and as `[r]estor[ing] government of, for and by the people.' [Citation.]" (Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd, of Equalization (1991) 53 Ca1.3d 245, 250.) Further, its purpose "was to achieve statewide control over escalating local property tax rates." (City of Rancho Cucamonga v. Mackzum (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 929, 945.) Its raison d'etre was to limit municipalities' taxing power. Subdivision (b), which allows for an excess tax necessary to pay for "[i]ndebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978," is an exception to the stringent restrictions of Proposition 13. "An exception to the main premise of a statute is to be strictly construed. [Citation.]" (People v. Superior Court(2002) 97 Cal.AppAth 1222, 1228.) Thus, City's right to tax is subject to the statewide prohibition on excess taxes. (Centex Real Estate Corp. v. City of Vallejo (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1362.) City misses the mark when it asserts there is no evidence to support the trial court's finding the voters "intended to freeze the status quo when they adopted" the new charter. First, we do not read the trial court's ruling the way City presents it. More importantly, the argument begs the question. The issue is not whether the voters expressly intended to maintain the status quo or limit retirement benefits-to those in existence at the time the new charter was enacted. The voters did not have to specifically intend to limit the benefits; Proposition 13 did that. For any obligations not approved prior to Proposition 13, the tax is automatically capped, regardless of the charter or the 11 voters' intent. Instead, the voters must intend to authorize a tax in excess of the 1 percent limit for a specific obligation. (Cal. Const., art. )III A, § 1, subd. (b).) Pre-existing obligations are the exception.to Proposition 13; therefore, they must be specific, real, and existing. If they are not, the tax is barred. Likewise, Proposition 13 prohibits a finding that the voters intended to authorize City to levy a retirement tax in an amount equal to that in effect in June 1978, as City suggests. The voters never approved the amount of the tax. And, subdivision (b) speaks of approval of the indebtedness, not the tax. City maintains the electorate would not have given it discretion to provide "new" retirement benefits, while at the same time denying it the right to levy an excess tax to pay for them. After all, it continues, the voters knew they would have to pay for those benefits somehow. If their intent was to limit taxing authority, the voters would have specified that limit. But the voters had no opportunity to set a limit. They did not write the language, nor were they given a choice between provisions with or without limitations. And, as we have noted, the voters did not have to intend to or specifically limit the tax; it was limited by Proposition 13. Moreover, the words of the charter suggest the voters did intend to limit the authority to tax; the operative language is in a section of the charter entitled "TAX LIMITS." "[I]t is well established that "`chapter and section headings [of an act] may properly be considered in determining legislative intent" [citation], and are entitled to considerable weight. [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Hull(1991) 1 CalAth 266, 272.) It is consistent with the remaining provisions of the charter to interpret this section title to mean the voters did not intend to give City carte blanche to levy a property tax in excess of 1 percent to pay for all new retirement benefits. 12 City also argues the voters must have intended the tax to pay for retirement obligations to also fund the "reasonable compensation and fringe benefits" authorized by the new charter. We disagree. Yes, the charter gives City the right to provide fringe benefits and compensation; but it does not obligate it to provide additional retirement benefits. City may provide these benefits; it just cannot fund them using an excess levy. Rather, "the employer can provide for the indebtedness in varying ways." (Carman, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 325.) Nor is.City correct in its assertion that the voters "are presumed to have known" that the PERS contracts had frequently been amended before 1978. The presumption that when voters approve initiatives they are "aware of existing laws and judicial construction thereof' (In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Ca1.3d 873, 890, fn. 11) does not extend to factual information such as amendments to contracts. Additionally, the language of the charter does not lend itself to City's construction. "As a rule, courts should not presume an intent to legislate by implication. [Citation.]" (Lubner v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 45 Cal.AppAth 525, 529.) "`[f]or a consequence to be implied from a statute there must be greater justification for its inclusion than a consistency or compatibility with the act from which it is implied. "A necessary implication within the meaning of the law is one that is so strong in its probability that the contrary thereof cannot reasonably be supposed." . . ."' (Woodland Joint Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1451, italics omitted.) That condition is absent here. Likewise, we reject as pure speculation City's claim that if the voters had intended to limit the taxing power, someone, i.e., the employee association, would have objected. The distinction City draws between payments "to" a retirement system and "for" a retirement system is of no consequence. Contrary to its argument, paying "for" a retirement system is not the equivalent of approval to tax for benefits offered after June 13 1978. So, too, City's interpretation of the charter term "retirement system" as something "constantly changing" does not translate to voter authorization of a tax to pay for later- added benefits. City challenges what it describes as "[t]he only factual support" for the decision, i.e., that the proposals relating to retirement were grouped together as part of ballot Proposition D, described in the voter pamphlet as "non-controversial" "housekeeping"provisions. It complains the trial court's "unstated premise" is that a provision authorizing an excess tax to pay for future retirement benefits "would have been sufficiently controversial to warrant separate submission to the voters." That is not how we see it. Rather, for us to find the voters intended to provide unrestricted power to tax for anything classified as a "retirement benefit,"the ballot measure or the voter pamphlet had to make such an explanation. Courts may assume the ballot materials reflected the voters' intent in passing the new charter. (Traders Sports, Inc. v. City of San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 37, 49.) Here, nothing in Proposition D or the voter information package addressed open-ended tax authority. "Absent some indication that the voters were aware of and intended that result, we cannot adopt a construction that would require that result." (Woo v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 967, 977.) City devotes several pages to a discussion of the intent of the charter revision commission and the city council in drafting the new charter language. It stresses, for example, the change from the draft that it would participate in.PERS or several different systems, to the final rendition presented to the voters authorizing City to "participate in a retirement system." It interprets this language to mean the voters gave it authority to select the type of plan and how to fund it, including the excess tax. But, "except in certain `rare circumstances' [citation], `the validity of legislative acts must be measured by the terms of the legislation itself, and not by the motives of, or influences 14 upon, the legislators who enacted the measure. [Citations.]" (Neecke v. City of Mill Valley (1995) 39 Ca1.App.4th 946, 958.) Nothing in the record shows the issue of "flexibility"was presented to the voters, either in the voter material or in Proposition D itself. And we cannot consider something not before the voters. (See Carman, supra, 31 Ca1.3d at p. 331, fn. 10 [drafter's "after-the-fact" explanation of intent does not govern our determination of how the voters understood the provision].) In sum, subdivision (b) is a safety net; it is not an open checkbook. City's expansive interpretation cannot be reconciled with Proposition 13 which "change[d] the previous system of real property taxation and tax procedure by imposing important limitations upon the assessment and taxing powers of state and local government." (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 218.) Nor does authorization to participate in a retirement system constitute a prior obligation. "`The term "indebtedness"has no rigid or fixed meaning, but rather must be construed in every case in accord with its context.' [Citations.]" (Carman, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 326.) In this case, "indebtedness" does not encompass benefits City added after the passage of Proposition 13. Motion for New Trial City contends the judgment must be reversed, because it requires an impossibility, i.e., PERS' calculation of the pre- and post-July 1978 benefits. In the alternative, it suggests a new trial on that issue alone. (We deny plaintiffs' motion to strike the parts of City's brief dealing with this issue.) In support of its motion for new trial, City submitted two declarations of Ronald L. Seeling, the Chief Actuary of PERS. He opined that there would be "no practical means to calculate what the City's PERS employer contribution rate would have been during FY 1999-00 had the City provided only those benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978." He further stated that even determining what portion of the employer 15 contributions is attributable to benefits existing at July 1, 1978 "would impose an exceedingly onerous burden on PERS." He advised the calculations would have to be done"bv hand" because the necessary information was not in the data base. However,the amended judgment does not require City to make those calculations for any years before 2000-2001. Therefore, any calculations needed to limit the tax to existing benefits are prospective only. In denying the motion for new trial, the court discounted this contention, stating: "The court heard the evidence. The court feels that the City has acted improperly. . . . [T]he argument that this is an impossible situation for PERS or the City to resolve, the court really isn't buying it. [T] . . . [I]t would be improper not to give the relief requested because the City or PERS is going to have some difficulty in trying to mathematically go back and do what . . . the order [requires.]" The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial,and we will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion. (Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1160.) Our review of the record persuades us the court properl}_exercised its discretion. Statute ofL imitations City contends the declaratory relief claim is barred by the 30-day statute of limitations set out in Revenue and Taxation Code section 4808. That section provides that a taxpayer may file a declaratory relief action where an illegal or unconstitutional tax directly results from a change in the statute or administrative regulations enacted no more than 12 months before the date the complaint is filed. Thus, City argues, plaintiffs' action filed in December 1999 was more than 20 years overdue. Plaintiffs counter that the change in the law triggering the illegal tax was the ordinance City passed in August 1999 levying the retirement tax override at-issue. 16 We agree. A city ordinance "`is the equivalent of a municipal statute . . . .' [Citation.]" (California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 1384, 1391.) The action was filed within six months.of enactment of the ordinance and is timely. Modification of Judgment In an action seeking refund of taxes levied by a city and collected by the county on the city's behalf, "any judgment rendered for an assessee shall be entered exclusively against the county . . . ." (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 5146.) Taxes were collected by defendant County of Orange, and it must refund the overpayment. i DISPOSITION The judgment is modified.to direct entry of judgment for refund of the overpayment of tax to Charles Scheid against the County of Orange pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5146, and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION RYLAARSDAM, J. ICNNCUR: SILLS, P. J. 17 BEDSWORTH, J., dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I believe our Supreme Court's exegesis of the application of Proposition 13 to long-term city obligations in Carman v. Alvord(1982) 31 Cal.3d 318 should inform the analysis of Huntington Beach's retirement benefits in this case. Since I am unconvinced by my colleagues' attempt to distinguish Carman, I have no choice but to dissent. In Carman v. Alvord, supra, 31 Ca1.3d 318 (Carmen), our Supreme Court held that a city's future obligations under its pension plan constituted the type of "indebtedness approved by the voters" which qualifies as an exception to the property tax limitation of Proposition 13. In Carman, the voters of the City of San Gabriel had approved the city's participation in PERS in 1948, and empowered the city to "`levy and collect annually, as contemplated in [the statewide statute]; a special tax sufficient to raise the amount estimated by [the City] council to be required to meet the obligations of said City to said retirement system."' (Id. at p. 322.) In the wake of California's passage of Proposition 13, a taxpayer brought a class action alleging that the cit`-'s continued levy of an excess tax to fund the retirement system was in violation of article XIII A of the California Constitution. The court explained that "[c]ourts construe constitutional phrases liberally and practically; where possible they avoid a literalism that effects absurd, arbitrary, or unintended results." (Id. at p. 327.) It then based its conclusion the pension plan was unobjectionable on two bases: "Subdivision (b)'s focus on voter approval implies a concern that irrevocable, long-term obligations, solemnly approved by local electorates and entered on faith in taxing powers then available, not be frustrated by a revolutionary tax limitation imposed from outside the community. It also implies a recognition that failure to create a `prior debt' exception might lead to problems under the federal contract clause." (Id. at p. 328, citations omitted.) However, the court made clear that the impairment of contract issue was not its paramount concern, and specifically held that the special tax levy could be applied even to benefits voluntarily offered to employees hired after the.effective date of Proposition 13. "It might be argued that contract clause problems do not arise as to employees hired after the effective date of article XIII A, since they perhaps did not enter service in reliance on City's power to levy the special tax. Yet we see no reason to carve an exception for such persons. We may not assume that subdivision (b) sought to force local governments to the complex calculations necessary to separate their obligations to pre- and post-1978 employees. Article X11I A exempts `interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness previously approved by the electors.' San Gabriel's voters in 1948 obviously understood that subsequently hired employees too would be covered." (Carman v. Alvord, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 333, fn. 11.) The court also expressly rejected the suggestion that Proposition 13's exception applied only to indebtedness which was "fixed and certain" at the time of voter approval, noting that "the subdivision imposes no such restriction. It speaks only of the time of approval, not the time an indebtedness is incurred or accrues." (Carman v. Alvord, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 326, fn. 6.) In this case, the issue is not whether the excess tax may be levied to cover benefits offered to subsequently hired employees (an issue which respondents understandably concede in light of Carman), but whether it may be levied to cover the subsequently added benefits. Under the circumstances of this case, I conclude the Supreme Court's reasoning in Carman establishes that it may. First, I cannot accept respondents' suggestion that the inclusion of the retirement provisions within the non-controversial Proposition "D" portion of the proposed 1978 charter concludes the analysis. I am not convinced by respondents' insistence that inclusion somehow indicates that neither the city council nor the voters could have intended to give the council authority to impose taxes for additional 2 retirement benefits negotiated in the future. As the city points out, there is no substantial evidence to support that conclusion. In fact, the city's authority to levy a special tax to fund its retirement system was already a part of its 1968 charter, and although the city was restricted by that charter to participation in PERS (absent approval of the voters to terminate), the city had some ability to make alterations to its benefits even within PERS system—and the record here demonstrates it had done so. Moreover, while Huntington Beach's voters approved two measures in 1976 which restricted the power of the city council to take actions which had the effect of raising taxes —requiring approval of a super-majority of the council to do so —they expressly excluded the retirement tax from those restrictions. Under these circumstances, I cannot conclude the voters would have considered the possibility of increased taxes to fund future retirement benefits to be particularly controversial. Indeed, the most substantial retirement-related change made in the 1978 charter was the provision lifting the restriction to participation in PERS,and expressly allowing the city council discretion to set "reasonable" and "appropriate" benefits for the city's employees. But again, I see no basis to conclude that would have been controversial. The new charter does not require any change in the retirement system, and I see no reason why the voters would not appreciate the benefits of allowing the city to "shop around." In any event, I agree with the city that even assuming the ballot proposition was mislabeled as non-controversial, that does not mean its provisions should not be enforced according to their language. The city attorney's impartial analysis specifically exhorted the voters to give the charter amendments a "close reading," and I assume the voters did so prior to casting their votes. Indeed, the fact that 40 percent of the voters opposed Proposition "D" suggests that they did form their own conclusions about its provisions, rather than blindly accepting the "non-controversial" label. 3 The provisions of the 1978 charter expressly granted the city council authority to set "reasonable compensation and fringe benefits as are appropriate" for city officials and employees. Obviously, such authority forecasts future changes in such compensation and benefits, and makes no exception for pension or retirement benefits. The charter also lifts the prior restriction limiting the city's participation to the PERS system, and allows the city to participate in another system. Finally, the charter provides that excess taxes may be imposed "sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the retirement system in which the City participates, due and unpaid or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year." It does not say, "all existing obligations . . ." or even "all obligations in the City's existing retirement plan." These provisions, taken together, indicate the voters in Huntington Beach intended to grant their city council the discretion to select the best retirement program for the city's employees, to offer benefits that are "reasonable" and "appropriate,"] and in the absence of other provision therefor, to fund those benefits (as the city apparently always had) through an excess property tax. Respondents do not really quarrel with the first two conclusions. They agree that the charter allows the city to participate in other retirement systems of its choosing, and that the electorate gave the council authority to increase the level of benefits offered above those provided in 1978; however, they assert that Proposition 13 prohibits the levy of an excess property tax for such benefits. In other words, respondents suggest the electorate anticipated and approved future changes in the city's retirement system, but could not have approved any tax funding for benefits not already 1 The majority opinion fails to acknowledge the significance of the provision restricting the council to offering only benefits which are"reasonable"and appropriate." In my view,that restriction is sufficient to protect the city's taxpayers from the danger that the council might include Ferraris or houses as part of the city's retirement package. 4 specified. Presumably then, respondents assume the electorate envisioned a bake sale of monumental proportions. But as the Supreme Court explained in Carman, Proposition 13's exemption for excess taxation approved by the voters may be applied to future obligations under a city's retirement plan, even when those obligations are not yet entered into or known at the time of approval, as long as the future obligations would have been anticipated by the voters. Thus, in Carman, the court concluded that because the voters of San Gabriel understood in 1948 that future city employees would be added to the city's pension system, those unknown (and uncounted) employees' benefits would be considered as having been approved by the 1948 voters. Respondents argue that this case does not fall under the reasoning of Carman, because while the attrition of old employees and addition of new employees is to be naturally expected and is a "statistical fact of life," the addition of new retirement benefits is distinctly voluntary. I cannot agree, because the issue in Carman was not the mere hiring of new employees, but the extension of pension benefits to them. And while it may be true that a city must naturally hire new employees as older ones leave their employment or retire, it doesn't follow that the city must offer those new employees any retirement benefits. It is not obligated to do so, and certainly many people work without such benefits. Thus, the Supreme Court in Carman was recognizing not an imperative of governmental biology, but a likelihood, understood by the city's voters, that the city would choose to extend retirement benefits to new employees in the future. Unfortunately, the majority opinion, like respondents, ignores this aspect of Carman and chooses instead to build its analysis on the purported distinction between "obligations," which can be funded by the tax override provision, and "benefits" voluntarily offered to city employees in the wake of Proposition 13. In my view, this analysis ignores the city's charter provision expressly giving the council continuing discretion to establish reasonable and appropriate fringe benefits. When the council 5 exercises that discretion, the benefits established are part of the city's retirement system obligation. In this case, Huntington Beach's retirement benefits changed.several times in the years immediately preceeding the adoption of its 1978 charter. Against that backdrop, I cannot but conclude that the voters' approval of the new charter, expanding the council's authority to make such changes, reflected an understanding that those benefits would continue to change into the future. Thus, the concurrent approval of an excess tax, "sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the retirement system in which the City participates" (italics added), must be construed as a prior approval of payment for those "reasonable" and "appropriate" benefits which the council was authorized to negotiate in the future. Moreover, the Supreme Court's rejection of the suggestion that Proposition 13 could be construed as "forc[ing] local. governments to the complex.calculations necessary to separate their obligations to pre- and post-1978 employees" applies equally to the issue of pre- and post-1978 benefits. In fact, the trial court's statement of decision highlights that very problem. As appellant points out, the court expressly found that the voters did intend the 1978 charter to authorize the city's participation in a retirement system other than PERS. If the city chose to do so, however, how could it possibly keep track of which portions of an entirely new retirement system would be analogous to the pension benefits offered under PERS in 1978? Would it just be a question of taxing the same amount as allowed by the retirement tax for the PERS pension in 1978? Respondents say "no." They expressly reject the notion that the city is allowed to tax for any pension contribution not expressly owed in the current year for the level of benefits offered by PERS in 1978. Thus, under respondents' view, if the city changed retirement systems entirely, the amount for which it could levy an excess tax in future years would be dependent upon enlisting the cooperation of PERS to determine what PERS would be charging for the 1978 benefits under a retirement system which no longer exists. That 6 would seem to present a problem, if not an impossibility. I do not think that is what the voters of Huntington Beach intended. Finally, because the voter-approved.authority at issue here is confined to setting "reasonable" and "appropriate" compensation and fringe benefits for employees, it does not present the scenario of an "open-ended voter approval . . . to incur any government expense deemed desirable from year to year and to tax accordingly" which was of concern to the Supreme Court in Carman. (Carman v. Alvord, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 326, fn. 6.) Significantly, respondents do not contend that any of the retirement benefits added by Huntington Beach after 1978 are unreasonable or unexpected. Respondents contend, however, that appellate court cases after Carman establish that Proposition 13's exemption for "voter approved indebtedness" can never be applied to authorize a tax levy on any pension system not actually in existence and specifically approved by a city's electorate prior to July 1 1978, and that a charter provision such as the one in this case, giving the city council "open-ended" authority to elect new retirement systems in the future is insufficient as a matter of law to constitute voter approval of the indebtedness. In support of that proposition, respondents rely upon Valentine v. City of Oakland(1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 139. However, Valentine says no such thing. In that case, while the city charter in question did authorize the city of Oakland to "join . . . or continue as a contracting agency in, any retirement or pension system or systems existing or hereafter created under state or federal law" (id. at p. 142, fn.2), the city expressly disclaimed any reliance on the.provision as establishing.voter approval of its subsequent participation in PERS. Thus, the Valentine court had no occasion to consider the issue. And as respondents specifically recognize in another context, "`cases are not authority for propositions not considered."' (American Federation of Labor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1996) 13 CalAth 1017, 1039.) What Valentine does establish, however, is that despite the contrary suggestion in Carman, Proposition 13's exemption applies to authorize an excess tax levy 7 e for any indebtedness approved by the voters, even if the voters did not expressly approve the levy itself: "Once the indebtedness is found to have had the voters' prior approval, ad valorem taxes etc. to pay the obligations arising thereunder:are exempt, and there is no express requirement that such taxes need also be voter approved." (Valentine v. City of Oakland, supra, 148 Cal.App.3d at p. 149.) In this case, of course, the taxation itself was expressly approved. And that approval, while not required, does emphasize the Huntington Beach voters' express understanding of the implications flowing from their approval of the indebtedness. The other case relied upon by respondents is City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1137. City of Fresno is of little analytical use, however, because while the charter language granting the city council authority to make future changes in the city's pension does appear to be fairly broad, the appellate court construed it as conferring only a very narrow power. In City of Fresno, the voters approved a charter in 1957 which included section 1100, giving the city council authority to "`establish a fund or funds for the relief and pensioning of all employees of the City of Fresno . . .; provided, however, that retirement benefits established by any ordinance existing at the effective date of this Charter shall not be reduced, decreased or diminished."' (Id. at pp. 1140-1141.) Although the proviso specifically restricts only the lowering of benefits (and hence seems to inferentially approve their increase), the appellate court nonetheless construed it as "limiting the retirement benefits to the benefits established by ordinance as of the date of adoption of section 1100." (Id. at p. 1145.) The court further stated that in section 1100 "the voters' approval was limited to `retirement benefits' and did not include all `retirement system costs' referred to [in a later ordinance.]" (Id. at p. 1143.) But that was also incorrect. Section 1100 authorized creation of a fund or funds for the rather broad purpose of"relief and pensioning of all employees" (id. at p. 1140), and used the specific phrase "retirement benefits" only in the proviso setting the minimum benefits 8 allowed. Thus, I cannot agree with the City of Fresno court's interpretation of the charter provision at issue. Nonetheless, that interpretation, concluding that voters had approved only a very narrow authority to make changes in the city's pension and retirement system was the foundation for the court's conclusion that retirement benefits and costs approved by ordinance subsequent to the voters' approval of the charter did not qualify for the exemption to Proposition 13. That analysis has no application here. The record here establishes that as early as its 1966 charter, more than a decade prior to passage of Proposition 13, Huntington Beach had already imposed a general one percent limitation on property taxes, subject to specific voter-approved exceptions, including an exception for a tax sufficient to fund the city's retirement obligations. Thus, the passage of Proposition 13, which imposed the same tax limitation on a statewide basis, but also, like Huntington Beach, provided for voter approved exceptions, would presumably have been understood by the Huntington Beach voters as having little direct impact on the manner in which taxation was effected in their city. Thus, the passage of Huntington Beach's 1978 charter, which expressly continued the practice of allowing a special tax levy for retirement benefits in excess of the basic one percent tax limitation, while expressly giving the city council authority to set reasonable and appropriate employee benefits in the future, can only be construed as implying voter approval of(and hence taxation for) those reasonable and appropriate benefits offered by the city in the future. Unless I were able to conclude that Proposition 13 operates as a.complete prohibition on excess taxation for any pension obligation not specifically quantifiable or incurred prior to July 1, 1978 (and in light of Carman's allowance of such taxation for an unknown (and unknowable) number of future city employees to whom benefits were voluntarily extended, I cannot) I must conclude that Huntington Beach's 1978 charter was intended to constitute voter approval of all future indebtedness for reasonable and appropriate retirement benefits offered by the city to its 9 b employees, regardless of whether the specific benefits offered were known to the voters in 1978. BEDSWORTH, J. 10 i .f' Brockway, Connie 74 From! McGrath, Jennifer rw Sent: Thursday, Septemberr04, 2003 4:43 PM To: Brockway, Connie Cc: Field, Scott; D'Alessandro, Paul; Martin, Clay Subject: RE: Property Tax Claims I have addressed each of your claims handling questions below. Jennifer McGrath, City A ttorney City of Huntington Beach ph. (714)536-5555 fax(714)374-1590 -----Original Message----- From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Tuesday,September 02,2003 11:10 AM To: McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Ehring, Liz;Jones, Dale; Ross,Rebecca Subject: Property Tax Claims On August 18, 2003 the City Council advised that all Valid claims would be honored. Please review the process that the City Clerk's Office has been following thus far: (1) We have been returning unsigned claims-to-the sender and requesting that they sign the claim.-- [.McGrath, Jennifer]__This_practice should-continue) (2) We have been taking phone calls of persons who changed their address and have, or will enter it into the database.(McGrth,— _ n- stchangeesss._Allreuetshodbe _4n � u _ blinked with the original claim-The tax_refund_claims-should_be_treat_ed in the same_way_standard-tart-claims` a�reecurrently The volume has not allowed the Clerk's office to document all of the phone calls (changing addresses) nor to check for duplicate claims being filed.) Our database information will be different than what is on the original claim in come instances. [McGrath,Jennifer] -The database-should-reflect-what-is-actually received-in- Next: What is the best thing to do with claims of homeowners who have not circled the years that they owned the property.``M_c_Grath—_Jennifer]--If-it-is only the circled years that is missing on the claim formyplease da-not` reject=the form-for i.n_completeness.We=will-be_v_erifying_all claims_before.-processing refunds.- If there is ,�:additional-information missing,-the-claim should be-rejected-as incomplete,y What s the process with faxed claims? Is an original,signature necessary?(McGrath,—Jennifer]yUnless-you) have a current-practice-of-accepting-all-claims-via facsimile,.) strongly discourage the initiation ofa different claims-process for the=refundclaimS.The-refund claims should be treated-in=the same manner a"s all other y claims- -- - ------- ----- -- — ---- �— -- What is the best procedure when property owners call and change their mailing address?[McGrath, Jennifer] As,stated_above,-all_changes_should_be geju sted-in writing Connie Brockway City Clerk 1 ................. ell) el ---------- Page 1 of 2 Jones, Dale E From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:30 PM To: Jones, Dale1. z� t _ ,. cy N `. \ Cc: Ehring, Liz � i�.�`�, F,(V' Subject: RE: Property Tax Refund Dale -When we got tax claims that were not signed we were supposed to and I believe we did put a note on each and Risk Management took care of returning it to them as insufficient and getting their signature. Also Dale, lets meet-you Liz Rebeca and me and on the computer matrix-we can put the new address of people who move and call us with their new address and still keep their old one on it somehow. Connie -----Original Message----- From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:41 PM To: Brockway, Connie Cc: Jones, Dale Subject: RE: Property Tax Refund CB - Dale and I spoke re: Steph verifying these but also Dale mentioned the citizens below are asking for the proper completion of their form, which of course we can't address since we have the Attorney's Office for that. Also, per Dale, we have some forms from the past which are only copies (Risk Management has the originals) and others are not signed. We don't know if the problems had been adressed before, however, do we need to have them refile? And will Risk Mgm't be the ones to resend? Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:50 AM To: 'kmurray@socal.rr.com' Cc: Jones, Dale; Ehring, Liz Subject: RE: Property Tax Refund Dear Mr. and Mrs. Murray, We will check for you and reply this week if possible - as several of the 16,000 claims we have logged have just requested the same information as have you. We have been logging these claims for the past two years - I'm sure you are fine. However we will get back to you soon. Connie Brockway City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Ehring, Liz Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:44 AM To: Brockway, Connie 8/6/2003 Page 2 of 2 Cc: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Property Tax Refund -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Murray [mailto:kmurray@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:30 AM To: ehringl@surfcity-hb.org; djones@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Property Tax Refund I believe we have completed the property tax refund form and sent the form to the City of HB. Could you please confirm you have the refund form and that it is properly completed? Thank you, Kevin & Colleen Murray 714-960-8674 8512 Sable Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Parcel # 148-960-04 Lot 26 Track 6021 8/6/2003 • +� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION HUNTLNGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Members r. FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk DATE: July 22, 2002 =� `.. 4. COPY: Ray Silver, City Administrator - C; SUBJECT: Property Tax Claims Update ' • 13,908 tax claims have been received as of July 22, 2002 • 13,399 have been entered into the City Clerk's database The only good news in this memo is that the claims processing was and is being done by the City Clerk's Office volunteers. The claims have been input under G: NC-2000-63.TAXCLAIMS.xis and C: NC-2000-63.TAXCLAIMS — backup 7-15-02.xis for future access. Please call if you have any questions. Connie J, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 12, 2001 Helen Mac Aulay 8361 Munster Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Ms. Mac Auley, I am returning your $15 check that you sent to the City of Huntington Beach by mistake. If you wish to contribute money to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association your money should be sent to them. If you mailed your tax refund claim to the City Clerk's Office, I will process your claim. It is not necessary for you to send money to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in order to file a claim with the City of Huntington Beach. Please call me at (714) 536-5404 if you have questions. Sincerely, Connie Brockway 0 City Clerk Enclosures /rsr 1 Telephone:714536-5227) .;�'�r�`��"�'sy., ,,. ��y N '4'F,q,!11 ��" �'� "� �f �f. �� :•��.;�, �" sru� '�}� .x ', !x�° y-w� �y� zt�' � '� `hw'i i Macaulay Helen 8361 Munster Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 9264&5028 Scheid, et aL v. City of Huntington Beach Confirmation Receipt for Official Tax Refund Claim Form TO: Jon-Coupal, President y Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association 621 South Westmoreland Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005-3971 2I have received the Official Refund Claim Form needed to receive the tax refund that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association won for me in the suit Scheid, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach. I will submit this form to the City of Huntington Beach (or I have already submitted such a claim). I understand that if I return the form to HJTA,HJTA will submit the form to the City for me, but cannot guarantee it will be accepted. LJ To help defray the substantial expense involved in winning this lawsuit and my tax refund,I am enclosing a voluntary investment to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in the amount of: C $15 ® $25 ® $50 ® Other $ Signed: Date: Macaulay Hel n Please make your check payable to HJTA(or Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association). Contributions or gifts to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are not tax-deductible. ® m e 70008041 - - 02014005000200038 Membership SPENDERS RENEWMACKDNiWOTNIHDS r`VDTE F You Personal Card — {.e9islanon targets _ t. ProposAion 13. John S. Doe HJT fOFG F EFS > ' ' UNO � ._ .. .. 4. A subscription to Tang mes, our quarterly newspaper v ri mi® full of information about Proposition 13 and tax issues throughout the state, often including your voting district. Associate Membership in the American Tax Deduction Movement, the Howard Jarvis national organization 10. that fights tax increases across the country. AN"M u-- - O" . .plus regular communications updating you on the anti-tax movement. ed We need your si$n _ 4}{ v .,. SuthOrizahon Wdau0 n Lette .M SO WC Can ran w r. K7 i ram. y >F >i' SHORR >no,„wF13 4.vWAKI :. . . OUR 100% NO-NONSENSE MEMBERSHIP GUARANTEE If you ever become unhappy with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- at any time during your Membership -- your full $15 dues will be refunded to you immediately. . . no questions asked. I,1,li„11„11„i,1,11IL oil)il,,,,Il1i,11,111,,,1,1,1 ,s_2445,6 .2 5 9 0 HELEN MAC AULAY i220 8361 MUNSTER DRIVE 0844201962 ;' HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 Date 7-s� Pay to the r /� Orderof lei ` A' Y Dollars @, nF.. ' Wells Fargo Bank N;A California 'r ° www.wellsfargo.com Memo _ -- wr` ,.6: 1 2 2000 24 7um0844 20 196 211m 2590 a INC = OFFICE OF _ CITY ATTORNEY NTr ```.a� P.O. Box 190 a 2000 Main Street Telephone Gail Hutton Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5555 City Attorney Fax (714) 374-1590 April 17, 2001 To All Property Owners in the City of Huntington Beach = C o 2: r7 In 1945, the City first contracted with the California Public Employees Retirement Sy�st'emy{?=-� ("PERS") in order to provide retirement benefits to the City employees. oo �-< J� rn�rn� As part of the City Charter elections of 1966 and 1978, Huntington Beach voters approveea =c�' property tax override to pay for City employee retirement benefits. Also in 1978, C 'Ifo%Ia voters approved Proposition 13. While Proposition 13 sets the maximum rate for preperP taxes at one percent(1%) of assessed value, it also permits additional taxes to be levied to pay debts approved by voters prior to July 1, 1978. In several decisions, the courts have held that taxes to support retirement programs qualify as such debts. Consequently, the City has continued to levy the property tax override from 1978 to the present. Since 1981-82, the tax has remained constant at .0493% of assessed value. On April 2, 2001, the Orange County Superior Court entered a judgment in the case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. County of Orange, and Real Party in Interest, (,amity of Huntington Beach, Case No. 818780. The Court declared that the City's property tax override violates Proposition 13 "to the extent that the tax exceeds the City's employer contribution for PERS retirement benefits that were in effect prior to July 1, 1978." Specifically at issue in the Howard Jarvis suit was the tax for the fiscal year 1999 through 2000. In that year, the City levied a retirement tax as it has for the past 34 years. The proceeds of that tax were used to pay for employee retirement benefits. However, the specific retirement benefits paid with the tax have changed over the years since 1978. In the Howard Jarvis lawsuit, the Plaintiffs claimed that the City could only pay for those specific retirement programs that the City provided in 1978. On April 2, 2001, the Court agreed, holding that such tax could only be used to pay for those benefits offered before July 1, 1978. In response to this decision, the City Council has filed an appeal. It is anticipated that it will take three years to resolve the appellate process and possibly longer, if either party seeks review from the California Supreme Court. It is the intent of the City Council that if, after the end of the appellate process,the final judgment should indicate that the taxpayers were overcharged, then all taxpayers that apply for a refund will receive a refund for Fiscal Years 1997-98 through the present. 1 SF-2000 Plead:Jarvis:Corres:Letter to all property owners . Normally, in order to apply for a tax refund, the property owner must file a claim within four years of having paid the tax. Then, the City has up to six months to act on the claim. If the City does not act within six months, the claim is automatically denied. At that point, the property owner has six months to file his own lawsuit or else forfeit the claim. The City sees no need for taxpayers to go through this process while the appeal is still pending. Consequently, the City has waived the necessity of filing a claim at this time. Instead, any person may file a claim at any time no later than 90 days after there is a final decision on the tax from the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. The City will promptly announce any such decision. Iii-thc meanwhile, property owners still may file refund claims now if they wish. If they do file such claims, they will not be paid while the City's appeal is pending; instead they will be deemed denied six months after having been filed. However, the time to file a suit will be extended until 180 days after a final decision in the case. While individual property owners may sue earlier, that is unnecessary because the City will continue to accept claims until 90 days after the final decision�of the appellate courts in the Howard Jarvis lawsuit. In summary, the City wishes to treat all property owners equally. At this time, the Howard Jarvis lawsuit does not give anyone tax refunds because the City is appealing. The appellate process is lengthy and will take three years or more. No one need file a tax refund now,because if the City loses the appeal in part or whole, it will accept refund claims for up to 90 days after the appellate decision. Sincerely, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney 2 SF-2000 Plead:Jarvis:Corres:Letter to all property owners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Property Tax Payment Claimant's Name: Assessor's Parcel No. Parcel Address: Claimant's Address [if different than parcel address]: Phone Number& E-Mail Address [optional] Years for which you are seeking a refund [circle all those years during which you paid the property taxes]: July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998 July 1, 1998-June 30, 1999 July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 July 1, 2000-June 30, 2001. CLAIM FOR REFUND Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096, et seq., Claimant seeks the refund of Claimant's share of that portion of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach that exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. GROUNDS The claimed portion of the City's property tax was"illegally assessed or levied" and/or"illegally collected" as those terms are used in Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096. Proposition 13 caps ad valorem property taxes at one percent of the property's assessed value. Cal. Const., art. XIIIA, sec. 1 (a). An exception permits the one percent cap to be exceeded to repay an"indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978." Id., Sec. 1(b). The Court ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 818780, that the City's property tax, to the extent it exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978, violated Proposition 13 and was therefore levied and collected illegally. SF:Forms:Tax Refund Form 4-13-01 4 PAYMENT OF TAXES I certify that I paid the property tax, or am the guardian, executor or administrator of the person who paid the tax on the above-mentioned Assessor's Parcel during the years described above. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Claimant requests the refund of the amount determined by the City to represent the difference between Claimant's payments and Claimant's lawful share of the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Huntington Beach, California. DATED: SIGNED: Please Note: It may be necessary in the future for you to provide evidence that you were the person who paid the tax. It is recommended that you retain any cancelled checks or other evidence you may have showing payment of property.taxes. SF:Forms:Tax Refund Form 4-13-01 ► C-04- CiTY oF LA UINTA HERMOSA HUPlTit�aGTOPd LEACH. CA 16211 Parkside Lane, Huntington Beach, CaliforniAMR 13 A io: Q4) 847-5441 April 10, 2001 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Allocation of Funds to City Attorney's Legal Services I wish to protest, strongly and profoundly, the Huntington Beach City Council's proposal as stated in the Orange County Register, March 22"d edition, to allot$200,000 from the general fund to the City Attorney for the sole purpose of appealing the Superior Court's ruling on illegal extra taxes collected to pay for employees' retirement benefits. Indeed, this is reminiscent of another tax levied for years on automobiles entering the state which was just recently adjudged unconstitutional and has yet to be refunded. Whenever will our governing bodies,city,state,county,etc.,stop imposing illegal revenue burdens on the public,then refusing to return the full measure of taxes collected when the law is found unconstitutional? Sincerely e in e t for P.I.&I. nc., al ner 4L -e2 �� (r; ALE°K OCEAN 8 CITY OF 222 & 224 19" Street HUB TINGTON BEACH;CA Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 2001 APR 13 A 10: -3Q April 10, 2001 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Allocation of Funds to City Attorney's Legal Services I wish to protest, strongly and profoundly, the Huntington Beach City Council's proposal as stated in the Orange County Register, March 22nd edition, to allot $200,000 from the general fund to the City Attorney for the sole purpose of appealing the Superior Court's ruling on illegal extra taxes collected to pay for employees' retirement benefits. Indeed, this is reminiscent of another tax levied for years on automobiles entering the state which was just recently adjudged unconstitutional and has yet to be refunded. Whenever will our governing bodies, city, state, county, etc., stop imposing illegal revenue burdens on the public, then refusing to return the full measure of taxes collected when the law is found unconstitutional? Sinc f, esident for P.I.&I. In a al Partner Melvin J. Hoeffliger CICITCLERK OF�c P.O. Box 579 HUNTIING i UI BEACH.-CA Dana Point, Ca 92629 2001 APR 13 A i6: 14� April 10, 2001 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Re: 512, 514, 518, 520, & 524 19th Street, Huntington Beach 4450 /D 2 Subject: Allocation of Funds to City Attorney's Legal Services As a Huntington Beach property owner, I wish to protest, strongly and profoundly, the Huntington Beach City Council's proposal as stated in the Orange County Register, March 22nd edition, to allot $200,000 from the general fund to the City Attorney for the sole purpose of appealing the Superior Court's ruling on illegal extra taxes collected to pay for employees' retirement benefits. Indeed, this is reminiscent of another tax levied for years on automoblies entering the state which was just recently adjudged unconstitutional and has yet to be refunded. Whenever will our governing bodies, city, state, county, etc., stop imposing illegal revenue burdens on the public, then refusing to return the full measure of taxes collected when the law is found unconstitutional? Sincer Public Comments Chuck Scheid spoke in opposition to the salary and benefit provisions in the agenda item on the City Administrator's contract. He also objected to the funding mechanisms used in the agenda item on the Water Master Plan. Mr. Scheid stated that the plan is project-specific, and that the approval of major changes in the 2000 Master Plan is not consistent with the plan as established in1995. Mortimer Shea requested Council not to appeal the judge's decision to rule against the city in the Howard Jarvis litigation, stating that it would be a waste of the taxpayer's money. He expressed his fear that the funds for the purchase of playground equipment for the South East Huntington Beach community will be taken away with the filing of this appeal. Mr. Shea spoke of refunding the money to Huntington Beach property owners in a timely manner. Dave Sullivan, representative of the Huntington Beach Taxpayers'Association, displayed his organization's phone 840-4015, stating that he has received upwards of 3,000 phone calls from the public requesting a rebate of the property tax. Dr. Sullivan expressed his disapproval of the tax refund claim form issued by city, and stated that he is in favor of Mayor Pro Tern Cook's item requesting the discontinuance of its use. Denyse Scarberry alleged unhealthy conditions to be found in Marine View Middle School portable classrooms in and requested Council to ask the Ocean View School District what they are doing to remedy the problem. Lou Baker stated that information he has obtained indicates that the state and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) had split the cost of the downtown sewer repairs, and that the money did not come from city. He inquired why if not contaminated, were two water wells closed, suggesting independent appraisals of the downtown sewers. Mr. Baker stated that he cannot withstand the threat of a beach closure. In response to Mr. Baker's comments Public Works Department Director Robert F. Beardsley reported on the two wells, offering that the Water Operations Manager can provide further information at a future Council meeting. Councilmember Green clarified for the speaker the sources of the funds for the sewer repair, stating that money was derived from matching funds between the city and OCSD and from an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant. Don McGee thanked the Mayor for her public service on behalf of the city. He spoke regarding the different agencies working in conjunction with the city on the sewer problem, stating his opposition to what he perceives as the inaccurate news coverage of the issue. Mr. McGee spoke against the proposed Ocean View School District gymnasium project. Norm Westwell presented a PowerPoint slide report. He expressed his disapproval of the construction of the Springdale Reservoir. Mr. Westwell stated his opposition to the agenda item relative to the City Administrator's contract. Barbara Boskovich commended Public Works Department Transportation Division employee, James Maclean for his prompt service in getting a new crossing sign and a new fluorescent sign on Heil Avenue. Stu Robertson spoke in opposition to receiving a ticket for parking in an alley on street sweeping day. Mr. Robertson spoke against the quality of ocean water and ecoli as causing him to become ill. Mr. Robertson suggested that the city post signs that warn against ocean pollution. Councilmember Garofalo ascertained from staff that there is no street sweeping in alleys. Joey Racano stated that his purpose in speaking is to clarify that pollution is not coming from sewers and spoke regarding dumping sewage as the problem. He also rebutted the assertion made by the Public Works Department that the sewers are not harmful. Mr. Racano stated that the problem is exacerbated with the Ground Water Reclamation Program, which was voted on for approval. He spoke in opposition to the program's process of reverse osmosis. Councilmember Green responded to the last speaker's statements with a report on the Orange County Sanitation District's funding for the study of ocean contamination, which he stated, will be conducted during the summer due to the conditions of the thermocline. Councilmember Bauer corrected the speaker's comments regarding the chemistry of ocean pollution. Lou Robertson informed Council that his initial purpose for coming to the meeting was to air a complaint against receiving a parking citation. Mr. Robertson stated that the public comments regarding the sewer issue prompted him to speak instead regarding the problem; that it is still of importance even if the plea was to a misdemeanor. Paso Walker, Ocean View School District (OVSD) Board member, presented an update on school gymnasium project. Ms. Walker stated that all four middle schools have met and sent their recommendations, offering to provide the balance of the information when it becomes available. Gary Chough urged Council not to appeal judge's decision on tax issue, and spoke in regards to Proposition 13. Mr. Chough stated that as a tax consultant and CPA, he would like to caution against costly attorney fees. Eileen Murphy spoke in opposition to the tax refund claim form and the process as a very confusing procedure. r City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Portion of Prooperty Tax Payment Claimant's ........5&............................. ) Assessor's Parcel No ...1.�}9- ©- .-.. �.............................................) .. .... Parcel Address ....�� .�.../ f��l�!�.....Ui ........�.1�!y�xi•^ %� ,6e a. ) CLAIM FOR REFUND Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096, et seq., the above-named Claimant hereby claims a refund of a portion of the property tax paid for Fiscal Years 1997-98 through.2000-01 on the above-referenced parcel. PART CLAIMED Claimant seeks the refund of Claimant's share of that portion of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach that exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. GROUNDS The claimed portion of the City's property tax was"illegally assessed or levied"and/or"illegally collected" as those terms are used in Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096. Proposition 13 caps ad valorem property taxes at one percent of the property's assessed value. Cal. Const., art. XIIIA, sec. l(a). An exception permits the one percent cap to be exceeded to repay an"indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978."Id. Sec. 1(b). The Court ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 818780,that the City's property tax,to the extent it exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978, violated . Proposition 13 and was therefore levied and collected illegally. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Claimant requests the refund of the amount determined by the City to represent the difference between Claimant's payments and Claimant's lawful share of the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Huntington Beach, California. DATED: P-boot SIGNED: Mr.Mortimer Shea 9121 Kapaa Dr Huntington Beach.CA 92646 j City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Portion of Property Tax Payment Claimant's Name:...:'.ho %!:?1. .. 10 �.&JAel................ Assessor's Parcel No...l.: 8.-o; .:-.a. .............. ... ................... ...) Parcel Address:..../.n . c1.1....1�?..!HKA`X...�tl!..� f�vd lrrs� e : CLAIM FOR REFUND CL�',mANis�AA ss— 9/at A Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096, et seq., the above-named Claimant hereby claims a refund of a portion of the property tax paid for Fiscal Years 1997-98 through 2000-01 on the above-referenced parcel. PART CLAIMED Claimant seeks the refund of Claimant's share of that portion of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach that exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. GROUNDS The claimed portion of the City's property tax was"illegally assessed or levied"and/or "illegally collected" as those terms are used in Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096. Proposition 13 caps ad valorem property taxes at one percent of the property's assessed value. Cal. Const., art. XIIIA, sec. 1(a). An exception permits the one percent cap to be exceeded to repay an"indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978." Id. Sec. 1(b). The Court ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 818780,that the City's property tax,to the extent it exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978, violated Proposition 13 and was therefore levied and collected illegally. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Claimant requests the refund of the amount determined by the City to represent the difference between Claimant's-payments and Claimant's lawful share of the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Huntington Beach, California. o DATED: -Z o I SIGNED: Mr.Mortimer Shea 9121 Kapaa Dr j Huntington Beach,CA 92646 i (15) April 2, 2001 Council/Agency Agenda - Page 15 Added Agenda Item H. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Item H-1. Submitted by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook (City Council) Approve Recommendations Presented by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook Re: City's Process for Accepting Property Tax Refund Claim Forms Relative to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Litigation Case (Proposition 13) ( . ) Communication received from Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook transmitting the following Statement of Issue: Following the preliminary ruling by the Superior Court in the Howard Jarvis lawsuit, the City Attorney's Office, on its own initiative, prepared a form that has been made available through the City Clerk's Office for the purpose of filing for property tax refunds. The Huntington Beach Taxpayers Association (HBTPA) has requested that an alternative form be provided which has been prepared by the Plaintiff in this case. HBTPA's concern is that the city form discourages individuals from filing for refunds and creates, in essence, make-shift work for residents. A number of additional issues have been raised by other residents with regard to the process for filing claims: 1. As of this writing, a Final Judgment has not been entered by the court. It is unclear how far back residents may be permitted to seek refunds. 2. There will be a cost associated with processing claim forms. It would be imprudent to create such a confused process that residents are forced to file multiple forms, overburdening any system that is established. 3. Who will actually be processing forms and do we need to consult with possible outside agencies to see what requirements they may have. 4. What are the tax implications for property owners and should that information be ascertained so as to better educate the public regarding their responsibilities. There are certainly more issues that will come from a discussion of this very complex matter. If this is not handled appropriately it will be yet another public relations fiasco. Recommended Action: Motion to: Discontinue the distribution of the form prepared by the City Attorney's office and direct staff to evaluate the city's financial exposure, consult with appropriate outside entities, and establish a process for the orderly filing of claim forms. h::%•%•}%?�:rr.:y?:rF;i••:%f:%%J{//.•:fn�/!�.','f%f%j ^;%r,Wi+isf:.;.%n}•:,irl�:;riFh%:y•�»;rx.ff.+.•>Y'+/l:n•:..4.'riY%'rr.•n}::�:.%.yf?:r,.••::r:.i%.iii:+2 ;:`;ii/:i:.`•i!4•::•J.n��:/r'r:'•;r!1/.. +F7,!•J/,;r %'I.;!.J/:.!i •:r j:r,+. :/,.f,fr{f.....:{r/.•..!r.%:,r:�r tr::ff+::.,r.!.r::•; !;�,.;•.;;r..r r.:r�•::.f.r,.:,%?!.FfJ%rf„/.•,;//..:y'? :r:%: %�.f/!i,!r ;f!�rJ.Jffj•S'/f/.//, .i:f?r?::.t.::!.•!•:: .:iu�f�;.!••5.r•.':.;+!15�,'-:?%�:�:3 i?r`!„:`:: if•%?+•::;?:;;.;r//.::i.;r,,{.+::r+r/;Jr»%./r,! ;`,/. /,!r;•/;.;•.!.f,/!f?/:,.//.!;.�F{%r /!�!:::.;Jrr.•/%'rtr.:F::••:?rrr:'.,,1,.l.f.::l:.,.r;r. •:!f•:::r .yr••F•:.{;:r•»r!.r.iF:%%:! :f:.•r.:t�'%,%::'r+••f: :f:i`s%://i%nj:.'.Yr.:,rSr..,!.f?1f.r:Fr!•/•:.rr�,<.•+,1.`•.Y.•::+>••Sri.+::f:%/,::,!••!!•:a5�.%:F.:r,rr/q r.:!4:!::+:%:!tt+.•:••::%f.+•.,f,F, .:/.::::n.J..r::-:•:•:/i:::f :.::ist'•t!•.%>+�+::;rn••r.!:•l;:F./:%•%:r?:.;::%r::,fr.i:,?.{,....//,:J/F: .?.,,!.;.r;./.,;..%v �:Sl:•i. :r:F•:: .::/+i::{:::ii i!.r%r?,r.»:::.•:.ir?{.%.;rJr.,., .;r rn+:•nt!.::./..:{{f.;F!.f;!:.:•rr.yffr: •{{/i;r... ;!!?f:•CG:.,%!r;:r.•:••.%. ::./.:::.ii:i;•f.,if.r:•r:J�:•%+r r:!:rF,!frfl.•..;;. fr..r:•f:.:,:n.i•:,!,:;%•: •://:.::-n+:r-r rf i..!,?,Jr.;%{.•:rfY./,,. .,./f•:::...,.r,,: ,:./,.r:..F;t!!.:::+:`'•::::::.: ::/.,.;lr:Jr:.: ,r.�::•::%:f:.;!./:;.fr,. ,.,,:.r::•:,..../....�:Y%-.•r:.?: .:,f:r r.{!., ,',:��:� :•!.,..%:.:.::..:i.•:.•:•::..:. ../,.;/•:.?;!9rr;::%:•J.;:!S::f:•r?n;::: r.:�:r. rl:;'%?✓:r,r./...rJ..:f.•.•r.•:::?:%r::•::4+:!!S%±::%::.r:r.+6�••:•.: :nar:.i,..;;r;.%:.;;•:?.;!•`:r/.%:•nGr•;/-:n.:::!%.r.r ...%r•'?fr. %%.:y"!r;•`•i:.•::•!.,.:!;:;.;,,:,%•• •?/:r,.,l,r/„•. :%::-:••rfr•,.3:?::+:.`6:: •::F•:!r:,!..::�+n•:/•:.•.%•::r:r:: :fi: r::••..!:,?!.;,•.;,//,.,?:ri:r6i:nr•:•rn?.+J•:4ii%'•'•:.%{.;.•.%:r:ri:!ki?f:�::;;:•i!;r: ,..;rr%•.+:r::•.%•:f:.n? r:/.,.r. !.rJ•:r:.%:,:/:rrf.••.;.;.;r:.;,...::r:.{..:•rr r:r:r.r:�.:.%.%r.t-:-:: .:J...,..n.:::�:, •- :J!.:::%::;!..,,,.:%. . +Fi$i;:i!•%•.%:. .:.r... .?. ..r..r/:::!'t+.:+:.%•. •,:F•::f:;',-%.;..;,.::r;.� !:!•S:•;-r' ;?.p!.;w:.....:%:ir n.r..... i:�F�:i�'ii%i:r/+iii'trr;:!!:i':�i:::.: ..fF. :r:r• ..!�..: f...fi.f r:.:.....•f.•.i'i!i4:iiiii:::,F.,?r$.;•;!:v•%:+: %if+::.::.%:::::Yv:;i:!r'.i•:�:rv/gv,;n,!;:r•n .:./......... r:'f.!•'..•::...:r..J...r%.. -:. ..Jr?'::'':::i,;;;!.:.:�..,!:..: .rr•:i:.::::::::.%r!:!i.^.%ta!•ii:'i�!�i5•::is !:ti�%iii:i?:::•iii:�;'•iii?':iiw::::r:: ...F.••;%t!•.w:?•.. r:h:i;::•;;;:•};;!!±.:;:i% :v.v:r�i...:n::::::!:::�:::v....r..nr.:v:rv... n r: .................:r:+4:•i;:;v.•.!iv:.v:::•.?:? :.:�i:•i"' •Y•i:'2•v:.v::....:i .r...n..•nv::::r.};::-.v:::.;::n%:.v.•rr r..f.::.: ?•iAii'i:?r4i:?•i:•.+•:•iii:%%;• :•vrr•:::::%• rr.. .. r.....r.r.r......... '.?:,:!+4:!•;i::::..v::4!::.•.:::»!.3'•::�.!i:!i�:'!! :.i:t4::•iii::±±�:4......r. !:C.Fi•:i%i'�ii'%:Sis r.':rv.::..r..:. - , :.:r:::::::!....,..,;:;.,........... :.::;••,v:::r:.'.%::::n•:;:::.%:.?:!+•i::%!..vRtv>:!!•::ri;:•i'•>::.;:!!•:';bii%.;•?!.;%!:::.%:'•.,:'.'•i%t%!':!vi•;:;•»�::;...........:::.:..i::. n......,v+i:::::•n•::.,:;.>r;:,r.F.,q.}::iii•.v:::r:::::;;•n•:r!:;;iiiiyv:::n;v:+:•;;;!!+i;:+i:`.:. .%"F.:i:?^:::!;i%•i;!!4;^}:;v-::. r/:::!:�ii'i:•ii!•ii it�F�•;i:�i:t�i r..:..:?:.;%::.:::........ ;:•t::n.n%.»::::•;;..,•..;.rr,.,..;.„•:r•::rv>:ii.r.. .:::::,;•x•>:•:.:::: •%✓�itii�•iii.'•:.....r _ LCf r:n iii:{;:?1�::::iii :: ry:f•!.;%qiY.+i:±i:%ii}. :.n,:m::nFii�4i:�iii::•:!%:.:...;.'.;. ......... nv;;.::;!�.;:}�?:•r:�•�!�i:!ir:•:iii•:�: •iii;:•:ri:;;'n.±.w::.th"iii::ny;l,.;:4::::r::.%•: n?.n• m:?.. '++!::ij:i':,i:::??;.4�: : i ifi iii•..I :%•.;. •r:f;'i:%i%:;>:]r'i:?:itii!{ r»F.v::vr:/.•:v::.u.:r:.is>.iiy:'?iii %::;:•/,:<;•:;+:v�ji,':?;:•'. .:J^ r.r.r •:•f!+-Ff:b::/y%:•.a;•:r: .. :; !i:Xi�•r;:ki�:%•:.;!;.- •i:J/�!:?•:•%:?•.xv:.!.,ri:;:^,:::•.:.:. fi/::rf.+i.';?'::•i"i::, qi%f•!ii'i!::ii':i%:�:i::f%v:^.:;:::n::.... i%:��... .:f:'h.i:!•:?'r':il..?.:r.•»:.v•r.:•:/.!.., :iii�ir,!�:�%!;:�i �:%.;. v:f.•r.,:::::��ii:�i:�:':;{is{•:•}ii!iv:.??viii:•ii'r••::::. i}i%%`:!'�'?•i ::.f»::..r•u::,:. :i:i%v:.f�'i'.?�•l.:!h'i:'!i%'i$'i:�:b::•`'}}i: .:F :.:. :::;.v::rii:.i:i::•%±!•i;::!?? r....... x:r. .....:i,::F.+n•.:� :owa s paywfl,� :•:�:<J!%ti%i:•"?{ir?!^:!!!!!•:::;'r,.'Yii�:?:•:+iii'^:'.�:r. ..:r... Asbv�, Iatiuf 1 VE 9 U U mum n t Im g tuo,& n Bwoft a&,-% c h f•`;: �;SY;if::;'?� i�::it•`''ii:2%i<ii$iiSS�' ♦•:xfiF:i. fi'. ' r %",•;%/y!rff%J�/r/�r.:/fr;////}{.•Jr'/'•��f,?.lj.+.+,. ff%�..!!%:Jr./• :``f+fJ...;•,+{{.+.+%l•.%:%i:i>:•%::f t•%%i+:%y%••.%r.•,•+:•!r• ».u/.%::ri:F+`i'• riuF lrr?» :y/r.:/!.:'r WJrJ%:y•f' xif:.;x � !%.;,.f,;.i�:fi:nn!✓.%r;�r..f,.;r/rr::n!i-:%:%r.:.%•;`!•ir>-. :rf rrt-:fr.>%::�:{,!+,;'�`:?f::r/!.r -./J/•,;:.!...•:./., .,i!/..ff.•r.,:.:r<;% ::.••:J.::,:r?•:%::•:.::.i!?r,:%.;v+ii:+•.l:�:•.,+.•;:+%.;•.;;::.;r.,., q.rr:.r.JJ:f/r?/`!r.;f:,.;?:.r....f rr:•%•::,`,.??+•?+:r%rf`:/R+r:�.'{!�;!.•„'fF.•i�:!',::';:tJ%i:./,•},!!r ;:.%:!.�..,;%./.,.:.:::+..:::•.:.fi:.t..>%• :•4::.:.•:.+r•f.•:F.;r++'•rS>ra•RGS�Jr•'•,:�%`;.:+y.�!.:.r!>f;.,+,:+:.•::.?•.:rn•:..1:%: •:?r:rr..,t•f::f!fn:/r5.•'•.•:'+J•::rr:.' ,:%,!•::::rrr.+%:• r.•..�••.;%••::-•:i+;t• :•.:::.::••::•::..., ,/.,..r:,?/.;:!.:.r•,?:.:,r::. r.:d:f•::r/r,•:.:f:Gr:r::%::•f.:,.f.:::/:+•r..:•:v ::;�,r;..:::::::r.f/.••I,•..,•+f;,:•r:!r..:/:{.?!r.:a••S:ff..;t...:. . �::•r.,: r,?a:::!:;5.;!.:::r::rrr• :+!+r::•::.:::r.+:•:rfr::..r,.; ..!: ../•:.. •fr,.ii;':r.•":: ::r..i•%% ,r?/;.+ .r.r.J:rn.%••%r! v:r•+:.:.•r:i•/rr.r..:.:!•i::;+,ii'Ai:.•r r.f�:•i:.. r,:?r:•,,r sy`,•f,.+;S:?•.{,:;:.::•:;:::•.:: r::r:•+r.•:.:•,t,. .f..J:,r. :.J..rr. ::r:i !••f•:: .rff•.%• .Y r: r trfJ•+: #%�i'•%':%i:•rf.•'•>%!.::.: r ..u?•:r,!•;t•J r:%i�:::%F:•:•:?!:ii::.`•..r.'. ::%SR j%i: lv,i•.?p!!.::.f....:1.:!!n'r.: %%ri yr r ?i<fi:i ;�.r:,:?fr .F.r.: -?i�j�` rf/: ::fi•.:.YF, f....rr.ri !n/.•rF ri •.;j}:rf.r.. !F" n�:!. fri' itF%•'r%'•`f.••;»r../:.%F.... :nJ r:! •:r•i/. /r. •YP•: .;,fr%, :,/;f.,,�'2rr..rrn::/iliv r!.:;.; ! rf: rfr `i,�f...::rnr•'::%:%i;•"i'r!�4.%t+r•:r+%J'•i Yi:�•:. /F....:.., r.f,/;+%,y•. ,"/�i•`'r:•!?.. r;::} •-r{l.!/,fxSi'•:.'•:iS>'• r..,:.`•+:•F.:•:•<r:f:•• �•/rf:f/�.'.�:r.,:r.:.;:%•.+:'':%•i'•ii:+rr.;;�'r'::•iY•: �ji»:;•f/i!f4i.F��r:�.`l �.>:%!!. ,rJrlr.:yrrr?:"/r.+:rfr'r..,Ji,:f:o-%• .r•�+"/•.'ur.+r.::±+<4.%:.••:.?rt::.%/,;•{,.?;.%?F::::?:..•��'ii:•!f%:% /:i?f%/{•>!�/J f ,///{%f��.r{•%•F;;r./l,y,;.r r,Jfr�r/rr/��>�!:�,i�/•{q/!S F•iii+�..r••:r;:,::a q:•;;+.fi.,g r:• '/F:.j n/,< !!•`:�,':rr.•`.!: %%F /f•jf�/.J�+r�/f f �r{'�!+...;//,./'.{r��/,/�/•.fJr{ffF!.f;F{/f/ff.%%fir/i�r,.%f>{• .%!ff:'/fif%yF<%::{//?n:!;n,:•'.;r.5.:!.,/; :!:•;>. Jf/f �!fJ/.� :rf %f,/Sr/,� fJ: r/r'f J/fyr%!f%ff/{Jf/.•.JF+.fr,.l;� f'r,.t �r{; {r.rrr !,+:.;"S;:r•F,�.J.,.. i%/;s.;?i�;;.;:./ai:i;!:r.�:.1:�f:j;:i./.i Hfj;ifr/:`��/+:+r:•�if:.{.r::!!.:.;%r,.!(.:,?i:.!f%,�+;':.;f.`ra:.!.?r�!�f..•r',,r!%;l.:•%.•/.?;;;:.•lFFrfn+S,r/:;v%,f?+,i+J!r,ffi%i;:4•:/;Sf.i i;;•;.•/Jr••.i:.Ff,jf>,:�Jf.j?f:fr:r../:,J,+;.;r..fi.:!,+•:.?f..•./.:j.>J,y%.i.+rf..;•.!,:•?;•::•/%r.>.:.:::/i�:.if:.::Ff•?.f��/./r:.••,:?r;:.,•:::...::-:J::l1;..�•,:/'./,•r..r�r.r.•:.•v.`�!iJ/-%!:./.`:F•.„%.!.:�:!.:,,rr:?.r,...Jr?.r.,:r�F�.+rr?+:.:¢;,..r!fi,.:,:.:.;,!�.?:;i:.,/:rr.%%Y.,v.ir/.r�%:f:.:r::'.:,>.:n�:.:!it.:.:f4 F/�%F::.?.:�/f:!h;.,:,•rf,-rr.:!:r:•r::.:.!;,fr��:f.?/:E•r:./.r•�!i:rr:�r.•.?•:;J•'/r✓!j•://J:ni f q::i.F 6rr/+�.--`:::f..f•�.fi:+.%.:•r�//i:/!••�'.•/..+!:.::•::r:':..i..••::»r�:::!-2:f:/.r.r F r.%'.»?!.�5 irr.^rS�ti..:::.:.;%�..:.:�•:,`.ff!;:,,r r`:�'''f-%i:%.Sf!:':?:�//t.li�;ri..r:�•�F>:!:::i:r.:!!:i:i..•`•r%::�;:.•:rr�;n,,./...:r.!r%.rrr::•'F:,ft,.!.:.%.:::/r:%.i:.`.::r:+?;i:.:/J..r/f?::�.::.r•;.�!r.:.»::f./.<:/./J:••/rt?..{:.:%.?•r?n:.y�•.••.:!:u••;:•/r,.,r!r J Ff/�r.!.F.!r+/i+;•.•r%r•v,!ni.n�,:✓:%:%f�r:F«j r•.:`.ffi•.�•i!::r�::,F.r::.•:..rl.:;r;:..;+/J•i.tr:i:.r+::?r/!.!i..!•.:i:•.!•i:•.:r:i:%.:•/.:./F$`.:/;.!i:Ff:•.:»:t�.r:,:.::.%.:/:,J.i�!.%fr-...!.:•f�':rq.:.,�:�r��r.•.5;:;li�/::+%.:!./a..:,:.,.r>•/:.•!.:u.`:f.:;J•�•/.,.:.;i:%r.,:::�,:;r::•r.N'%,..:.�`i.��..rY%•r..1i%/2..!r,?:•.i:;•.::r•!.:;r•J;r:o,„:.'»iF%..-iQ.`.r:r.•;:r:.JS'v.��•::.`ri::J•.r:y//�Yr•'i•''.�//f:%sr.:.:�.v.,;v::.:.y;x?.::r..f,6,:z.':r.;r:.;;,r:.:,�:.!S/%,/:i:.:.'..f•.%•....f%r?..w.%in`/.r;.r•••;>.i::.;:r!r::::.f1i...:+?;,:..r<::%:••.,.!.f::;4�:.;••;..!{,%;r:!%!%1rr»/:.fF.�ir,<+».r••:.rri:.`F`f.:••;.•:1.rfu.:r;/.i, .ri;`�.:;%rnt%ii!.i::!•:•i:!•:!%+i>:::/..::i•?,F�%ii:::�,:r:::!/:»�:�++:?.:.?ii,r:•::r!.n:J•`s:i•iJ.f,f.�:ry::!v!.i%/:?+•,�r.:�r!i!!.'•:!:/;%r:•;r:ri'%/r.rr:/!i.:i::!i?r•sS:�.i ff.5�..:.,:!`j.:'•..•!,`?i::.i••:%::•li::::,?•/fFr.<f!:;?..fi;•`i;rf,::/•!!{.i!:i.f:�.!:'•;••;+::+�:::.'!+�.•�:::.!:i{.fu%•�15::/!%.y..•::::.•Y.k%::,f,1-: ::%:::!1.+j••i:;::.::F...m:i:::fcn't.::.i:!.:¢y+•r rJ%C.:: �:r:yr:i?:;::r:!±%:.:J%r•.:`•'�?:•:;•.::r+i:.:;•!,nr.p r.+.6%i•.r'v'i,.-�•!':,;f'%.'S'f:•:?:�;;../%:,+•;r:•f;!!,::r?;::n:.<.;::::::::?%+S::%!w:••.r?.+:.!%/r:•ry;<.:.;:.: ;r;•S:f!. �:�:{j;f�•xir;:.'i'...:.'. 1 rIa ..........i:.7.... F U r� ' f!F•.v; ..J•r :A:r::rv:•i�i:?•?iii!:•ii:•iiii:::•!?:•;:+!•i i+:?r:.`+4 3R:•....,F-.r;••n.: r••:lr:!•::r.;r!.;!;;r;r•: ..FG:::.% :.J....::......... :`•i iii::::,ti%i�yii:•%:+ ,.%.:r,..r.!•./r. F.r r:r:.. .%J., !..ri4:: .r:r•::f.: r r`•::•%•'.:•:'' .rF:::r.!:•.. ...J r/,. , .?/.:F:}nnv::.•'::;;!;�i:s#!r: ::/::•: .rF.r ..i.:.v•:?::... J1J.•^».f!t+iii!:vi!:r r./.F:r•.. :-!%;.•.: i'+?f:i..... »:fi-.....r.:!! ...rrr:. .... :: ..r.:+,,::.!-..r .r./:•r.... /:•»:.: .rf:.r/n:;%•:......: .:-Jr,;;i:;i%;?:y;;;...;'•:rr.!v:i....:...r.....: �iil.!.%!• :../ ..F.r.. f:,;...f.•.. ..F.Fi.Fw:..:..:r i.. .:/.: !•:/•:;:in, •J: ?•%?+r !:{%ir1..,f 1•.v••r vn+v.vr........ ?:•:%:;:•. i:�if::ii: %l"F�::.- rnfri;•:fv:Y•JJ, J r.FJ`?•»:.r.,..r.. iiil%F•i:':�i'>%:%w:::FrS..r. +•:/.�r :,/+./,f,!.:f::;..,.;. ;.J::?Js:: +v/f:n:...!•::.•::r.•;.r;;•.•S.!!!...%!y::..i:;•.,..::::.'i+?ri'•ii?.J'iii Ff..:r.sr:%../.r.r.:J..! nr.{/.•rl,.f:•:1...., ..ri:'r'::f:f:i!'3 rr;�.:r:fr.++i ../ /.. r r�:• :;•f.}�v; r?.q::'r::';F:?%•;.:vn..::;r.:...r...:: !:::,... ..Jf..r,.: !:!.;:.;..;..:!,!.!.rr.f.,,!...?F f!. :::.r..:....i:::.`•::i:::::::::.if.`::::r:.. :r:.::.. Council Mvgneting j,.:v.:n..... :•%F•:!rhr!:.n.....rii%i.•.. ::ii:�i{:f:!i iii.:::!?:�!:?i:!?••.W:i%ti�Yii�i:r:::....::•::::i`!•$:•.`•`:i F. ++:�:•f.•::rr.•:.n.-:n....�.. ?+•%•'f.•:tii•Jlr:r:..../,r.::.......:%:: :•:ry v:;!•:i%t4F?:t:l.:rr.%%r!i'.:r:r:r:/. :.i�?f�:ni'%:tiY?:'::}�.!i!4 v:?:::v•:r::.,... F?•}i!i;}::.: r.r.:.% . :.F..l..:r.r .rl.•.+t+.!•:rvr w:::r:••,;. �:., !»!.;! :of;:%-• rr/,.ii:%is:•;%:+{::..... �::::::�:U•f iv/.•i:rf.•:::iF.:vn!vi i}i!'i•i:+`ii`:i/. .!•i i%i?.�:>'�iiii::�iiiiif±i:i::j'/v..F.'+!r Jriiii•... .r y,.;r v•F!v:.v?•:•.v;.;r .:xiv.v:rr/•». :?'/.... riM::;..,..»:::•.v:•!v::::i:.:r,�... ,^l:.»r, ..r.!:?rs•:i;iy::%rii l.. ^;%ni;:t:'^ii%+ti`r•}.!:!9`'•.r ..f..+. i:•:W i.};�;rr. �� +:;;r%$ii!:i23?,... .f%:. .J. ..J.r :,%,+r .:!r•::r,+::...lrr:%r:''.?:'•:.•.•%:?.u•::::/•r.:!.:... :..:-rF:!..... ../+rr ff%:�r::F:?•::!:r%!!.:..f..:,n,+,r,;•.:e r r2• .r/ri%'.':'f•%-:...rF:..: •:,rrr rrr,.� ., .!.a...;:.:`:•:?:`�::-rf::••:?:•:••:•r:�'':'{'%�;<:.:.r:n!•:,:r•:::.r .:f :fir.....;J,:,/,.;fJ..',r..r:.•r.!:.r.•.v,!!Jy: %f` r ff'iii•r•::f.:%!?.!:,;%.r..r.r nCi:!!...,. :.••:'�:%.:i;•1.i+/!•r.•%f%r:::{iJ..4.�.?•r:.�+?.nrlr.r.fr.»r:,».;:.r„f:rrp!';ri!•++'•%%r`:•�r/... .r. :nr ::' !!ri'%•: ..:r.:!i:•:nr::+».:::::.:»r ::fr�: r/•.±/+�:::r...:i,!„•//,:r%,f.r?rF ..rr,J.,../JF+•:i%f::4::+.::F/:::`.•+::f::::. ■ r:•f::F•:rr:!-•:::..:.,:i:r..../F .r.r .rri,/r :+!:•:/:!.;r:;.;r,,:.;;./:..y,:�,f.i.,:.r:,. n.Fii�tiSi�i`i :�•� .fi l:mF:fii!i':!f•:':+r:•r:n??•?:'?:r•F.v v... of:!.J.l../. `'F?`fi:!t!?r:•f•:?•?::;h:•i:•v ..%:r .r./1�r./... .l lFi:. f.f.•r: ..r. rrr:r..../.•4:+•.... "i3ii`:ii.i:•,••::i�ii�ii`r.�ii i ii:ii•!�ti:•ii%i' .%..: F:`i:!is if tii%:iil...:;:F:F:i :fFi• i;Y:•:+if :!iFv: ..Jar F.•:••,f•:: rrf:• ,:.:::r•:i•:ti!.•'+- .r.x::::..;.....;nr•:::??i. f xr::i::::i:i�;:!;r:}:;;;...x}�:.•„f,•r.,r,!;!^i:+•:.•:.r:....r r,';�F;... 1.r. :i!:r •!f?:v/.:!•iiii'•i'f.+: r%r`•. .li<:{:i i::»:::.:i!iii::Si�S ..l.'f•::::�%•ii:'' r.;f:i:?Y.y:::r•+tA;••+i'q}%:•vJ!?:i:::v:•r r.:•:/:f.••:r!?ni'ri�»:... ..F.. r.f.. !iif... . .;f:rr/{. r•..A:::r.M:!:v,nf.. r.f. ii'%�':+'r!:f F.:...:..... April 1 +ii%l:�'i'ii!S"/%'•: f ,/.F/.+!�%i`r ../.. •:1::r x::::::r.::i::.`J i l rrf•r....r !•:l rv:r.!:•i:4:p: r.:r. .;.,.!i•;£;:?.>.'+ rrrF::!•!r%'; :rw.%::•!•:• :.r:. .r.,J.-., .j/.frf+vi.%1r: v:/.,%:•...f........ ,.rr; !.i•,•:•::f�z; ,.,::.,.,;.., r....... +»,!rri is%i••ii•:'• 9 r..r..... .•?�::::,:5{?;....,...:.:'''':�•�:;"+<±•%i.`;.;??. ..r.+r•:f•r•::r::nr:•:!:4'<?+•;:�::�':i2•::::,•1:'%:��::i:r:r:;r•%ii�: •:rJ.?:+•::+:v:!•:.:f::y„?.fifi:��:�%::f%�i`F•::%::%?:%}i:%i:4:::::r.!�.::v..rn...r..:..r.... ..1.:.?•%:::•:.+.?•:. +:%x•ri•i'ry!!!•f'!?i::?:i.;:ir.v•:r•.vl: r./.r. :r ..F,.{t:!!'•'F.!!!!4:!:}::::+:+.v:v+:f•.v::iii/..rc:..:. „1...r ..1.:i;!i`:•i?•.:•iii,v:f.•'•:�.+:is ffF'ii: !v.!i;;`•:+r✓: : ./n:•.r......,f•:�i•:!;r!-n..;:.�•.. ..f..rr.rr....: r..f... .f.. .?Jf.,;%:f?:;�:%::!6`r.•':!'i'!:!:::%•:i%v::ili}.?}i}!r;:;:::• ±.F.% ;. ::f.F....v;::::rr.•1.•:'?+ift?v;!•rgf.•:r::::r:/::'f.+?v:::::r!rn;r!.::.%:•:::.?:...:. :.F.xy.r .!vF.•:.. :.r.. r.Jr. r:.rirn+::•i.!!:•i:•i::•!+•S'J??!ri:?+rii.+-:^i't?!tf':/r,.:!.�.;....;r.' ::•!•%•.+f...r./ �:'%F'i'F.:;:li:F%:...F...F:i::::r:.'•:•;:•,!•;r•:/'r.^iiii'+%:4i. .;.r;u.??:!::.:i%.rr!ry{........ .F.n..✓.v.::r.;; ,.,:i.rr:::v::%r;:• .:l.. .:1.... FF...:ii::??i;:?r'!;•;iii•Fi•n+i:n.::::n!:t:... ..�r!M%:4:;v?,r!.?r??!!ti!•:±•ii%�'�::+r!w::x•:...;..r ..f:: �:l:I:;j%li:Siv.v::•i!:` v:J.w:::h:?tt•;ii!::^J.r:?:?? :ti%F�SiSii:!^i'•i'!•!<::!`?+:'!+.ii' S•Fi�:iir+i;::::::.v.... .F... F%�`G%:%::n?x• •::fvi%::!r%i5ii::�:}'Yii.'•ii.. ^%�v!•r:ii`:::;. i`•i'r'%ii^:�:.. r:.hi:r::r::n!vr•::?rlr.?i},`.}!:{?+?r/.;!'?:%•;!;'+ '•;;::•?::?;}:::�::` .•/.r. .¢..,??:•. i::iiF:i::.%::::::.%::::::v:n::::::::n+r:%:!+r::i:irf,•:!•:ri,r%...::•,.:%:�:1:}.`•::'.%: r::'fv..%:vii:%i:•f!i%:Y,.iiini�iii::%��i:..., ..?..... ::/.;.:i!.Sii•;'• •::/.•:•:r•.�;:!•;i;:`^:�is+•}ii:4i"r:! ?<%f:%i!?i:t�??•.:...r/v/.. :;i:j:,+.;:i;}:$•ii:..... ..:%:» r.:•'�;;::!!!!.;.•;:fi'.:'.fi':!• !•i`1.:::.i:•iii!+.•%•i:!. r.Fin:..».•%ii:�:;'i':•i:i•:/v:r.....rFi::v:iii:•:ii: ::•i!•i:•:iiiii+"`:n%::;.�;v ':f.:innn:.. n•%:..,.:.....:... ??.%}:is..f.w ir'z�i'::��i.'•:'%`�:%': rff.%:`%Gi:;ii:i•i::•:+::.f'%i'if:.n• r.:Yi:t%iii%;:t4i+i•ii:ii�>:';'' :: i.:?::Fi:;i.•.v:+ !,%:�i::fn?^:;i'::::. ..f.n•::.v:::v:•:vnv:r•:::r!:?!v:4:4'4:i'r:%•v:/.^4:+.•:i;ii:• ;iiFii�'•i:•i;ffi:•i'+r;i.`!•;i:•ii%•%> .f.:ii�i.`;:ij%?%4ii,.;.!!w:::::n<tvii:v::: ..:F.-•.v:.rl.r. n::• ..........r..:.:.r.�:.v;•::w.v::nv:r•:.vrv:;:;:f.!!^::�i:lv;!•:iii?i:;•i'ii,;�i:•` :•i;i:• .:nv.;;ii}ii:i:;i}i i:vv...n.,....... r::.v::;......• r.....:.i;:.; ,r r n.�::.�.,!..:::..:::::::::r.::>:?k:ii::iii.:%::::::•i;:•>i>ii?±<�::>``�r'r.:i%i!i :!•::.• ..r»:f'!•i:r:+'.'f,.::?.:... ::::::.::.v.v::::::::::.v-:::r:::::•:::::;;.:!biiiii:•;}.;..,....r:::::n%4::!•;i:.;w:::::n..::.............%±?•;ii:!S %/.» ./..r/fi..,..r....:v Fv vrf.%:n•.v.•r w::,rr:,:v:nv::••:::: :./,......!.......F,.:»:::::::r:......r. ::F::•ii^ti;:i;::iii::?!?•;ii'i%iiiii iij:ii�i'i.!i:::i%i:`i:%•%^::stir;•r:f+•as:>:<•!:;.!,:r!,;<;%»r::?:%!:•;::::::n•:.%r•,n:•::::::::::n;?.,. .:.r....is:::;...,. ../... ../...,....... :F.•iiii'%::�:?%:i•i$ii�i!:ii:%>:ti!?U:?9i:;:•i:•::n:y..., "'•!r%;'ntiv?! rn...»::••.:-; r:iii:::•:.;.;,.r.....:....:.:.....:.� .. •:. ... :n. �i%l ii'i'ii%'r.:ii iii iiii:•:Jiiji:•ii:'!ii.;,.,r. :.:...:..:: ,..: rv.v:rv:ii}i:`r.>%i:%'%?+i: ny,.;.;w::r: r.F.!•i:::r:::n•.v:r:!!;n.f:r!±�.F./......,. '•:%i?!�iir.' iiF:r;:.'F.4ii:•i:4;?:!:?.Y±r:!•?:::%• %•:i is i.i .... .v..• :..... !'!::.......: n.........;n...:r::.v v. :.... ,v:»:•. ......ri:•}i:?•i:ti�ii:!!.;F.•.?!.$i':•i;inii:?.v.:::??•i;$;: i%iJti�:iii�i:tii'•' i�"i'itiiii:ii:+;} ..�.. r/.,........u• ii'/,•i!+i!i%`f.}•'Fir :i.%.;!:. .../.nri:%:rii:Fv%:::�%�:{>?F;:i'�:i:'f.:;:S ';�r��: i�%!•;;:!::!!';%v::i: J•r::::::.r»''y%F:!i. :•f.::;.,r !�/::F,.+;:;:r!:;':;:j�Fi�!!.:?::r::•::flvr:r:r::.;v::r•:r%r.f:;i .;/r n rr:r f:±F'JFFA%r,•'/.�:.f.:%r%+'%•�6.'••,:'f<v:xri 6::.:rv:. ri:•%••r: :..f:.fi;,!:•?!ni•i•%+ `+.i%s;•:::%!11...... ,/... .rfr. .rff fr!a:�%.r,.!•%:%trr!uy:::.%:!:..; ?.,�:;':::::g �•`••`•f`.r ::r. :.J....:ii: :.......:....%. :{'•% `ai!!p .J,r, •::Gii ii`::?.p::<..... ..F....n.r.,r %..fl..:r?•:`•!:±•r: -.vF-::»::»•::::!v:r:lFj/ffF !•'li ''i!:f4.. ::/•:J'i r: r'rF.v:.;/y+•Y 4i;i;'i!i'�i:+.rr?.;:;lp.,!:.rF./, '%"1.::%%,.r,FF-r.ii:v:v •:r::ii::<r r...f..r .:.fr. <il:%%'S%i ifi: MENNEN ................... +•if�•i ..rfl,,r».:/.nr••:v1 r :•:Fw:i:�%..•r.<+ui;ra:;?>:% :::•`i%iu•`:'%•.,:'.%?i'S�}:•`.!:i.;.,<;.:;,5!; .rf.:ii. s+?•r...r.:i/.•:....... . •:://:'%%:fii•:::!•:.: -::r:::..:?...... :�.;+:::`r: ..,f:r. .:rfr:rf.!•:r•:,::::::-::+: •,:...;...::!•:'•/:F•�:?::....r.r....r... .F.::•.......n. :::•F!i%%ci>••w.?!+>i:•i:?6:!0+»::•:r+•%%;•`:SS%?t;.!;......••x>:>�::••:+,:... f.•.. ..rr..:.r.f..»n•.r•. •:r::n!< iii;. !•i1:ii 4./...r•: !i!rri•:fi.. :hii}:• :+r/.f:.%::!r:::, r::. r:.,?..5:<r!,;:.r...r r•%•r:., r.;:!•:'isi•r:.•i•::::�%±:!%!%SiirF.i!.'•.v:::J.:j.%:;i:::::;y.,%r: �'%f.....r.....r?;:!+iii:�i:}:•:•:?;i;!?4:,! •::l.:.v:Nf,.!!:ry:;i:r:;:::.ii%+•:i:,::n!•:v.. :fF.•+:;:::::... :ii:ii iir.%+•. r:fi ii•i#:%i%{} :.v:.. ;,..?... .:;:i;�'•:%+iii:?'<i:i};:('u':y:.::....%..; i::!i:�!f.....%.., rr.•F i"i.., •::1.!:f,.:r::;.;; ..fr.,.:.. •:%•::.. iii;ii....fl....:n,.;..:i;:+: :vf.•!?•::.v•fi•Y;:;��f%iiF<:S�ijir1:'i' :/•?+/•:i:%;:;:; ,iii:+v::::nv•- ::/•r•:::•:?.;..»:F.:•f•`iirr'-i:�:h}i i%:iiti:':�v:r%.v: .:J.%:i�:v:r1...%..n...... iir,;,,; r•rif.•nMw::.. .::%•F.4:4i... +.:il i;'Fi:!^:::••.v 4:'� `:•ii`i is .F..r.fife:{iii:;:%.:::�:?!4::!+•i;;i'i%!?S :•iF`.�r ;v.�:;;!.;q:::::::.v::i::!Mi:{•i i.`•ii!i:ii r::f.:?••... ./ r.,.. ii ... is .nn.r.:»:•F:r.F. :....•,..:•r.r+.,:.v:::?•:..r:r: »:f...t•.`•i}:i ii ii i:.^::::rv::v:•:v•, :..r.;.....r:::.:.::tr::!?::•i h;:...... .f.. nl.rJ..i F�%{%;:;Yn:i>%.' .rf.:. •:r/.•.•nf..r.N'!•;i:{!.•n•:F.w:!••::•::v: •i:::!•i:f....: rf.•+i:�•r;i:!::::::r:r... :i'.%:+F::i:•:i+i• ?iiii:!: �:•:•'f.:ri!;}/n%:;:.:r.r n/.?•ff rr..:...,f :+::;:i4:%ii:S.?.n..r%v::r:v;!::v:;:v!�?yY:•;:•.}%i. ,!,�;!r...f... ..1....:.:•:?.:'J.:::?v':....rr r:.F... .:f.:!•.:::.v:::!?/.,•!•;J::%::�:i>i.%Fii':i:4rfli.'.!i!•i:`.F%%.r.;;•;.}%,nJ! !?•f.�iifi: .vfv. ..l.. ::r.!i%i iiiii%6:4'•i'. ?•if!!r •w:r .`•ii:Yi :!•:!r:i':i;{iii<:;i�iii: .!:f��i%:''r:!i':%:+i::?t::... '+r:+•. %•f::4,!'h!G:?�iii:;iiiir%yii».r.r.:.n..:::.:.r. +i{rff:. �iilii .f... :`+F,.�;:ini i'ii%'.•ii::'roiv::.f• xf:r J.. ?•f:is is f!:r/•: :.F f..iif is %:^•{,.ii r/i i fi? •nfr..... ..Fi. •i`f!i`iF.... nfi�•ii• r:::„r..,...,. ....::r4:•+... x;::r::. .:::Fr:•:.v::::::` r.:r.v:F.w v:.v: .. !i.f..f.. ±•i;ii:4; '%•::::: ri?!!{:n::v.%•.;i ».• rv........,Nn;.:i:i!r:x::::.•:.::•f... +r•. :r.. nrr irfb?! ..JJii i.r. r•J :.ui:. Ffii:>ii••`!::>,�%: :/.....;%,:!, +%;•`i,'%!`?!%•r 'Sr.•%frr:::-r::SG%%'t:`:•i•.-:::::•:n:.,.: �'':::;�i:R:;.`• ? ..;fi!.i+;%!.,�..f;!!,.?+ :./r!?:.i:+i%•:+•i• rid%:•::r:+n+.+::!r.:i:'::?rr•:::•:J•n!•:;.... }i'fi•J.v:r: /.r ;!.%i:%+i4�fY^:+ii%r: .1..f r %+{r<:q:•••i hi%!.r.. ..Fi.... .M.:.X................... : ..//•,r /:»... :.F r./.•:f ••.? ::.%J•lv:?. r.:'F:i'•i!li%ii:iiii:iiiit%r?ri+i:iii:•i!!?;+i'•: aGii :Q%/::•::r;,r.;,...,;./,;, ,,+/,?�+:•rHnii;»f:L.;;Ci;if:!?t:`,i%1.%»;l:..,%'.Si"+v•:/:i:::: .y!.;%•:r:.,:.,.r .:{.,{r. ix,-rrr%rrr.r:..rrrr./.r/.../Fi:%rrf.:Jfrrn..rn:.n r:/.rr.:•`+»:::rr.i•:+J.»:.%rr.!+r+%//.,r.i:.r+fr Jrr•!r:r.r`%r+rfi f..u:r:r::a�r+n••J`i`•'nrn•:::::a::ni::.:%%::> :`.`•} h%:�/'u g + F fg Sixryff: `+Ji!Nf `•:h'+f; tf.: %f::r•,.,S4,y FrI� /.frrf?r,rr.t,:.•3Lfl,+,:,F:l..f,,.:+ <:%!�•r/!in••5!!�`•`-F !%F;'�•`-':!'/.ilf3%%•:<!£-.•:•'%•`:'•`+�S:'%�':f:!f` /{`: f r• ,,••-%f-"`'•ri:m- :f/lr Ff r •'.;%:,.!.-F;:S: t,�;.f +:•.+;�,y.F '.j` ;! S•"'% f•.. f/.r # ' S`'�`%?`/•w :+ ::'•.Sr.':,•,:••`•;St::y,yri<::.x;{:.rf .,?;::`:�•.`•r:if; :::?`.'• ;t:;:••.`J:F;;•.:'/:Yr.•i'S::%i!/+r'+i. 'ri"!'{•:::'•:�:%":•'• f�::t�i:•:�•`•:•```:Yf/.;%F�:rr.s�rf' �•ff�!TFrx�• S'i:+.:•.,••i,::<<;,•r.•;/„••/', .!!f�!f�.,'r.;:��j;I�!�/C>f!r:'•S:':r�''r•`••!,.•.yrt%`+•':3•`�f��r'.•�k�/�:!;:!�/��!/; F•�-rrYf�•/.•;:;+:5.# S•:�•:::•!':;.`•;r4;,;ri,�:,r•'�4':•`•.'+'•%;;F:;,r rr,,f, r{...:..f! /.rr.•::,{s.!.>/- if 7.:. riYt::s/.•.,••::;!yf•l.}'l./f:.:r+ii: f-'l'':vt r%::•r+it',•:F f:://r:':fFf.:;;4. ¢}/;/f•:•:;;.f:,l;r.;•,.<•.,+i�.:}f l :•• :ir•%�,':i•..•a//f.,::.�:••/,:F.S�!<::.�:::,' :'•i;; ,4r.,,::.r.ri..,r/.•:.4/n�,;?:{{••f::• ,/.�,• -S'/.•!::..%;':�i�.,n::� .,,;•:,"..;�;,;::trf:,'"�•`'''•':%it`s f,. ! ix `�� --+ •!� Y� . s Taxpayers Asso%ciation" IS :ff / City of Huntington B.-eac1h Fri�•i:.f�r In f>': �F1j•:f �fr fff./ / � f/'�.♦�1. ✓'/' both 19ofo and 1978 City Charter Revisions, voters authorized the City Council to levy a .•.;•,r pia>":•:: f F: `............... fr:`:":r:r.......... special property tax to pay for city employee >i,ff>t;tr"•.l :i >f retirement benefits. The 1978 Charter Revision was intended to city the cat reater flexibility to providing a give .................. I'r, f•: retirement system :r/ � /• ........... . .......... 4/2/01 . :•/ ff F :%:i�:f'•`•:;.:•:•:•.'•;;%i,:rF/cA.%�'fF:'��i'% •:`fib/,.- ,•>y';/:% `r•'''"'%:%%+///%:',rr'':i;Y.',F•,_Y jF r.•i%X ;J r••;:.E•f;1,rr:1•/%,•r. r��fi: !/.1, ��'/'//`f J+/%+/F•r F::r,Ir �. ££:.�•',1•r�it;.iE:;ir:r f .r;: ��rJr'fi.'+��%/• ri�/��':'•%1f:'.�/F r��fF��.r!`:`•:�-i �):�Y+4<.:irk/+'!:.;!/{.;F+:�rr:1+'fi'r%�f%�fr/t/+'��<;.`;�"�•%`.!'•rt•'+:b'.rr�.r''�:.Ft:;:; lf%��%Jr%':�:,::y/rrrr,.,•.:}• ;/•':!f.%%'.'• {':i:%��f'•:•• �/r /%f.,.•;:.;{/I•Fr1.'••"/.•�:s.;,•.;! •;Fi••'.•.%,/,U.,•:;:,.{y+ :':"s: {:r:,:%•+jt.:?:;!.:,•.;%:: :G.;i�!:;1:%.,�;FF/r:�rj.,�+.''F•:r�•;%%t'�%� +f�%�rf•i�:{�;%;/9/�%r.�j�/�;',''�f::: {;.r.;fjfir/.r.,r`r,�.�`r�,�%�f.`��ff%r��{�.�.+{.;%/:F�jj+•.•r.'�r•y?�1`.•/,1 Jij: .r,.yrtrt /.� 1. , .r/,-<</;::.:�•::: �%Fr..r r:�`r.,./-J /, f• r . '//{,��'�/�i fflj%•; r �!+.5..,;r...:a••<.`•:•::•.,// �.r �:,;`J, ••,',11•r.;;J•�/i:•lrrr/r{r/%',�•• '•y`i�'j%!;%;Jr+/;%.'`:F ',,'�:%• b�../r Irf,'.., S v/;i:�{.sr.� 1�/1r`nYf1n.:!''1;%r••..`::' !f 1%: •`'•:?'$•`%�:+'•� �'% `�:5;..:nn•F:: .!/1ii,,://�'•.` ,F.w/%•:!.rf/F`%:'1;•+;1;+%y: F�:�%!1rf'„�;:f:%i.�'f;.%':"<'`':• : if%c�rJ%:l%:,';,r,-..:Fr�:fr;.�J .vrr,+%`%.j.+•/yr+,f,• �: `•"/,�•�rr!•f:�'%,•ir:+,'•f ::'rrf.%'�!.'••` ,�� ?:•r 1f•:% 't+•': '::'�:`;S ��.}S`%r;•r/,. ::`.::,�'r$:,+/..:;::f,/% f>c�6•''.y;., /�:..,rrs,�j!+`•.;f1fj�"y?:•r''r!$:f r:b::.%.;;:,<:::y`..,<...:r„/.rr,.FF:F.:,•,•,•,•,../,.{:r;.:,r.:t.<•/.^.:'•:%..''•.:F./F.:r:.%i!'9r'.�.<::>.'•+!r.•:;�.'/ �••.•�f�;: :i%,IF: :,^.,:;:•.•:•:v.`;F.i:$:::;.;.::?}:/.;r,•i::.�F,.:y:•irF.•!''!•i fi'i:•i.ry::i :i i' },:.,;�.; .J:riyiy:.:::�:: t`%;%'�:%�'t>••:p+••4;•y+�..::r``•'•r;:i::,•;%t+;:t:,••r,'.'•'i::.�:.`r'1f.L•.':$//rS.r+.'!/..•i.'•.'?%�.!.�:.4.':,::•:!F%:�:i$5%L':.>S:/r.-:,;:••r.:• ':.:;•..'i,''f,`F•.�rr/. j:.:'E•rr..fi f•,i4, ii`7.r:fir�•�'{.;F;, 1966 and 1978 Charter Revisions 61 <%�:;"y'••:%%r is•r:;: ® 1966 and 197 harter revisions Huntin ton Beach voters authorized the City Council to levy a special property taxto pay for City em to ee retirement benefits The 1966 Charter required the City to fr'•�l%�rr:F'�JFr�� a^articipate in California Public Employees s% , �• !/ lr " /f F r %ram - //.'/i1 eti rement System (F."'EMO 1%•r ....................... ',.r.:.rat+' r J•',• ......,. ............ Srj J `E� — sf% '° //1f 4/2/01 �•.•.,!�`'1•'i�f%:.%%�F"f/.i �r`';�i{/i/r•%'�'y1�:• %`•`.f%`r/r.`,f/4.>•Fr nv/ %�7%'`'`r!1•i%;ri•�'/••i�/:':f::gn,%:I� „%% f�',��:,••' �%f��F'• •r ;Ff��t:%r��//l''%��:�,ff%:j;CF:i;•;!{• �',if„ lA'% j�`1,r•;:n:%�'�o.`ff:%•if//.�/r�•r�frf,%/.•x%: •.f�1,%lr:.lS.r ':� ;.��:ff.ra•F'r�:.C4 j•'Fr:•rr•r�l�fi{{:"''�''�f%%%�/r'If:lfi�.F f,.4F�r/��f%l.�yii•`•fl�i{.f:/i.� li:•,••,;r!%,f!�i`'r!f,r%!>!%%•,,.�r %%'• �!f!%:>:{. '%!;!j% f!'.•`fr%f.:: �`•.•••'''.•''.�,�!f'' ff/.;..%fi�?"%`n %.�{filf/1�c�i�•rr�u{•fir..%:::::.r:•'rr.� ..•:%' F: /.f�f` r/ {f.:Irr n:G flf fF'/%i'; �1%•r•�J•/. /{•{i; 1'�::t%rF%. / %a'..,'${.%.,•;f/'i;/.'::%{,:R :r:yry{�':yl�//�%r<�%%; ',j{/:•f�� c�%��•``%%'r,•'rr•`:%:%if,%;r�fr'fi'' ��••.r{rf%'F�!%�!rj;f ��%!fir•' rF r+``:i:/:'/ ��j%`%f�,frf�`!:rt•7•;f�'i�/f�•. F :,,lj%f�•;`'6i>.{rf`{%r < 4`r.„%'...,f!Ifr,%',,:. r'/ %; Yf'/%''''fiF;fi,:/f�!::l '�i{�!,F�%:'r'''+%':'%''fr.•. �i�fi''� �r'r,;%i,/.rC,.�r/��rfr/:..�.rfri�'rf%: >:i i':� riuir/.:.•1:/>.r'rr•�'/r %'/hiii �i frr fi,.,,�•F,• f and 19781 66MPM f : was intended togive theThe 197 Charter Y•?':h::•:j 1. �•��/`:!I F'��ri%%� F ;'F- `y greater flexibilityto providing a retirement system , stating that F.•.•�1/ffI /. "The Cityshall participate in a retirement // F f l% ' system . " 9 5 -1 • The 1978 Charter further states that. "There shall be levied . . . a tax sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the ■ h the Cityem in whisretirement cyst participates . 4/2/01 ;:Yf:i xr:'to-::;:;!::,f/'f.:f.^r;.!SSS.'•.r:!f.n.'•':f•,'.'arf::`•:%!:;:t! .•F?F:•�;styi?rr:;f%r`: '.!::;fi...�.!:•'!3 :;::,��F`,:, ,,,.>:<:'¢,..� :ni•is :;R>:i.:!,.;..r:f!%?!>, !".,t1:`�F^:;�< •'.:o:��5:::�t:.`:','•::tf l 2:F;s:,/••' ��i ''.•:.?.:.z:''::�''1'.!:iff:S.f:':•f,;:��•.fl:}:f':y:'':�:ff f?/`:.,/.,i r,•:!:i!:rO': •.>ft r,;'r!: •:!,' •/.•i ::.',%r/•':f%%.�!�.3f/.:;'.'•'•.,.>•r!;:r,�r/f,rr::.:.�i;•/,.%/r,,/.;r.<•/•r•. .>S�.rr c.::�.i� ,.,ff„/•:••iFr!F?f%:::,f / f%/%nf/f•,•%%rr �.`•�i1:'ii�r%) :%f`!'•.'•'fF•.f�ri�r;•�''�/.'•.•r�''•;�.!:r{��'•, .;{f:: :'�.!;%S!:::�:•:,•::tfr{ !;.i/.,, r f�' f .s:•;"�`ry{.,/ •:.,fi/n/ri: /•:•�.: .:�.:i'•!:i:'...':• .::"::;:ff%r`.;`:�!'/•:r::.i.':"�/.r;�friri:'/�:.•:'•::. ::;•i5f:'�r?�;::!:!•.,''} �i'%.:..% ��::•iu;:Sfif'y�•i:'r: y�::;sir?.!:s:Fr;�F•',.nr.r�$ 9i•,f',:F.S�G::''/I .!r.:a :•<S:i! %%fr:: .'i�:f•.,.,✓...•..'•.�!fi,.�/.'• :.i{.:,;:�{�;I.,•,• f f :'f,:/ff'•:2`:•.� ,f: �''•.•,y!%•..;.r•:{:;�,i.Y'itS:. •:?.::�`¢.r'•�!:i:�'>•:•.:�i f. 9u�i!1�fi.{:!••/,�rf� %•rFY.:ffr•` `.ir• F?• ,,:•rf�rf �% /ii'S ff::%;,�r.•;f,'•'':.`�r iS:� ::�{f:'+'J !`ff/•.�%fiif��i::•.'=:'! #!f�.�/;?`/:, i'?`: .:vfr jf%�i�?�2%+:'•,':�%3::{� ' . •rF/9: %/:,:•,�:tr.::;. .;:,/., •'fg:'' ••.; i.•1':F'F• r�j'!,;!f.; •:. ir/:.%i: '''•�:<,'<lrf:>.'•:f ,>/S,':::;• •;:f; .a•,¢:%.;v 9f!: y:•ff .{x..:.!.•.•r.'•�''{::i>.,,•'•::.,r!.;r. !...i<:::,, firy',:::F.,,,f,?:f :/ ri r..:•:F.:; .:. ,;;!,•f.! �.ir�'%�::TSyr 'f�`::r'%: %if!ri:.`ff.:/r..:•rrr...f..!ril•,•'a::.:,lff�•.r.•.•. r:.,xf:,r5:::::3I.... r ff �• /� f• The Property ------------------ � propertytax override toT'he Cit has Ievied a F.. . support the employee retirement system of the Cityof Huntington Beach since at least 1966 r'f �f'•9�%'F'J , f ......... Since FY 1981 /82 the property tax override has rr r' f.f:f�:iris'•,.';.;, ff/�flr / remained unchanged at 0 . 0493% of assessed value. This is 1 /20th of the normal 1 % property tax. NEWS his tax has never been sufficient to pay for all fT., the City's retirement costs, including present costs %':%} ii'1.}:�rij;' !f,,ri•',.r'jyn%r"%r"l,'f/,/f f{':/%'ff" .•r'ri; rrr<'•?ifi:�% •ryrr /i i•+ �iYrrf'rfi'-•!��•1./r�r�1,• /�:/?i :f7�/•'�/„ •r�f:��y/•.,:,:; fv%�%�//r�y.,./'/.. $ fj/.,•:.,%.;:%x/.•':q.��{�rF:;;?:;:,;/:1 r�.ii. fF/,,%f�{{F..,r r• iz: r.,r f//••. ; :�•,,..•r� %rr-;.ff..;;•}i,.. �•,.,f{r• ,�f:•,;�`/,, !F�,/�,rs+ :,!.,fr•,�F•.,` f• r/`'r' �f�F.'••%.:•i.':�•''•.;yfr..%:;:;:!:S:'.::•:`�`:.::..:`s:r:�•".'�`/.!�r:,?.,:.;•'•.f/j^F..f,},f..rpry .S:.%f ff{f`�5%!.:? ?;+:..:.'i>:•}:ifs•% :? `• '+J:r.•,.::,�;� •;:r}+!•::,�;G:f �••' ..f :•:,�/.:::,'. 'r�::••• �-r/:F:F::r%;f 1`}.�` S%.'.`:%s.:;:�i F:#'l:p;}i:::>y'Fr 'tir.%<i<`!;fir#•:•.:•.. r•.',f?::?f:;::`:;`+}.•;{. /: r•'ij.:. ..F /. - ?..�fi!rr�../.;.r: :.�..r•:{-rfirn.� •.F,.,r.{:'.'::•;-�'{l•'r`;-!'••} I.r'S'.//:'f�:%<<%f ` `••%�� f::/`f::•: f}��>�ff •%r%:�+'�';r:Cn{�r.{.`',`.{G% :;��::jf.'f!i%f' :.;1��;�'+�F'''��fi r '%/!'f.�}f�.'� F�`: `r`;!:r: �`5�:>:,r,!f`.:`r..•'•%'``'%'+.)#''if.':.'::%F•"••-':r.::;%�'fF•.. /rF:?•i?•:`.::iF>F};! {i,'::;!`',<::}`r.•.::::;.'•,`•�},+,',1.,`:::r•+:;rF.<,•`: '?:fr}�:•`.i::.�'4:}:.:rt'{•:%::;i.`•:••.'•:5.`••i:':':;:'•.::%;•!:;;;<r..f i.'• ¢;%'�::r?•':F:'t%�S`:�:.`•i::!<;f�;�!i:�S ::;f/ll{Y;:'/.•,•?: :;::.'-5;::;.;.%:•`••`;%'t•'•�:�:%:.`•%::!::}:�:dr+�S;i•riiiii•:;;.%..f}!..f: `'�' :,r:!:;::•:!:::;:::.iir:•f.•,•:::.}i%?.;.;:.}:;•:;::::.f{/ •:?:.;:••?•,•.:>.,:?;:•5>.'•:.;:.<•:f:::lE};R?;;>r:;.'•:!r l;:%!:::•};}}il :% i r�!:' •:�:F•ii%�}:}:•{+.•: i3'F.4; r rf•.. :•:f:::r.;.�.:i:!v •: •ii%" :•}R r � -.FF}?f$ir:y{:�r}f:%}„{:{.•:r.}rriv,{!{!i::�•i}:•iiiii%:%rr i?i;•iiri�Y:•::.:%,n^iii�i.`•;:%:j?�G��}:;i}:i?!:?`:•``v�i'•.... .:/...:.. r.rf.:. `:!'.:?!??•'i.!^'.`•'+iY%i`!�:!>.!i.,{?..}ii i�pF:i f i:i:•i%-'r+ {•;y�:%� iiil:.ii:y:},G„!: :•F.v:-•:v ,. ...1 n !:?ryj'ii�:i^:%:ii•:!.:ii::./•ifi::/lri:%•::. :%,!+,!+.`:•:%-%::/4F:}F :`.`%:;;,'r.::............... ......:r:G•:.'::?•}:-:;•'•:%•::f:::•i.::•.lr q+••..•.%::•:..-.4::::::::rr:ry::. � . ..:..:.` .:. : :: The Property T --------------------------------...................... '>%iii%+:•l::•i:•:r;.%pi::.;;:< ............. ......�.. /' '{`'''�f Although the City has levied the tax for many �,/:,:,? ;.;.'.;::,r:•;:!;.......... 5:•.•.!.: ;;.. :1":�:.'. years, the specific retirement benefits pa id with i if vr�v'r:•:' the tax have changed over the years prior to 1978 , the City used the tax to pay for ff•rr< �'': lFr:fr f ri$r.f F�/frF the employer's contribution to PERS �•f f•�''�f�!%�ii5 .:'r'�::Iff:f^•.'/.:f' 1.•,'%irr5 l/`��•�•i'r /%rr/iy f•'•ry :• � r !�:` lF f ry !r``'''•`'f'fs 'rr.'rrr. 4/2/01 •.; +.p rr/?�4?fir.�i:`'."Irf r%•'`%ref:`•::+f'rr'N:'fi<ri'•lr.•:'ur%h�'%r::..rFr`��rFf`fit %'�`�r`'.�r�'/i •F•f ,s,/:q• GY% ,�''rr%:'•4,;�f%1� f•:.f;,,•, v:� rr �iJ%ri:ri,,;+ �f'4.Y•`�:�r 'ii%,:••{.::%'.+:lr��'.••:'•��'%/ff:f Gr::.o:,F.`.'f %%Y`'yJ;.'`.:y'/ {%!'iSrr%/.;.:E:i:`':`.r'��,',• :::•`.:,%fF,,f %:;3!r.'%.rf::•n:'.'% R4;r:✓:i :/S.f/fr//.!.rff .Jfr�f�fi,.,/::%r'r.�.�SFir`#' •S'.r�,`ii::"•'•''I%''',`.••# %;:i.'•!t::.!Y.'•:/.,Frr:Y ::r'.'�:•`•:`'r:r!:.::<u:../..?..,...?!�'I.i'%r`r'•fi�:::5`:�'::'i:,?'•i%%�:; %,: ::: :r.f':;.'/:';•'•:lf. ::F;:< i�tF:$rt'%'ir�i %�:•(+:`;i'•r'/•:..r,.'i.•'•"%is:'.r'.`',f�{`fr.•:��:�;f�., l �f{�:rS.f"•`�`•`.%/�:�: "or!•'':`•�e%'�:;• �•f%%f':>'•%`f!%�'/%�;,�r/./.`i '%%l �f�;r% :%:��/f;•r'.'��i�ili: �fr�f j`••r•. `%r F;r r�/,.•/if'r%'/:j.•:.r�;,�/i�., rr F�.;r'.'�%f•,:,%;r.•.,.�r./.r/;;�F•'r r fiFf:'::%'•''::i`%�':: /•.F%� •;% �f>< r r„�J•1`.I!rrf� �• 1 r i:' I r�''r:':5'3$.:::'•F SS•:,��ff�F.% rf:'%�.'?'�'i '�%�r�•:?;F�!•r�wri'%�'o%`✓r"r` r��r'.?u•'•'�j!:?.�• `fi,.:.%$')::1,!:'•'.'iu•�::J'.':i•:• .''.'•�;C•,••,;..r� :�rf.+`,;;3'r;:.rr.:::if��r{::? ::•?r.'�i:•:•ii c:'i.'..::��•:,•.: {,f�'',•;�//.,i:% ;•rr�'`.,':Frr..:.,;r•� f••'.'%r::h�/:,r:irk.:,;.:.'::.f r%%:!'%.:f rr,`.•.::!%Ff elf{:•'.`i:': ��$ 4 '�irf9: 'r•/rf. /f%;'r.•'•_:•:'•! ,rr{.• `. `::✓ •+::r';.:'.:%�.::fr:•.r�':.:5•:.:f•:•,;.r�... �... •f r�F r' /. f`%ir rf ./,. r•/, �1'1r...::y.f:: f:f.:'# ��/ff'�%I�.r..'/r�/�fi„fir/ifF/:.•.:•�fr%/:�„f/r♦f%�nr�..�rvrf..,f:lf/r,•:.>IFf?:..flf f�•r...• The Override �f :•:M. .r:.f'•rf i rfryy�r'{f?rr More recently, as the employers contribution rate has declined , the City has used the tax %�r•rfI �� proceeds to pay for other aspects of the ret irement program , including the employee contribution pick-up. " The " oc -up was f :.:: ,.•.-:. • , r offered in July 1978 to certain employees •r:r viy •.f{• A full pick-up was extended to all employees %l i1 r r/r by �f/Hrf rf//l�'rlf' 4/2/01 �f�y f�.•./jr✓..r ... .... ..... ... ............. ... 4. Im � f+ PO � e ► � � Irk 0 � � C >: 1 lfgigli `i��+%;� f:•': i'••.r`>; , IF, R� 'Jon �l 3 1PYERS.'slEA , which e d t s the II � 1159 r cc IP • a. ■ v 00I � P r� ®Ps a ■�o �cIr ,P1 ■l1-0 . II,--- P t� . fai, A B A 4 ;%a;wo $%o:;�a:,�a 4a'�C ��1 I ■ � . h �. h� � f t� �r � �I� I� ► 1111111:4 . thek �Ptto VI I � ■po° ' it « Ad* delle°9� B■, 1�, . ° ° /e° Pd p'' ■ �s r�� t1p r� c l I CS C �'�i11 I�°�■ � C �I II rn r � ° of p n In °° 1 e■ p e P« I lievot) ° /1R■ 1 eR pe� /■ A / / d I°e iP h P e e■li� ■ ■�1 I 1 9I1I 1 � �'�1� 1� 111 �■ ��epl r ■ s 1■/ d.l I� e R °q B4 0 ■ d I>v� 0d ai 1p)pro��■,P��,I p 1 1 o l 1�, J �� I ,r 1 , � a :. `'f:;a/:a.�f:i�i..;i!!f !.raf y,:.::•.rn{�li:'•k;'fa:*flf:.fr�•/fy: : .,;y/:,�••.�`�;• :.•�?!%f. ://f!•s.!.Il.'S9/ff'f`' ,��:``S,y::rs!':':%'�'si� ::,,/,:• r!i" }:`:�,%'• %'>•% !>�h.:f �,!/fj�:/r%f!::�!•i�:<�!��%/ff,;'%��/. .!r' r'i::i�if f�f:!�9f%f:F�/��F'�/:lil%t •s:':�:`;•/`f•`.'.:%I/.:::Fi:y ,{;�,%�;..�fFf / ��;rfi%f!fl�•�:S!?Sr?%r,'..fisi•;�.:r•`•:f'f:::;':•,3 f•::�. ':'•:F!r/! %''•'•f,.'.''i.'%f.::: :li;,�;%/�I:.J�::r''•il`,'.' r»:•%:>.'•}x.:::•."•.:f�:: :%.,.,.;�f;;.�f, �.y, ri.:'.,:::Sf°l,:;•,�f:�%:•::':y%;ii'/%r`.;:.fF.j:' ,,'••%.rrrr.,..::'/Fff•ff%:•/:•,::.t3�.."r,' �:i:`%;.:`/:'�:>>•::; ' I: %i'.'`'' :' •`:: :`:Y::.:.::;•::.,:;:•'•;}'%'•r,.: f f��''' "�i;f• I /!'<'i•.•lf,•,r:.f!f/,.f i.•.r - .:. ///•ft/:,%!�1:;. !:��% �`//'ff/•. //'/:i, :: ,.,y ■ e ..f/ �! r li f.• .f• 1. r. ``•./„%,✓ �i f .y �•R ;f . ' ��:� � ..•�-� ' ::;� Taxpayela*S% Assoc�at�on•.%f,.,,,fr,.fflY,:.,: l,,f, � ::r .,�'�1,: City of Huntington Beach On February 26-9/7, 2001 the case entitled �! I Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v° City of Huntington Beach was tried The Court issued a tentative decision on March 8 2001 concluding that the FY 1999/00 tax invalid levy was partially Once a judgment is issued , the City has 60 ! days to file an appeal An appeal will take .li.��!f f!� �/•jh approximately three years to resolve 4/2/01 ys. ii% 5`•i��a'i�>i >.iiiX�iBs ::3 iti :` i';i:?i';<i %�i3i:�::::;iri:;;;::`:;:;� :�; a P NI I leno a N i N r � A ':'} ' <: : `� �'Ilya 19 �� I�N�►�I I� .��NmR�l��l �n�+�o�l a�,sQ�� F I�� I�d��Nm� ��hl�� 111°�II� i I A I �9 I � � �m a W a. A P'nd /n / a a n ■ A A a. o vav a n 4 i i a 1 utlo�l e ��9 ni Ah �0 6 �1 I for m utl/a P Y ........ � � � + �° I Ir�l►��' �.I�� far � III n �r it r end m u �IR � 3 0 , I I I1 gi 1 r I � �III I 1 for, �I P b A. I r Fp�, 1v m,I ►�' � p 0 B.i n . OnA � . . F Pnn Ial ,ar Ala. r �An� a ®1 om I1t � 1 Qaae�I a■. u1 IC �II r �o ar I � ,a � f I � � I aa� n ■n . n ®1 a �1 n ■ I P 1 1r gover o �� 1I�� I a� i g ��11F ir ,,,��t�I 111��I ��II �I irr� cl,,P ■ for jpropi--.-ihflr-ty t,,-.a)< refund a nray b e .a . n p a .I a t V 41° 1N O c d in I n I St 1A 1a�t I ��El-�Iy n . P I°0 A°■ 1:xa v hoop 0 ihAalI1 Q1o rrn ca n f � I1 �� E a I��,/ Di Im 9A �I �, ]� it v I�I AN a .+i?Jr !:.•{,%ys:%:?u;:::r?:::-'+i.'•'..ur:<�?:::?s'?:::s ii•%f•;%i?.+• .'•:%:::•'•:::.'•i:?.r,.:::%:::�:?r..';:: �'''i.�••.'`.i'f3�„i;�;.8.i':.'•?}:;;r.../:<; :./„'y,.:os:•:�sss.�!+:�';:.,..:.r::'•:.:::.a::..{s:..;.,;a.::••.;:✓.::.,;r,::::.; :5:?•„<;!x4:'t'/.'•:%;;•>:;;>:-s ''f-.- ?ui's;;:?.'•>;;.'•:?:%`:,::::;;..:�i,:�i�s'/s.'.ii'�;i:.'+.5:• iil:'f.•,'i,'.>:.?:.ii:• ::•i%^:y.<-i'::,.v::F�:•nii`{>ti :.::r.,.;.:.:i:•i:4ii•ii:•ii:.::..:.;-.�,::::::v..:i:%i:;:?;'.:ri :ifis •'�S•+i: •.•fr:r - %'�ifTax Pon &% nt .. .j!.. f Pr opt; ym PrO X-X:iii in In mak ., r f u claimthe 9 ® b a certain Taxation Code specifies that minimum reomuirements are to be met: ct� n specifies that n claim b :{:•:t:....r.. `6 wholeassessment is st t h ed claimto v r if n I ----art what rti n)) and further "the g on which the claim is founded . 91 9 C C+ :' Each claim must oe ref th rson • f%ice.;�✓;f:.i:S.�`.;F.•if% who paid the tax, his o her w r e n executor or administrator. " f•rfrY F•�lF..is r+ :•� 4/2/01 ?{�15 �1'f%r.';//:.;'r:f%:!•'`;'f ��:�//.::.Y!�•i:i`%jr//iff:';'•';;;'�j. >�%%!' S'. :j'.•`•%}..i%Ff'f: 'r t£l`!.`• fff%':•s'r,%:F:•',-r:SF•`:'•�i is�ff:'�;f/:`%•r•2��;.'•;/f.`:••:fiF,':;/f:;f�rSf`•'•:��'::sf{:f,S;fn; :Yrf{{'?F$f'/. :;:FJ/•ir��jF,.ff�i:$�F%S$!^ `'FFf i%:.viY:• 'F / 5.;•'S�vii •:.�:}G: :../f.:f•.:•i.;�;:f./:l:•. ,•�'i,{{%•: :iFfiq;//.•:;f�{F rfi�ri�'�f'f:: fiiFl:•f�:fi•Y rrf... .i F'•. {T!:•::x:•••%v:%ifiS4�:r:••i vfffir` iif .::•.� :i�n'rrtif;;•l,.�i� rffv. ilk f 1•:/.•:f nl�ff i:f.• F{+$cif+' f•;F fi rr/vi'Fi:: �'{.r../.: vl."i'.lf.%' :l f:fflf$l yf,.l.� F/f•fS`/.•�ri 5.";�:;�•ra:: :`.,,1..•%•r.:.f`!.•r,{fr::';>:%�,',. r'!F' f`:fr% .r.: f'{"rff::f,. `�{!{: :r/.4 r'r.r`;.j.,;%`.%if;ffr r:/r.•1.::.Slf;'{v:r`'fl.•{' :fr:} �yfl.`l%iii'/r.;r �{1`i.ifl}$%fI`6:l if. ,:l.�:fy •;�v¢v. yF{� n/;rr y;f�r •vF r: ::f::'r '•fr,'•;•:`5'`r..fr.i••;/:'/r•+F;f•r yf ir.,.•/:'•r:i>9r:{f`r•;`'l."•''•?fk"$.:f:.f$./ff�.%Fsrt2.'•' •:'<••:`f `:�'rl%fi r/frr:a%k{�£i��if/fr5f:/•r`F Sf;�%:%"%%fi�/�i<fYr•/rff:`•%f�ti'.:'/.••`l ff!•/.:Yf£5�9 ff%%�i?`fif ,.j::.�:..:,fr:;4<�/;`.•!�f�yF�;r<f;'rai• /.r;:...x%s�s�f�{.,:•:S•;Fy:•rf.2{•.;{iy%`si,nf,;; <%,'::�.f{;••if£f�•:r:.;,.y`S''if:Frf...,{.••,�.:!�:.�,;,3:,••f' /. • •6 ® PropertyTaxPayment . t rrocess ............................. .................. `:%'l'iYfrrr ;F.:j/:S"'!j%go-•%•i.r Consistent i h these stat r i m 9 : :• ::if:: : "' re,-auirement the city has r s� ;•., ;y,g;%;;3 is %�" 3�•%%cif% l F'i� o entitled for fund of Property Tax .............................. Pa,, ,,ment f.,:� r��✓r F �r/FJ.r.f/•r:• lrf%ri ! •f/Jf /•�: ;i ffi :r:y �, r 4/2/01 }:tf�,,i�?:;?:f•�} i,J.•f:�:i'%???5::�•rii'tii�?.`•}F�'::!?./1:�:?�?:?:!;?:f iN l%!.-:'J�%,?!!? �4i�i :$%i?1•'r.J,.•} ::f•.%??.?.yf'•:%t 1,.: ��/,✓:%, i:•J.i:��:rr h,•'!.%!:% ::%:%.r/:$i {?.1:. rf%•ii'YY i! ri/.t: ..t�!•:.�:,• cif...ffrF.v.ri%,}:•'•. i'Y i:!%'•i l../.:. `.•�:�%:�i :.•ni'?..•. r�%F•fi}i:�%:. ?'!. - i'?%vr?.}%.!:.;:Ai!%tii i�}:{?.!}i:�ii'i'�!'�'i.>i%fit}:>ii>i:!;n.1.J::%thdy,., ..�.?;irFJy:}�:;;:F,•,m•F:/%:f..?::}.;..:::•!•:lw:: "!!S:}:•iif!•i}.%;%r:?'}%:?}�?.r:i:•f? rf rYf'^if::;'F-.�ii'li::t%l}i:$:i'l fi'jii�:r•:;l.f ii{R�::%i�i?i:!::i^i ••`:�;;:�ik�:;�:;5:%i'�k%:is:�f%:SSfS•:'••,•:5:•>:.:;:,r: �::i�•,'•Sisn'.+i"'%SS:?i::%?!%f?.•fi•}!%:�?:.{..5.?..,%:J;!:S :•%:•i S:•: i''%f'ii;!t%�%E�?l:f%i%i'i'%:i+i/.•F�'?:%Ji:.i/:Sf:?i{{:Y.•'-•!:4!S%%i-%t '•r:�`/••.' =t%i •:`/,.5:,/•?}: -'r.<;5:�: ?S•%:?:S.`•.i';�••`S'r%SS%:%� ::%r.S%:`%kt•/%%S%S`i ff'.?�ildl'%%i Sjj}�{j'1,.+i!i%+if%ji'.!�f if is�'f.;:;�%:ftr%y � !:�F'i:$!•:-:�;.`•�;�•:•%:4.} '•:•i�Ji%�:i?iJ%�;if•}"f%;:^, %"%'+r:F•:%i�'?%:iil•%ryliJl.:•n`'h:+il:i%%l%.'•:% ?f.�f'f�� /.'•ii�:%ii,•.j•'<a�::R�r:+.:+F:.->.�?;iS:J%'i.C;.�i?`S'.: .•'.`•:%?�SSf:Sf•:':••'%'t;�SS +;•r;�•a?ra;S�:%}.'•:S:,t%%?•% !i?f•{:.:;:.rr F:i{F:$'F.: '?:{:%}%!%%5,+•:!.-%fi;+.•;%}f?•;l•.�:,.y r%'''+'J%:�^:i?'r'21 iii::}•S:} %:jt;`3•$�;'yF:,+.$;r:i'1,.;�: t = uestod ®n the Claim for .;.,:.:.:..ii. q RefundfPropertyT x Pavrment" ® aF®rrn }+? Jl+,: :l,f;• The "Claim for Refund of Property Tax Payment" form asks the claimant for the :? v following information : Assessor's parcel number T h e c l a i rn Ent n Vs W a rn qe Parcel address and mailing address .......... ........... ',:'• •` ''r,,,:://' The fiscal year the claim is being made against 1.•igsi.:Fi.�,'%% t� ...... ..... Il%;r}wr '�f j: 4/2/01 '%%%/ r.f.h.ff., ::�}: :}%:,+{}x�:<•`Ff.:%:'<•{%y! ';•;?":f,:.'•Fr<;;l:;r:;:;';':F`%;:mft•'.�?FfS#5^.�rf::iX•!.•r:#::'i^•.> ` ;;;�:yf%`;:f#�rr`%r,•`3:;:�:::�F,::%}:.>f2::•r:".`•`FS%i�:;: y.�£s:.:�.t'::,Y?y::?rf,;:•,::F.r::"FF::'/.?::`�5':•".�:`r•#:"':-F ��:�:.?!5•FX?; •/.y !r•f:! ..f>r.;�. .,:.,4}^F::Y:;;%+;F}'.r. r: f••- <!/r:xfa.l: FF�.`f, rf.•;:'1.::�{l::%�ri:��:�:�j•,FFf}:%s'.:�i�F}fffF?: :f::}fjf;,`f;::}f l�v/..;�3#:`f fFF::�^?:!.?lf:::+r i}:`?.i rffff::f.:. :2'^ a}'ff/!r,•/%i?fJ.,�Jf:i!4;I:f :;#:is jl+#f,:FF#:ff iF:'t;F`'%/r?Ff %:R�•:'};,:f:F•',y't::rf,.`•:;::.n:`�:'F?:..•?. F%!F::.Aa:.�..,:.lf:;¢f:F:ffiF •.$•;�' `f.iYs :./.. ..'a}::y,:A.. •.: :.'�• %.#f:.,;i,.r }f5:•:i ::l:: is . }`'.:.r.:}r.... fffl.Uf::v:f:'Ff! F.. :f:•f::fr:F:Ffn•...... f.. MO fffffF*ii?FF?>::>:'! ':4!•}`}%: F;fr.h`Y .�:/.•:¢;:.y"}q:::F!ff'}:F:iijii}}::tiF :.�}.4 `••}S if L L � f :: ins rrrl a,fr a nested on the claim for Refund of Property Tax" Form T ■he to tal r x o ert topai st the F•}:•::!.}r•?} and the amount sought for refund ... i...... , property A description of the grounds for the claim The signature of the claimant ":::'J<,.•; ' r.'•;Via. •r" ....................... '+{:;f;}':'•�}:off?::.y:%}`,F:'f i9fFi�r$rf,•��•�/ ••�, j'lrf� `$ ..... • ¢ 33is Sri: 4/2/0 1 %:r82�$$$%:%1$;%::�.^.;:'/�`:•::^.S$.'•n:%:i<:�:•$i$$f:�$f,;%r$:% 'tir�:'•� ii.%i;�:i%•'•'•i ;`.'r•'<:;t '•`f:;::+;k� i.! r.o-f:::•..••..•:iiF`F.;:;is;•••:�..!.ri::r;: :.•:•':$' $:•%%..:: $: r.r:.;}$ r;$;:•!+•.::::•6 l ::u•:. �F%�•ii':;t•.-f,•:,.;;S; s::3s:r•.;r ..:F•�.$<•e.U.:: r:i,24:«i�• :;./;$ ::•x`., •t•Y•$: 'f.•$.'•:':i2•..:.r:. $$':f;::$;r:;2$::?:�!:'tf :$�FFr;$,i..':r.•.•:::::.•..^.:Fv:':::!:!:s•:- ..^.t�F$$i <'•f:•isv: ter...::.::,/::r2?:��`tit%%`:�:;•.•....;•':rp�:�:$$:+•.:^.2�.r::..!•v:::..::.!•.::/•: �+�'%•t�!!'.!�$:::r•::•::•::.::r.:$c:•;.:fit$:':`• r�:$<»:y;:;!ii%:;.';:>:$�>:�:-F::$•f:::i!$'h:;;�$ $i $$�::'$:jr::.li'.'•:=„}/r:}.y::!:•$!:•,'• $:;>��}S:•r6$i$$'::�:;.:r�:;t.�; Siif>$f n:fi:;iS:^:h:•}i:•.`;'f.;:yj:{�;';S%$ ::;%.n t::::..!>}<;q»r:. ?ii#5{i.'•�•�i'$::r:,�?.r:•%rr.•::.�tra::•.•:..:..: `:.:$:St... ..$....;.i:$:$:.•:�!:%�•':::$:•$`li;'%$$:'r:::•ri:S$•r%•,:�i}}::::1$:::`:S�j::�:i:•i$ :!!l;t:r.:ti•`.Y :?r::^::::.•:i�S:•'${:•`$ASS'::S:;'i:S;:,:�:;:•: f$:%:i:'%!4$r: ;:f��•��::.;r:{i:!tr!•:h'.•rim;::{:^::i�$i%;% h: ...?. : :.,!$!...:....: :'t%ix !;�f•�:;:: : ::::t:`;i;'r:i r .....rS:F l:1$: ':$ %:%: S""4�% t:%:';z�:;•`:#�::'.-«:;: ./Y•n.f$' :r.•r.�t•::.:$::r.^.•r$.�. :t�•:rn..t!.ir v-::ltl.:i :?..,...:qor ........... agou es ted on the Claim for of u n d of Property Tax Form .........::::::::......... .................... m ��/�® n t to The la i form al so requests the cla 'SS::•fS!t�::$S;i$:i :::tip copies of theirpropertytax bill and the pr®vide cop ,check or Other evidence of payment of property taxes. .......... iy - The tax bill and evidence of payment s no w� Il allow the cit to termine m andator , buty if the claim is being submitted within four f'i%'i;i":if.". ;�rr•.t tip:.?%: years after havingmade the tax a rnent s ®f the :i?... required under Section Revenue and Taxation Code . 4/2/01 S:•'I.i::'!.•::•frrrm�:tt%S:r:rrF. :::T:::%is4T:i:::$:^i'r'i:::i:c:::'tt:'::};:;:hi:;l}?i:4:4:iti'riT:• ::� n orn a -ion q a nested on the Claim for Refund of Property Tax Form Itwill I l also en sure the person who paid the tax hent. F 0 r exa mple i t heI oist claimant. pro&,fterty n r is not ow e was so ld rec ently, nt I Y the current r paid by entotled to a refund on a tax a previous ow ner.ner. { 4/2/01 is �1 .. ............. ........... ...... ..... ..1•.. { ac cess c e s s the c it Y s Claim for R f d f Property Tax Payment Form Hum g • n t nBead-h City Hall , 2000 Main Street, • City Clerk's Office , 2ndfloor •:,•:::::.^.:::•::.:::,•;:- -:: . c l . h u n t l t®r� beach . c a . u s The City'seve s� � r HB Infoline 714 3 74-4800, Message .....::.::.....::;:..:.:;:...:.::.; ..:. :: fund of Prow%ertyTax Payment Process ............. ,JIM O them fr n ce a c la• ma nt h asrnpI et e d "Claim Payment" they Refund of Property Tax j submit it to the City Clerk :: :::r:<<: ::%:: :: : • The City Clerk will date stamp it and log it as received r Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code has u to six months to Section 5141 , the city accept or reject the ii� :vF f•:r� : : 4/2/01 �ar. fi� und of Property Tax Payment Process I OEM If the claim is not acted upon by the city within six (6) months the claim is deemed rejected by operation of law. The taxpayer must file a lawsuit within six (6) l months of the city denial or his or her claim will be forfeited . 4/2/01 e y� `7 nq� en I I I 4 19 x ■ ■ " x n e i m u N. .......... ...... ... J a x a m, `z`�i!i 1 p .�1 m n n � the I I � Ind In <x�J�a�" d n/1 r II 11 �I IIB �: � �lll' I a Ap 6 � " w x �ty n■ ■� n� I /n. • C', ■Of It)( .n u■ p u •"1 °n" . n "a J A , �,x� I °� C)Li IIIm.n1 A i I � � I I � � based oa r� p Inc I I �. 1 I � irl� . p a n. thEft-,kiin- x. . 1�g " pO,4� d "h � I vvhat c x,VIE�f I1/ 1A � 7 I II � E . II I L r� Is�/1 11 I s.,EI x� r 1 I I11�1 al t� c rllr �. EAI � .n h �x R I"1 i I I )� ��t R0.x n "� P ud M� ® 1kiI ► . until ) I nta � r E ;.l � cI.:) �. Irt A nd ■v0 nA' r � I� i K `< �.� PTIP.R.K.".18RE-D's ° I � IB a I U to 1 ■ I . � � t x d I .. � has � x� �do �l IEI� p xy 1'° �1 1 1 .�L n.. I tow w E �u�ai m now c III n/r �i � 1 c I � �. ,�/�1�/q' I� In i ��Q�I i � d �x�ll�M,A I,�x". �� o��e it� . �Y 14Y n■ �, � � �� ' � ' ` .udL mid °� ,P'° r ,��r �� LJ a o I i icd o m 1)I E"t 1 c. Ill (C. I° t loi cx■m. I TWO 'I�I I� I a r c� E�e the city J �, , , �� r I i Ins ,�,�rI I I IAc Ir°�c��►1��o y�v��E�"fin Ida Ida r �'Inni loro^ert,, ,, tax 4 �I a �.I I°� � I I ■ r° . �. � r �. I d 1 v I � I� E Ir I e �, :F! V' � r " x�l I r x. Mi `> 4/2/01' Road Runner Personal Home Page Page 1 of 2 Telephone 840-4015 Email: dsullivan socaLrr.com Mission Statement Gather information about how our taxes and fees are spent in Huntington Beach. Evaluate the spending priorities of Huntington Beach. Provide tax information to our members and the community. Seek consensus of the members and express the views of the members of the Huntington Beach Taxpayers Association to the city council and city staff. Action Bulletin Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association wins lawsuit against Huntington Beach. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has won a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach, contending that the city has illegally collected a portion of the city property tax used for employer retirement. The city will not be obligated to return the illegally collected taxes,unless the individual taxpayer makes a claim. How to make a claim Send the letter below to the Huntington Beach City Clerk. Tax Protest to Cif Clerk(html) or F� 76 , o Tax Protest to City Clerk(pdf-Adobe Acrobat)�Adok&', Ruder. To Receive information Please leave your: name, address and zip code, phone number, email if applicable FAQ Question: If my mortgage company pays my taxes for me through an impound account,can I still protest the payment? Answer:Yes,send the protest letter to the City Clerk. Question: If I already paid my taxes,is it too late to protest? http://home.socal.rr.com/hbtax/ 3/30/01 Telephone 840-4015 Email:dsullivan(d�socal.rr.com Mission Statement Gather information about how our taxes and fees are spent in Huntington Beach. Evaluate the spending priorities of Huntington Beach. Provide tax information to our members and the community. Seek consensus of the members and express the views of the members of the Huntington Beach Taxpayers Association to the city council and city staff. Action Bulletin Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association wins lawsuit against Huntington Beach. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has won a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach,contending that the city has illegally collected a portion of the city property tax used for employer retirement. The city will not be obligated to return the illegally collected taxes,unless the individual taxpayer makes a claim. How to make a claim Send the letter below to the Huntington Beach City Clerk. Tax Protest to City Clerk(html) or Tax Protest to City Clerk(pdf-Adobe Acrobat)_Aa�n ::>:::Reader To Receive information Please leave your: name, address and zip code, phone number, email if applicable FAQ Question:If my mortgage company pays my taxes for me through an impound account,can I still protest the payment? Answer:Yes,send the protest letter to the City Clerk. Question:If I already paid my taxes,is it too late to protest? Answer.No.Send the protest letter to the City Clerk. BEFORE THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Portion of Property Tax Payment Claimant's Name: ................................................................) Assessor's Parcel No. .........................................................) CLAIM FOR REFUND ParcelAddress: ...................................................................) Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096, et seq., the above-named Claimant hereby claims a refund of a portion of the property tax paid for Fiscal Years 1997- 98 through 2000-01 on the above-referenced parcel. PART CLAIMED Claimant seeks the refund of Claimant's share of that portion of the property tax imposed by the City of Huntington Beach that exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. GROUNDS The claimed portion of the City's property tax was "illegally assessed or levied" and/or"illegally collected" as those terms are used in Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096. Proposition 13 caps ad valorem property taxes at one percent of the property's. assessed value. Cal. Const., art. XIIIA, sec. 1(a). An exception permits the one percent cap to be exceeded to repay an "indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978." Id. Sec. 1(b). The Court ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 818780, that the City's property tax, to the extent it exceeded the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978, violated Proposition 13 and was therefore levied and collected illegally. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Claimant requests the refund of the amount determined by the City to represent the difference between Claimant's payments and Claimant's lawful share of the City's annual cost for city employee retirement benefits in existence prior to July 1, 1978. VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Huntington Beach, California. DATED: SIGNED: 2 03/29/01 THU 21:36 FAX 714 841 4484 Cook/Fisher U 001 To. Mayor and City Council From: Councilmember Debbie Cook Date: March 29, 2001 Subject: H-Item for April 2, 2001 Background: Following the preliminary ruling by the Superior Court in the Howard Jarvis lawsuit, the City Attorney's office, on its own initiative, prepared a form that has been made available through the city clerk's office for the purpose of filing for property tax refimds. The Huntington Beach Taxpayers Association (HBTPA) has requested that an alternative form be provided which has been prepared by the Plaintiff in this case. HBTPA's concern is that the city form discourages individuals from filing for refunds and creates, in essence, make-shift work for residents. A number of additional issues have been raised by other residents with regard to the process for filing claims: 1. As of this writing, a Final Judgment has not been entered by the court. It is unclear how far back residents may be permitted to seek refunds. 2. There will be a cost associated with processing claim forms. It would be imprudent to create such a confused process that residents are forced to file multiple forms, overburdening any system that is established. 3. Who will actually be processing forms and do we need to consult with possible outside agencies to see what requirements they may have. 4. What are the tax implications for property owners and should that information be ascertained so as to better educate the public regarding their responsibilities. T here are certainly more issues that will come from a discussion of this very complex matter. If this is not handled appropriately it will be yet another public relations fiasco. Recommendation: Discontinue the distribution of the form prepared by the City Attorney's office and direct staff to evaluate the city's financial exposure, consult with appropriate outside entities, and establish a process for the orderly filing of claim forms. r BEFORE THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Claim for Refund of Property Tax Payment Claimant's Name: Assessor's Parcel No. Parcel Address: Claimant's Address [if different than parcel address]: CLAIM FOR REFUND Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 5096, et seq., the above-named Claimant hereby claims a refund of the property tax paid for Fiscal Year . The total property tax paid on the above-referenced parcel was $ , and the amount sought for refund is $ GROUNDS [Describe the basis that you believe a refund is due.] VERIFICATION I certify upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Huntington Beach, California. DATED: SIGNED: A copy of your property tax bill and the check or other evidence showing payment of taxes should be attached. SF Forms: Tax refund form 3-19-01 Information regarding the case entitled Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Huntington Beach and Property Tax Refund Claims In both 1966 and 1978, as part of City Charter revisions, Huntington Beach voters approved a special property tax to pay for City employee retirement benefits. Last year, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association and a local resident brought suit against the City of Huntington Beach alleging that this special property tax was partially invalid under Proposition 13. California voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978. While Proposition 13 sets the maximum rate for property taxes at I percent of assessed value, it also permits additional taxes to be levied to pay debts approved by voters prior to July 1, 1978. In several decisions, the courts have held that taxes to support retirement programs qualify as such debts. For fiscal year 1999 through 2000, the City levied a retirement tax as it has for the past 34 years. The proceeds of that tax were used to pay for employee retirement benefits. However, the specific retirement benefits paid with the tax have changed over the years since 1978. In the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers lawsuit, the Plaintiffs claimed that the City could only pay for those specific retirement programs that the City provided in 1978. Because some of the tax proceeds were used to pay for other retirement programs, the court held that such a tax expenditure was a violation of Proposition 13. At this time, the trial court's decision is not yet final. Once it is final, the City will consider whether to appeal it. In the meanwhile, property owners may wish to file their own refund claims. Because the City Attorney is not authorized by law to give legal advice to private individuals,but can only advise the City, its agencies and officials, the City Attorney cannot provide advice on how to file a refund claim. However, the City can provide a tax refund claim form. It is not mandatory that a property owner use the City form, but it is available as a convenience. There are 3 ways to obtain the claim form. First, you can obtain the City claim form at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 2000 Main Street on the Second Floor. The second way to obtain the claim form is to visit the City's web page at ci.huntington-beach.ca.us and click on property tax refund form. The third way to obtain a claim form is at the end of this message. You will be prompted to enter your fax number and a copy of the claim form will be automatically sent to you. You may wish to obtain legal advice in completing this form. You must contact a private attorney. SF-2000plead/Howard Jarvis/telephone message—GH 4/9/01 i i u fi �f. a,. 4-� / c �� F Ir* � �n i„ }„�' ,,, ,, �i .�� j � r�� .,,° �r Sri, rr�i iht a �, {`�� ' }� �E k�l, „Z�.�3" �. li �. �: r v f � 37' 3 i � 4 �� l h� i IV r �,�,�� : �i �� ,�� e�f. _ �_��, .,.z ,. �, >>:o I 9'a� �i a m , b sgawy. i; 1 f r S 3 �Ty b y i I A�. r � ,.