HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council approval of position on legislation as recommen Esparza, Patty
From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.comj
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:50 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification)
Request# 7876 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson.
Request type: Comment
Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item
Citizen name: Bob Watts
Description: Hello Council members, et.al.
In re Item 6. C), I'm against your opposition to Gov Browns proposal to stop state
funding for our public libraries. The city s/b able to pay for them or close the ones you
can't even if we only have Central Park Lib open..We should also close all parks not
solvent in HB.
And, Item 6. D), I'm against sending Con. Rohrbacher a letter in support of full funding
for Com Dev Block Grant FY 2011 He's just another wealthy, corrupt, Republican, BIG
business drill more off shore wells in HB, besides I don't like him because he is non-
responsive to local citizens who ask for help/
Respectfully submitted,
RD Watts, a SurfCity senior, Veteran& registered voter.
Expected Close Date: 04/12/2011
Click here to access the request
Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not
monitored and will be ignored.
1
SB 670 —4—
1 (2) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a property owner
2 is not liable for the tax imposed pursuant to this section with respect
3 to any government employee or officer described in clause(i),(ii),
4 or(iii)of subparagraph(A)of paragraph(1)for whom the property
5 owner retains a signed and dated copy of a standard form that
6 complies with the provisions of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
7 paragraph(1).
8 (f) The provisions of subdivision(e)are not intended to preclude
9 a city,county,or city and county from electing to exempt any other
10 class of persons from the tax imposed pursuant to this section.
11 (g) This section shall apply to all cities, including charter cities,
12 counties, or cities and counties.
O
99 .. ... . _._._.. - ..
H -75- Item 6. - 9
ATTACHMENT #2
Item 6. . 10 rs .,6
02/24/2011 17:05 FAX 9163192173 ASM HARKEY IM 002/005
z
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DIANE HARKED'
Dear State and Local Community leaders,
1 am writing to request your support for Assembly Bill 206,which will provide an
exemption for municipal firework shows from the California Environment Quality Act
and California Coastal Act.
In 2008,the Gualala Festivals Committee received a cease-and-desist order from the
California Coastal Commission for discharging fireworks without first receiving a coastal
development permit.The Coastal Commission determined fireworks caused an increase
in nest abandonment.
The California Coastal Commission's actions were affirmed by the California First
Appellate Court, Division Three. The Court found that"development"did encompass
the discharging of fireworks as described in the California Coastal Act because the
displays deposited spent materials into coastal waters.
The purpose of the California Coastal Act is to govern land use planning for the entire
coastal zone of California.To achieve this purpose,the Coastal Act provided the Coastal
Commission with expansive jurisdiction, It could have treated the fireworks show as
limited temporary development and had the authority to provide an exemption for the
need of a permit under that scenario by determining the show did not have any
significant adverse impact on coastal resources.
The precedent this case sets may allow the Coastal Commission to require a permit if it
determines there is sensitive habitat in the area and require a_permit of all cities that
wish to display fireworks. It would then be within the Commission's authority to deny
municipalities the ability to display fireworks or to impose conditions that make such
displays infeasible.
In addition, certain firew-rks shows such as those in San Diego and La Jolla have been
targeted by environmental law groups. These lawsuits have proved costly to the groups
running the shows,and in the case of San Diego's New Year's Eve show,have stopped
the annual event,
HB -7 - Item 6. - 11
02/24/2011 17:05 FAX 9163192173 ASM HARKEY 10003/005
In order for Californian's to celebrate the great independence of this country and
continue with traditions that previous generations have enjoyed, it is necessary that the
ability of public entities to put on Such firework displays is protected,
These shows are a cultural event that are enjoyed by many Californians and also provide
an economic benefit for the municipalities that display them. As a coastal community
this issue is especially significant to the constituents of your city. -
Environmental protection is important and as leaders we strive to display a strong
example of stewardship. However,annual fireworks shows provide a safe and
affordable form of entertainment for many families in California and the various
benefits they provide must be considered.
Thank you for your consideration,and please contact Andrew McElhinney in my office
at 916-3i9-2073 with any questions you may have,
Sincerely
Diane L. Harkey
Assemblywoman,73rd District
Item 6. - 12 1--11 -7 -
. ...... . ......... .. .
02/24/2011 17:05 FAX 9183192173 ASM HARKEY 1@ 004/005
Dear Assemblywomen Harkey,
On behalf of the(INSERT NAME OF YOUR ORGANIZATION) I am writing to express
support for Assembly Bill 206,which will provide an exemption for municipal firework
shows from the California Environment Quality Act and California Coastal Act.
In 2008,the Gualala Festivals Committee received cease-and-desist order from the .-
California Coastal Commission for discharging fireworks without first receiving a coastal
development permit.The Coastal Commission determined fireworks caused an increase
in nest abandonment.
This action was confirmed by a court,setting a dangerous precedent in which
"development"was deemed to encompass the discharging of fireworks as described in
the California Coastal Act because the displays deposited spent materials into coastal
waters.
Fireworks shows are an inexpensive way for families and the community to celebrate
the independence of this country. Previous generations in California have enjoyed these
shows without burden of a government agency standing in the way of a long celebrated
tradition,
In addition,these shows provide an economic benefit for the municipalities that display
them. As a coastal community this issue is especially significant to the citizens of
(INSERT NAME OF YOUR CITY OR ORGANIZATION).
Environmental protection is important,but a line should be drawn to ensure the
preservation of long held traditions that provide enjoyment,foster patriotism and
stimulate our coastal economies.
(INSERT NAME OR ORGANIZATION)stands in support with AB 206 for the above
mentioned reasons.
Sincerely
(INSERT NAME)
(INSERT TITLE)
(CC ANDREW MCELHiNNEY)
1-I1 -79- Item 6. - 13
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 2-O
Deferred/Continued to:
Appr ved.,.❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied - City W erk s nature
Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2011 Department ID Number: FN 11-003
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Mayor Joe Carchio, Chair, on behalf of the Intergovernmental
Relations Committee Members, Council Members Devin Dwyer and
Mathew Harper
PREPARED BY: Paul Emery, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of City Council position on legislation, a regulation, or budget
issues pending before a Federal State, or Regional Government as
recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations
Committee (IRC)
Statement of Issue: Approval of City Council position on legislation, a regulation, or budget
issues pending before a Federal, State or Regional Government as recommended by the
City council Intergovernmental Relations Committee.
Financial Impact: Not Applicable
Recommended Action: Motion to:
A) Oppose SB 670 (Calderon) - Amendment to Section 7280 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, relating to occupancy taxes; and, 9 -O
B) Support AB 206 (Harkey) - an exemption for municipal fireworks shows from the
California Environmental Act and the California Coastal Act; and, % - 2- (sue; ,a019 4-",w 1%)01
C) Adopt Resolution No. 2011-20, A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach in opposition
to the Governor's proposal to eliminate state funding for public libraries and literacy services
in California; and, ? - D
D) Authorize sending a letter to Congressman Rohrabacher in support of full funding for the
Community Development Block Grant program for FY 2011. -p
Alternative Action(s)-
Do not take action on the above bill or take an alternative City Council position.
HB - 7- Item 6. - 1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 3/21/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: FN 11-003
Analysis:
SB 670 (Calderon) — Oppose - On February 18, 2011, a bill was introduced to the Senate
that, if approved, would revise the authorization the legislative body of a city or county
currently has "to impose an excise tax for the privilege of occupying a room or other living
space in a hotel, inn, tourist home, motel, or other lodging" to "levy a tax on the rent paid for
the privilege of occupying a room or rooms...".
The proposed bill alters the definition of the term "rent' to mean "the amount paid to the
operator of a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging as a condition of
occupancy, and does not include amounts paid to the operator which are not mandatory
charges for occupancy."
Sponsored by the online travel industry, this bill has been proposed before, but was defeated
in the 2010 legislative session. The threat to cities, including Huntington Beach, is twofold.
First, the vagueness of the definition of rent, could allow "rent" to be the lower (wholesale)
amount paid by an online travel company to the operator after collecting a higher (retail)
amount from an online customer. Several major online travel companies such as Expedia,
Travelocity, Orbitz, and Priceline have the ability to purchase hotel rooms at wholesale prices
through sale agreements and re-sell these rooms at retail price, to provide travel options at
comparable non-online market prices.
Second, it is unclear what exemptions would fall under the language of "not mandatory
charges for occupancy."As an example, separately stated amounts designated as gratuities
or service charges added to the price of a hotel room are not typically taxable. It is unclear if
this language would broaden the definition of un-taxable charges.
The City of Huntington Beach receives approximately $5.7 million in Transient Occupancy
Tax annually. Passage of this bill would significantly reduce this amount, as a recent study
conducted by J.D. Power and Associates states that about six in ten hotel guests in North
America booked online in 2010.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach join the League of California
Cities in strongly opposing Senate Bill No. 670. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee
recommended that the City oppose this legislation on a vote of 2-0-1 (Harper absent).
AB 206 (Harkey) — Support — Assemblywoman Diane Harkey (73rd District) has introduced
legislation that will provide an exemption for municipal firework shows from the California
Environmental Quality Act and California Coastal Act. In 2008, the California Coastal
Commission issued a cease and desist order to the Gualala Festivals Committee for
discharging fireworks without first receiving a coastal development permit. The California
First Appellate Court, Division Three, found that the discharging of fireworks did constitute
"development" because the displays deposited spent materials into coastal waters.
The effects of this ruling would require the City of Huntington Beach and the Fourth of July of
Board to apply to the Coastal Commission for a permit to display fireworks at the annual
Fourth of July event at the beach. It would then be within the Commission's authority to deny
municipalities the ability to display fireworks or to impose conditions that make such display
Item 6. - 2 H - -
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 3/21/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: FN 11-003
infeasible. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommended that the City support
this legislation on a vote of 2-0-1 (Harper absent).
Adopt a Resolution in Opposition to the Governor's Proposal to Eliminate State
Funding for Public Libraries and Literacy Services— The Governor's proposed budget
recommends the elimination of funding for public libraries and literacy programs, the cuts
amounting to $30.4 million statewide. The proposed cuts would also result in addition $16
million in lost Federal funds that were matched by State funds. The City of Huntington Beach
would recognize a loss of approximately $120,000 per year for Library funding.
The cuts proposed by the Governor represent 1/20th of 1% of the State general fund. The
Huntington Beach Library Literacy program has served over 6000 adult students over the
past 25 years. The loss in these State funds will further hinder the ability of the Huntington
Beach Library to carry out their mission in our community.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommended the adoption of a resolution in
opposition to the Governor's proposal to eliminate funding for public libraries and literacy
programs on a vote of 2-0-1 (Harper absent).
Authorize sending a letter to Congressman Rohrabacher in support of full funding of
the Community Development Block Grant Program for FY 2011 — As Congress works to
complete the FY 2011 appropriations legislation City staff is requesting that the City Council
authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Congressman Rohrabacher urging support of full
funding for the FY 2011 Community Development Block Grant.
Block grant funding has proved invaluable to the City in providing funding for after school
child care, anti-gang programs, infrastructure improvements, Americans with Disabilities Act
accessibility upgrades and funding for senior services and meals on wheels for seniors. Full
funding of the CDBG program will allow for the continuation of these essential activities in the
City of Huntington Beach.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommends authorization to send a letter in
support of full funding for the CDBG program on a vote of 2-0-1 (Harper absent).
Environmental Status: Not Applicable
Strategic Plan Goal: Maintain financial viability and our reserves
HB -6 - Item 6. - 3
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 3/21/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: FN 11-003
Attachment(s):
Description
1. SB 670 (Calderon) -Amendment to Section 7280 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to occupancy taxes.
2. AB 206 (Harkey) — Exemption for Municipal Fireworks Shows from the California
Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act
3. Resolution No. 2011-20, A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach in Opposition to the
Governor's Proposal to Eliminate State Funding for Public Libraries and Literacy Services in
California
4. Letter in Support of Full Funding for FY 2011 Community Development Block Grant
Item 6. - 4 HB -70-
ATTACHMENT # 1
Hs -71- Item s - 5
SENATE BILL No. 670
Introduced by Senator Calderon
February 18,2011
An act to amend Section 7280 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to taxation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 670,as introduced, Calderon. Occupancy taxes.
Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to
impose an excise tax for the privilege of occupying a room or other
living space in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other
lodging, as provided.
This bill would revise the authorization to provide that the tax is
imposed on the rent, as defined,paid for the privilege of occupying a
room or other living space in a hotel,inn,tourist home or house,motel,
or other lodging, and would include charter cities within the scope of
this authorization.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 7280 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
2 is amended to read:
3 7280. (a) (1) The legislative body of any city, county,or city
4 and county may levy a tax on the rent paid for the privilege of
5 occupying a room or rooms,or other living space, in a hotel, inn,
6 tourist home or house,motel,or other lodging unless the occupancy
7 is for a period of more than 30 days.The tax,when levied by the
99
Item 6. - 6 HEM -72-
SB 670 —2-
1 legislative body of a county, applies only to the unincorporated
2 areas of the county.
3 (2) For purposes of this section "rent"means the amount paid
4 to the operator of a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or
5 other lodging as a condition of occupancy, and does not include
6 amounts paid to the operator which are not mandatory charges
7 for occupancy.
8 (b) For purposes of this section, the term "the privilege of
9 occupying a room or rooms, or other living space, in a hotel,inn,
10 tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging" does not include
11 the right of an owner of a time-share estate in a room or rooms in
12 a time-share project, or the owner of a membership camping
13 contract in a camping site at a campground, or the guest of the
14 owner, to occupy the room, rooms, camping site, or other real
15 property in which the owner retains that interest.
16 For purposes of this subdivision:
17 (1) "Time-share estate" means a time-share estate, as defined
18 by paragraph (1) of subdivision (x) of Section 11212 of the
19 Business and Professions Code.
20 (2) "Membership camping contract" means a right or license
21 as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 1812.300 of the Civil
22 Code.
23 (3) "Guest of that owner" means a person who does either of
24 the following:
25 (A) Occupies real property accompanied by the owner of either
26 of the following:
27 (i) A time-share estate in that real property.
28 (ii) A camping site in a campground pursuant to a right or license
29 under a membership camping contract.
30 (B) Exercises that owner's right of occupancy without payment
31 of any compensation to the owner.
32 (C) "Guest of that owner" specifically includes a person
33 occupying a time-share unit or a camping site in a campground
34 pursuant to any form of exchange program.
35 (c) For purposes of this section, "other lodging" includes,but
36 is not limited to, a camping site or a space at a campground or
37 recreational vehicle park,but does not include any of the following:
38 (1) Any facilities operated by a local government entity.
39 (2) Any lodging excluded pursuant to subdivision(b).
99
H -73- Item 6. - 7
-3— SB 670
1 (3) Any campsite excluded from taxation pursuant to Section
2 7282.
3 (d) Subdivision(b)does not affect or apply to the authority of
4 any city,county,or city and county to collect a transient occupancy
5 tax from time-share projects that were in existence as of May 1,
6 1985,and which time-share projects were then subject to a transient
7 occupancy tax imposed by an ordinance duly enacted prior to May
8 1, 1985, pursuant to this section. Chapter 257 of the Statutes of
9 1985 may riot be construed to affect any litigation pending on or
10 prior to December 31, 1985.
11 (e) (1) (A) If the legislative body of a city, county,or city and
12 county elects to exempt from a tax imposed pursuant to this section
13 any of the following persons whose occupancy is for the official
14 business of their employers, the legislative body shall create a
15 standard form to claim this exemption and the officer or employee
16 claiming the exemption shall sign the form under penalty of
17 perjury:
18 (i) An employee or officer of a government outside the United
19 States.
20 (ii) An employee or officer of the United States government.
21 (iii) An employee or officer of the state government or of the
22 government of a political subdivision of the state.
23 (B) The standard form described in subparagraph (A) shall
24 contain a requirement that the employee or officer claiming the
25 exemption provide to the property owner one of the following,as
26 determined by the legislative body of the city,county,or city and
27 county imposing the tax, as conclusive evidence that his or her
28 occupancy is for the official business of his or her employer:
29 (i) Travel orders from his or her government employer.
30 (ii) A government warrant issued by his or her employer to pay
31 for the occupancy.
32 (iii) A government credit card issued by his or her employer to
33 pay for the occupancy.
34 (C) The standard form described in subparagraph (A) shall
35 contain a requirement that the officer or employee provide photo
36 identification,proof of his or her governmental employment as an
37 employee or officer as described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of
38 subparagraph (A), and proof, consistent with the provisions of
39 subparagraph (B), that his or her occupancy is for the official
40 business of his or her governmental employer.
99
Item 6. - 8 HB -74-
. . . ._........................................... ...... . . ._. ... _. ...............
02/24/2011 17:05 FAX 51631S2173 ASM HARKEY Z 005/005
(CC SHARON GONSALVES)
(CC RELEVANT COMMITTEE)
Item 6. - 14 H - 0-
ATTACHMENT #3
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN OPPOSITION TO
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE STATE FUNDING
FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND LITERACY SERVICES IN CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, as part of the 2011-12 budget proposal,the Governor has proposed
permanently abolishing California's funding for public libraries and literacy programs; and
This proposal will bring very little financial benefit to the State,with the cuts amounting
to a total of$30.4 million statewide--less than 1/20 of 1%of the State general fund; and
The proposal will result in the additional loss of approximately$16 million in Federal
funds awarded on a matching basis to California by the Library Services and Technology Act
(LSTA), portions of which come to Huntington Beach in the form of training provided by
programs funded through LSTA, as well as via competitive and non-competitive grant programs;
and
The Huntington Beach Public Library receives funds through all three of the affected
programs, including approximately$70,000 per year from the Public Library Fund; and
approximately$50,000 per year from the California Library Literacy Services
program; and
The elimination of the California Library Services Act places the entire concept of
universal borrowing, a foundation of equal access to information for Californians, at risk; and
The Huntington Beach Library Literacy Program, has served over 6000 adult students
with the help of over 5278 trained tutors over the past 25 years; and
The Huntington Beach Library Literacy Program's ability to continue its important work
would be seriously jeopardized by the implementation of the Governor's proposed cuts; and
Inter-library cooperation, as supported by the California Library Services Act, is not a
good candidate for local funding, due to the inter jurisdictional nature of the services provided,
NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
That the Huntington Beach City Council hereby formally opposes the Administration's
proposal to eliminate State funding for public libraries and literacy programs in California.
11-2828/60258 1
Resolution No. 2011-20
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Huntington Beach City Council hereby
authorizes its council and city staff to communicate its opposition to this proposal to the
Governor,the Legislature, business groups, and citizens.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 21 s t day of March, 2011.
r
REVIE &D APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Mdti;gnstrator City Attorney
INI IATED AND APPROVED:
Dire6lor of ervices
11-2828/60258 2
Res. No. 2011-20
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
i, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of
Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on March 21, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Shaw, Harper, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Dwyer, Boardman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CifJClerk and ex-officio Jerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
ATTACHMENT #4
* * DRAFT Letter in Support of Full Funding for CDBG
February 2011
The Honorable
U.S. House of Representatives
House Office Building
Washington,DC 20515
Dear Representative
As Congress works to complete work on its FY 2011 appropriations legislation I am writing on
behalf of the City of Huntington Beach to urge you to support full funding at$3.99 billion for
the Community Development Block Grant,and oppose efforts to reduce funding for the program
to FY 2008 levels.
CDBG provides much needed funding to support Huntington Beach's community and
economic development projects and initiatives,many of which are aimed at job creation and
efforts to support economic growth to lift us out of the current national economic downturn.
Such projects include:
Y Providing funding for after-school child care,medical services and anti-gang programs
for over 200 children and 200 adults.
• Funding street improvements,infrastructure improvements and ADA accessibility
upgrades.
• Providing 25 home improvement rehabilitation loans for low-income residents
• Providing funding for Fair Housing Services that helps hundreds of low-income
residents a year
• Provide funding for senior services and meals on wheels for seniors.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to working closely with you
to maintain maximum funding for this vital program for the remainder of the federal fiscal year.
Sincerely,
HB -8 - Item 6. - 19