Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tax Rates and Litigation Regarding Taxation - 1980-1990 - Re
y ' CITY OF HUNTINGTOI@ _ .CH Person to t,... .ct: Annabelle Richardi 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Phone No. (714) 536-5228 ex.t. Attn: City Clerk ^'� Lessee/Tenant 12 Month Total Rent (As of 03/01/87) Period Paid During Please Include Mailing Address Ending Period ALDER TREE SNACK SHOP 12/31/86 $ 4,787 Mr. & Mrs. Gene Bass1670 Maple Fountain Valley, Calif. 92708 AMERICAN GOLF 12/31/86 228,985 Mr. Robert Williams 1633 26th Street Los Angeles, Calif. 90049 BEACH HUT 12/31/86 13,148 Mr. be Mrs. Roy McClymonds 8262 Niland Way Garden Grove, Calif. 92644 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB 12/31/86 0 OF H UNTINGTON BEACH 19699 Education Lane Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 (Lease Attached) BRADBERRY, R. J. 12/31/86 4,200 1537 E. Adams Los Angeles, Calif. 90011. BREAKFAST IN THE PARK 12/31/86 23,184 Mr. & Mrs. John Gustafson P. O. Box 111 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 CATHOLIC COMMUNITY AGENCIES 12/31/86 2,400 1612 Spurgeon Santa Ana, Calif. 92705 CAPTAIN_'S GALLEY 12/31/86 7,570 Mrs. Ella Christensen 633 Hartford Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 -and- Mr. Roger Cowdrey 27621 Agrado Mission Viejo, Calif. 92691 DWIGHT'S 12/31/86 22,407 Mr. & Mrs. Jack Clapp 1210 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 91648 . 2987j/Pg. -I- _ Res. No. 6058 . STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 the 21'st day Of— August 19 89 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City C erK and ex-officiv Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California REQUEjT FOR CITY COUNC.iL AQT30,N Date June 5, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator.�% C Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrato Subject: Adoption of Annual Appropriation Limi APPROVED B CITY COU GIL csi 1989 �`"-+rm l ,�-6�C�, CiC.2� (.p �T�� Consistent with Council Policy? [A Yes [ ] Ne 1 ITY CLERK c) n Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachrfi6hts:' Statement of Issue: Article 13(b) of the California Constitution (the Gann Appropriation Limit) requires the City annually adopt an approprition limit of proceeds of taxes. Recommendation: Adopt a limit of $70,261,625 for fiscal year 1989/90. The City's estimated appropriations from proceeds for the year are $65,647,837 which is $4,613,788 below the limit. Analysis: In November of 1979, the California voters approved Article 13(b) of the California Constitution which allows the City's spending of proceeds of taxes to grow only by inflation and population increases from a base year 1978/79. The law is subject to much interpretation and local governments have computed their limits in a multitude of ways. Huntington Beach has been careful to apply the calculations consistently and reasonably. Below are certain definitions of terms used: Proceeds of Taxes - Revenues from taxes, regulatory licenses, user charges and user fees to the extent that the revenue exceeds the cost borne to collect the revenue. Appropriations Subject to Limit - Not all appropriations of the City are subject to the limit. Appropriations not included are appropriations of separate legal entities such as the Redevelopment Agency, Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority, Huntington Beach Public Facilities Corporation, Huntington Beach Civic Improvement Corporation and the Parking Authority of the . City of Huntington Beach. Other appropriations excluded are debt service appropriations, appropriations to comply with mandates of the court or Federal government, City loans to the Redevelopment Agency and appropriations of enterprise or internal service funds of the City. During the year the City instituted a refuse fee. In prior years this was financed by tax dollars. Section 3(b) of the law states that when the financial responsibility of providing services is switched from tax dollars to user fees, as was the case when the refuse was adopted, the City's appropriation limit should be reduced accordingly. We have, therefore, reduced the appropriation limit by $3,870,000 which represents the revenue to be received from the trash fee. NO 5/85 'EQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ac,vption of the Annual Appropriation Li-at - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The limit for 1989/90 is computed as follows: Limit 1988/89 $ 67,600,894 Times inflation factor supplied by State Department of Finance 1.0498 Times population factor supplied by State Department of Finance 1.0043 Equals limit before trash fee reduction 71,272,579 Less estimated revenue from trash fee (3,870,000) Plus additional costs due to County dump fee 2,000,000 Equals Appropriation Limit 1989 $ 70$261,725 It is estimated that the City's adopted 1989/90 budget is below the limit as is shown below: Total appropriations all governmental funds of City $ 125,788,764 Plus estimated carry forward of outstanding encumbrances 4,000,000 Less estimated cost allocation appropriations for Redevelopment Agency (2,100,000) Less appropriations for court mandates (4,473,000) Less appropriations for federal government mandates (225,000) Less non-proceeds of taxes (42,686,150) Less interest on non-proceeds (2,304,040) Less debt service appropriations (2,869,050) Less use of previous year's proceeds (9,483,637) Appropriations from Proceeds 65,647,837 Amount Under Limit 4,613,788 Staff will monitor the actual revenues and appropriations periodically during the year and notify Council of any major changes. Alternative Action: Adopt the limit with different interpretations. Attachments: RJF:skd 4586 j i �r RESOLUTION NO. 5945 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS AND HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOCIATES ACCESS TO SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 7056 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby resolves as follows : Section 1 . The following City officials are hereby authorized to receive and review sales and use tax transactions for the City of Huntington Beach from the Board of Equalization : Mayor City Administrator Finance Director Chief of Administrative Services Section 2 . The following independent contractor for the City of Huntington Beach is hereby also authorized to receive i and review sales and use tax transactions for the City of Huntington Beach : Hinderliter , de Llamas & Associates Robert Hinderliter , Principal Lloyd de Llamas, Principal Section 3 . The City of Huntington Beach hereby certifies that Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates : A . Has an existing contract with the City of Huntington Beach to receive sales and use tax records; and B . Is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales and use tax records only to an officer or employee of the City who is authorized by this resolution to examine the information; and 1 - 5945 C . Is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract; and D . Is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in , or derived from those sales tax records, after that contract has expired . Section 4 . Information obtained by examination of board of records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of local sales and use taxes by the board pursuant to the contract , and for Municipal Revenue Forecasting . Section 5 . This resolution supersedes all previous authorizations . Section 6 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and send forward a certified copy to the Board of Equalization. Ma or ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Deputy City Administrator be i 2 - 5945 r_ s. No, 5945 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, .CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 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 7th day of November 19 88 by the following vote: AYES : Councilmembers: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister S NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-officio erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California i 5945 Person to Contf Annabelle Richards Phone # (714) 536-5238 ext Lessee / Tenant 12 Month Total rent (as of 3/l/86) period paid. during Please include mailing address ending period PAY N PLAY RACQUETBALL 12/31/85 7,992 Mr. Charles Hohl 14731 Goldenwest Westminster; CA 92683 PIER REALTY 12/31/85 7,800 Ms Natalie Kotsch 220 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ROBINWOOD LITTLE LEAGUE 12/31/85 1,000 P. 0. Box 1384 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ' ROY, DENNIS Video/Games 12/31/85 4,789 1259 Kennymead Orange, CA 92669 SEAVIEW LITTLE LEAGUE 12/31/85 1 P. 0. Box 7200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 TACKLE BOX 12/31/85 12,113 Mrs. Ella Christensen and Joy Smith 633 Hartford Huntington Beach, CA 92648 WIND N SEA SURFBOARDS 12/31/85 81400 Mr. Guy P. Guzzardo 520 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, CA 92648 YMCA Begin Construction 5/8 6 ------- ------ 7262 Garfield Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ZACK'S 12/31/85 15,374 Mr. & Mrs. Cecil Wheat - 239 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ZACK'S, TOO 12/31/85 14,251 Mr. & Mrs. Cecil Wheat 239 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 926.48 Person to Contz Annabelle Richards Phone # (714) 536-5238 ext Lessee / Tenant 12 Month Total rent (as of 3/l/86) period paid during Please include mailing address ending period Vic's 12/31/85 21,609 P. 0. Box 488 Huntington Beach, California 92648 GREG BOSTON 12/31/85 900 412 Fullerton Avenue Newport Beach, California 92663 D. R. BROOKS 12/31/85 144 7291 Talbert Huntington Beach, California 92648 HAROLD BUTLER ENT. 12/31/85 1,200 P. 0. Box 3708/Lease Acctg. La Mirada, California 90637 H.B. E, LOYEES CREDIT UNION 12/31/85 2,160 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 HUNTINGTON HARBOR YACHT 12/31/85 9,437 3821 Warner Huntington Beach, California 92649 BERNARD L. MANTOR 10/1-12/31/85 675 19071 Huntington Huntington Beach, California 92648 HAROLD PUGH 01/1-09/30/85 1,800 19071 Huntington Huntington Beach, California. 92648 PUBLIC CABLE TV 07/1-12/31/85 600 18301 Gothard Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 REM PROPERTIES 12/31/85 200,000 HUntington Beach Inn Box 8680/660 Newport Center #105 Newport Beach, California 91658 SANDBLAST ^'F✓TAL 12/31/85 3,600 8671 Edison Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92648 SULLY MILLER 12/31/85 19,845 3000 E. South Street Box 5399 Long Beach, California 90805 Person to Contr ` Annabelle Richards 4 Phone # (714) 536-5238 ext Lessee / Tenant 12 Month Total rent (as of 3/l/86) period paid during Please include mailing address ending period WOODHALL GROWERS 9/1-12/31/85 2,000 15161 Van Buren Midway City, California TOWER ENTERPRISES 12/31/85 1,200 P. O. Box 656 Sunset Beach, California GREEN BURRITO -12/31/85 9,290 317 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, California 92649 DOUGLA.S IRVINE No Lease/Month to Month 10/1-12/31/85 1,650 7882 Alhambra Dr. Huntington Beach, California 92647 IRVIN T. J'EF'FERSON Start 3/l/86 No Lease/Month to Month ----- 7941 Cypress Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92647 BARBARA COLLINS Start 3/l/86 No Lease/Month to Month --- ---- 7941 Cypress Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92647 S CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 13, 1985 Orange County Assessor's Office P. 0. Box 149 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Real Property Department Enclosed is a copy of a lease agreement betweEn the City of Huntington Beach and Union Oil Company for a portion of city-owned property located at Warner Avenue, east of Pacific Coast Highway which was approved by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on August 8, 1985. If you have any questions, please call the Office of the City Clerk at 536-5227. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure �/3o�9d (Telephone:714-536-5227) t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 22, 1985 V. A. Heim Orange County Auditor P. 0. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Charles Kreuger The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 19, 1985, adopted Resolution No. 5554 fixing the Fiscal Year 1985-86 Tax Rate in the City of Huntington Beach. Enclosed are two certified copies of Resolution No. 5554 for your information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure CC: Robert Franz, Assistant City Administrator (Telephone: 714536-5227) 43 rt. REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 13, 1985 _. IN Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY GUU 4ev lSubmitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra o Prepared by: Dan T. Villella for Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administ LERK Subject: 1985/86 Tax Rate Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Zes Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: The City Charter states that the City Council shall levy a tax upon property prior to August 31, 1985. If this is not done by this date, the rate for the preceding fiscal year will automatically be adopted. Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution setting the tax rate for voter approved indebtedness at .05563 per hundred dollars of assessed value. Analysis: The City receives a pro rata portion of the one dollar basic property tax rate. In addition, the City is entitled to a tax levy for voter approved indebtedness. Last years rate was .05630 which is decreased for 1985/86 due to the 1970 Park Bond issue decreasing slightly as it does every year as assessed valuation increases. The levy for employee retirement indebtedness remains the same due to State Law which prohibits tax increases for this type of indebtedness. Funding Source: N/A Alternative Actions: 1. Adopt only the 1970 Park Bond Rate of .00633. 2. Take no action through August 31, 1985. 3. Select a different rate other than that proposed. 4. Direct staff to provide other rates before August 31, 1985. Attachments: Proposed resolution. 1562j PIO 4/84 RESOLUTION 5554 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1985/86 TAX RATE IN SAID CITY. WHEREAS, full cash value of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for fiscal year 1985-86 is $7,375,476,490; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the one dollar ($1.00) Basic Property Tax Rate levied by the County Board of Supervisors as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities; and WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation upon the taxable property within the City of Huntington Beach as revenue to pay a portion of the voter approved indebtedness for said city for the 1985/86 fiscal year is the sum of $4,102,998; and WHEREAS, the tax rate herein is levied pursuant to Section 93 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purpose of paying voter approved indebtedness of the City of Huntington Beach; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1985/86 be fixed at zero and .05563/100ths dollars ($.05563) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1. Employee Retirement $ .04930 2. 1970 Park G.O. Bond .00633 Total .05563 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of August, 1985. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �.�/Js%L�� ���, ��/mac-c.l✓�'�--= City Clerk 12 6 City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrato Chief of Adtninisti-9tive Servi-C, s 0140J -2- Resolution No. 5554 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of August , 19 85, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES: Council Members: None ABSENT: Council Members: Thomas (out of room) City Clerk and ex-officio Cle�ofthey ciI City of Huntington Beach, California 0142J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O. BOX 3334. ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92803 ALILOVICH Division Manager April 3,' 1985 Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dir Sir: The Southern California Gas Company is requesting authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission to refund certain amounts to its customers relating, primarily, to refunds received by the Gas Company from its interstate suppliers. The refund plan is similar to that used for the refund made in December 1984. The Gas Company expects to make the refund by credit to bills during June 1985. Should your City wish to consider refunding the Utility Users' Tax corresponding to this refund amount, the Gas Company is willing to assist your City by passing that tax refund on to eligible City residents, including it with the Gas Company refund during our regular billing operation in June 1985. However, we are prepared to assist in making utility users' tax refunds only if the amount of the tax refund is calculated and distributed uniformly and the Gas Company is expressly authorized by your City to offset the tax refunds through a credit against current utility users' tax collections. The refund calculations would be based upon the amount of the utility refund and your City's July 1983 Utility Users' Tax rate . If your City agrees to the above approach, please indicate agreement by having the appropriate City official sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided, attaching a Resolution to your City Council formally authorizing this agreement and returned to me by May 10. Sincerely, J. J. Alilovich Division Manager fmb Enclosure Southern California Gas Company is authorized to proceed with the tax refunds as outlined above and shall be allowed credits against current tax collections of all tax amounts so refunded. It is agreed that the City shall defend and indemnify the Gas Company as to any loss or lia- bility arising from any act or omission by Gas Company in implementing tax refunds on behalf of the City. City of By Position Date i i I i i 1W Page e 6 - Council Minuit- 1/16/84 it 3;. The County will provide an emergency crossing of the D01 Channel by 4/9/84. 3. The County will stipulate completion of the project by 6/30/84 in the specifications and contract documents by requiring double shifts of work. •J 4. ' The City will be given the completed construction plans and specifications for all work in sufficient time for review and the County is to agree to take no action until City approval is given on said plans and specifications. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: None RES NO 5348 - ADOPTED - MOU - H B MARINE SAFETY OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION The Clerk presented a communication from the Chief of Administrative Services transmitting Resolution No. 5348 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPLEMENTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MARINE SAFETY OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION." On motion by Pattinson, second MacAllister, Council adopted Resolution No. 5348 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: None SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY - 8671 EDISON AVENUE The City Administrator requested that Council meet in Executive Session to discuss the sale of surplus property located at 8671 Edison Avenue. The Executive Session was held later in the evening. INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE DISCUSSED Mayor Kelly suggested that the Industrial Committee be expanded to include consideration of the downtown area. Discussion was held regarding the purpose of the Industrial Committee and the industrial areas in the City. COUNCIL DECISION NOT TO SUPPORT RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO OCTD 15 YEAR PLAN Following discussion, a motion was made by Thomas, seconded by Bailey, that Council not support a resolution pertaining to the Orange County Transit District 15 Year Plan. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: cil ' Page 7 - Council Minu# 1/16/84 AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Kelly ABSENT: None ASCON LANDFILL COMMITTEE 7 '� Mayor Kelly submitted the names of the following people to serve on the Ascon Landfill Committee: Sheila Cook, Jim Fallon, Forrest Harrell, Charlotte or George Mason, Beverly Titus and Mike Tugwell. The names were approved by consensus of Council. Mayor Kelly stated that a Planning Commissioner and a staff person would also serve on the committee. MEADOWLARK GOLF COURSE - REFERRED TO STAFF Councilwoman Bailey and Councilman MacAllister stated their concern regarding the fence at Meadowlark Golf Course. It was suggested that the fence be made longer, higher and of a finer mesh. The City Administrator stated that he would look into the matter. 1v POSSIBLE ASCON LANDFILL VIOLATION - REFERRED TO STAFF Councilwoman Finley stated that she had been informed that illegal dumping was taking place at the Ascon Landfill and requested staff to look into the matter. She suggested that guidelines regarding the Ascon Landfill Committee be considered at the first meeting of the committee. ORDINANCE NO 2670 - ADOPTED - 35 MPH - LOS PATOS BTWN WARNER/BOLSA CHICA The Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2670 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 10. 12.030, ESTABLISHING A THIRTY-FIVE MILE AN HOUR PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON LOS PATOS DRIVE BETWEEN WARNER AVENUE AND BOLSA CHICA STREET." On motion by MacAllister, second Pattinson, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2670, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: None ORDINANCES ADOPTED On motion by MacAllister, second Pattinson, Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2672, 2673, 2674, 2675, 2676, and 2677, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: RESOLUTION NO. 5261 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CONDITIONING CITY'S SUPPORT TO SENATE BILL NO. 693, A COUNTYWIDE- SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES WHEREAS, Senate Bill 693 (Campbell) if passed, would authorize the Orange County- Transportation Commission to place a Countywide sales tax of up to 1 percent for transportation purposes on the ballot for voter consideration; and Recent experience has demonstrated that very little, if any, of the funds generated by an additional sales tax would benefit Huntington Beach; and The Orange County Transportation -Commission' s planning documents have repeatedly failed to cover transportation deficiencies which leave Huntington Beach isolated on the east by the Santa Ana River, on the west by the Naval Weapons Station, and do not provide an effective transportation link between the 405 Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, that the City supports SB 693 which would place the sales tax on the ballot for voter consideration because transportation funds are badly needed in our community; however, the City will not support the sales tax increase, if presented to the voters, unless it can be shown that Huntington Beach residents will benefit from the increase through adoption of a master plan for financing transportation measures within the County which includes items of high priority to Huntington Beach, such as: Extension of the 57 Freeway to the 405 Freeway, • Beach Boulevard fixed-rail system extended south to Edinger, Upgrading of the following arterial streets to six lanes: Adams, Warner, Edinger, Bolsa and Gothard-connection to Hoover Street, Construction of left-turn flyovers at: Beach Boulevard/Edinger Avenue ...Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue Beach Boulevard/Ellis Avenue Beach Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway Full signal coordination for the following arterials: Warner-Bolsa Chica to Main Street (Santa Ana) Bolsa-Bolsa Chica to Main Street (Santa Ana) Bolsa Chica-Warner Avenue to Imperial Highway Goldenwest-Pacific Coast Highway to Santa Ana Freeway Beach Boulevard-Pacific Coast Highway to Whittier Boulevard Brookhurst-Warner Avenue to La Palma Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City may support approval of the tax increase provided all localities are guaranteed that a significant portion of the funds generated within their corporate limits will be returned for use in the respective jurisdictions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at. a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May , 1983. ATTEST: Mayor • APPROVED AS TO FORM: tl,,01/_Zck City Clerk INITIATED AND APPROVED: .f �-- City Attorne City Administ ator No. 5261 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May 19 83 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Councilmen: None 40 ABSENT: Councilmen: _Pattincnn zo City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Page 7 - Council Minutes - 5/2/83 7 BUS LAYOVER ZONE & BEACH ACCESS ON PCH BTWN LAKE & HUNTINGTON - CC-577 The City Clerk presented a communication from the Public Works Director regarding a bus layover zone and beach access on Pacific Coast Highway between Lake and Huntington Streets. Following discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Bailey, to deny the request to approve plans and specifications for the bus layover zone and beach accessways improvements along Pacific Coast Highway between Lake Street and Huntington Street and to authorize staff to solicit bids for construction, and to approve Negative Declaration 83-7. The motion to deny failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Mandic, Bailey NOES: Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley ABSENT: Pattinson A motion was made by Kelly seconded by Thomas, to approve plans and specifications for the bus layover zone and beach accessways improvements along Pacific Coast Highway between Lake Street and Huntington Street and to authorize staff to solicit bids for construction, and to approve Negative Declaration 83-7. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley NOES: Bailey, Mandic ABSENT: Pattinson COUNTY WIDE SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES/RES NO 5261 - ADOPTED - (RCA The City Administrator informed Council that they had been provided with a copy of Resolution No. 5261, as amended - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CONDITIONING CITY'S SUPPORT TO SENATE BILL NO. 693, A COUNTYWIDE SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES." On motion by Kelly, second Thomas, Council adopted Resolution No. 5261 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: . Pattinson : y BUDGET - STUDY SESSION SCHEDULED 5/16/83 - PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED 6/6/83 Following discussion, a Study Session to consider the FY 1983/84 Budget was scheduled for May 16, 1983 at 6:00 P.M. A public hearing on the FY 1983/84 Budget was scheduled for June 6, 1983. CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - APPROVED - ROBERT FRANZ On motion by Mandic, second Kelly, Council ratified the City Administrator' s selection of Robert Franz as Chief of Administrative Services by unanimous vote. y - A; ' REQUES i' FOFCITY COUNCIL ACTION RCA 83-2 Date April 21, 1983 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members pVED sY ciTY coNN gM Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator �:�� � S 19U Prepared by: Jeri Chenelle, Administrative Assistant LLRK Subject: COUNTY-WIDE SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PUR Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative ctio ments: Statement of Issue: SB 693, a bill currently in the State Legislature, would authorize the Orange County Transportation Commission to place a County-wide sales tax of up to one percent for transportation purposes on the ballot for voter consideration. Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution-which ' oses SB 693 u ess a master plan for financing transportation measures within he County includes certain benefits to Huntington Beach. Analysis: Recent experience has demonstrated that very little, if any, of the funds generated by an additional sales tax would benefit Huntington Beach. There- fore, the resolution requests a commitment to the following improvements: Extension of the 57 Freeway to the 405 Freeway; Beach Boulevard fixed-rail system extended south to Edinger; Upgrading of the following arterial streets to six lanes: Adams, Warner, Edinger, Bolsa and Gothard-connection to Hoover Street; Construction of left-turn flyovers at; Beach Boulevard/Edinger Avenue Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue Beach Boulevard/Ellis Avenue Beach Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway. Full signal coordination for the following arterials : Warner,-Bolsa Chica tQ Mai4 Street (Santa Ana) Bolsa-Bolsa Chica to Maih *Street (Santa Ana)' Bolsa Chica-Warner Avenue to Imperial Highway Goldenwest-Pacific Coast Highway to Santa Ana Freeway Beach Boulevard-Pacific Coast Highway to Whittier Boulevard Brookhurst-Warner Avenue to La Palma Avenue I PIO 4/81 ti RCA #83-2 -2- April 21, 1983 The resolution gives another option in that it states we may approve the tax increase proposal if all localities are guaranteed at least 75% of the funds generated within their corporate limits will be returned for use in the respective jurisdictions. This would give us control over the designation of projects and ensure that a portion of the tax generated in Huntington Beach would be spent in Huntington Beach. Alternatives : 1. Oppose the bill entirely. 2. Support the tax increase and attempt to convince the OCTC at a later date to include Huntington Beach projects in the expenditure of funds. 3. Take no position. Funding Source: None necessary. CWT/JC I Page #7 - Council *''nutes - 1/24/83 f SPORTS. FIELDS - HCP, - REPORT REQUESTED Councilman MacAllister requested a progress report on construction of sports fields in Huntington Central Park. PCTA st Councilman MacAllister stated that a financial report regarding the Public Cable Television Authority would be forthcoming in the near future. "a ROLE OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Councilwoman Finley stated that she, together with Jeri Chenelle, Administrative Assistant, would study the role of Boards and Com- missions and bring back recommendations to Council. OC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - CITY POSITION PAPER TO BE PREPARED Councilman Kelly referred to a letter dated December 27 , 1982 from the City Administrator to the Mayor regarding the Orange County Transportation Commission and a recent letter from the Commission pertaining to legislation regarding a tax measure for the Orange County Transportation Programs. He stated his concern that our area of the county was not adequately considered in county plans . A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by MacAllister, to direct the City Administrator to consider the creation of a position paper as to the costs to be incurred in supporting this tax concept to include this area of the county in the county plans; including consideration of the influx of visitors to the beach in the summer months that use the City' s transportation corridors, as well as, the need for Bolsa Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Warner Avenue and Adams Avenue be slated for major upgrading. The motion carried unanimously. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE - WASHINGTON DC - PATTINSON/ THOMAS TO ATTEND Councilman Pattinson expressed his desire to attend the National League of Cities . Conference in Washington, D. C. March 6, 7 and 8, 1983 . A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Coun- cilman Pattinson' s attendance at the National League of Cities Con- ference in Washington, D. C. March 6, 7 and 8, 1983 . The motion carried by the following roll call vote : AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister, Mandic, Finley, Bailey, Kelly NOES : None - ABSENT: None Councilman Thomas expressed a desire to attend the National League of Cities Conference. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Councilman Thomas' attendance at the National League of Cities Con- ference in Washington, D. C. March 6, 7 and 8, 1983 . The motion carried by the following roll call vote : REQUEP FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 17, 1984 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato `y Y� Prepared b Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Service P Subject: 1984/85 Tax Rate Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative i6ns, Attachments: Q STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City Charter states that the City.Council shall levy a tax upon property prior to August 31st. If this is not done by this date, the rate for the preceding fiscal year will automatically be adopted. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution setting the tax rate for voter approved indebtedness at .05630 per hundred dollars of assessed value. ANALYSIS: The City receives a pro rata portion of the one dollar basic property tax rate. In addition, the City is entitled to a tax levy for voter approved indebtedness. FUNDING SOURCE: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt only the 1970 Park Bond Rate of .00700. 2. Take no action through August 31, 1984. 3. Select a different rate other than those proposed. 3. Direct staff to provide other rates before August 31, 1984. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed resolution. CWT:RJF:WL:sd 0139J NO 4/81 RESOLUTION 5433 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON - BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1984/85 TAX RATE IN SAID CITY. WHEREAS, full cash value of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for fiscal year 1984-85 is $6,725,806,949; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rate portion of the one dollar ($1.00) Basic Property Tax Rate levied by the County Board of Supervisors as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities; and WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to .be raised by taxation upon the taxable property within the City of Huntington Beach as revenue to pay a portion of the voter approved indebtedness for said city for the 1984/85 fiscal year 1s the sum of $3,786,629; and WHEREAS, the tax rate herein is levied pursuant to Section 93 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purpose of paying voter approved indebtedness of the City of Huntington Beach; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1984/85 be fixed at zero and .05630/100ths dollars ($.05630) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1. Employee Retirement $ .04930 2. 19.70 Park G.O. Bond .00700 Total .05630 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular adjourned meeting held on the 20th day of August, 1984. t �4toy;ey� Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Chief o4Adinistrative Serv' as 0140J -2- Resolution No. 5433 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-off icio 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a-regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of August , 19_a, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: P_attinson, MacAllister. Thomas. Finl y. Railpy. Mandir Ana NOES: Council Members: None ABSENT: Council Members: Kelly J --7 City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 0142J t REQUEW FOR CITY COUNC., ACTION Date April 2 , 1984 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Cam-ncil Submitted by: Charles 11. Thompson, City Administrat ` VED BY CITY CpUNCIL Prepared by: . ail Hutton, City Attorney �,_._.._- (4 ,4(0 � Subject: Sav-on Drugs , et al. v. County of Oran e, et a CITY CLE Orange County Superior Case No. 42-33- Resolution No. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT: Sav-on Drugs, Inc. has brought suit against the county, the City of Huntington Beach and other cities in the county for property taxes col- lected during fiscal year 1981-1982 . California Revenue and Taxation Code section 5149 provides that, upon application to the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel may be directed to undertake the defense of any individual city. RECOMMENDATION• Adopt the attached resolution and direct the City Clerk to forward copy to the Office of the County Counsel. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Attorney will defend this lawsuit. GH:WSA:ahb Attachment CzC.0.z� PIO 4/81 OFFICES OF ADRIAN KUVPER COUNTY COUNSEL; T H E C O U N T Y C O U N S E L CHIEF S J.McCOURT CHIEF ASSISTANT • ARTHUR C.WAHLSTEDT,JR COUNTY OF ORANGE JOHN W.ANDERSON _ ASSISTANTS ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION LAURENCE M.WATSON Writer's Direct Dial Number VICTOR T. BELLERUE 10CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P.O. BOX 1379 JOHN R.GRISET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-1379 714/834-3300 CHARLES B.SEVIER 934-5133 EDWARD N. DURAN March 26 , 1984 1 RYNE C. BLACK RICHARD O.OVIEDO 1� O. M.MOORE JULEE ROBINSON ` BENJAMIN P.DE MAYO lv� Q\/A_ R. DONALD McINTYRE p - HOWARDSERBIN M.TONI PERRY �/J�J)✓'�J- DANIELJ. DIDIER 1 GENE AXELROD ROBERT L.AUSTIN DONALD H. RUBIN DAVID R.CHAFFEE _ BARBARA H. EVANS CAROL D. BROWN BARBARA L.STOCKER Gail Hutton JAMES F.MEADE STEFEN H.WEISS City Attorney - MARY E.BUCHANAN TROM City of Huntington Beach SUSAN DEPUTIES 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Sav-On Drugs , Inc. et al . v. County of Orange, et al. ; Case No. 42-33-48 , Orange County Superior Court Dear Ms. Hutton: Receipt is acknowledged of your recent correspondence requesting the County of Orange to represent your client in the above-entitled case. Prior to such representation, we require a resolution, or minlltP �rr1Pr or ether formal authorization from the City Council requesting and authorizing the County of Orange to represent the -City in this matter. We will file a response to the complaint on behalf of all parties which we are .authorized to represent on or before May l,, 1984. Please direct all responses to the attention of the undersigned: Very truly yours, ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL By r)v. Ric D. Oviedo, Deputy RDO _dsh yy ''�. ;is`• ���113 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 17, 1984 The. County Counsel County of Orange 10 Civic Center Plaza P. 0. Box 1379 Santa Ana, CA 92702-1379 Attn: Richard D. Oviedo, Deputy The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held April 16, 1984, adopted Resolution No. 5368 request- ing the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of Sav-On Drugs, et al . v County of Orange, et al . , Orange County. Superior Court Case No. 42-33-48. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution for your records. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure CC: Gail Hutton, City Attorney (Telephone:714-536-5227) 106 s2� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION RH 84 -2 Date 6, 1984 CITYCpL�. Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members c_ Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat Prepared by: Special Projects Offi c clry c ;' Rtt Subject: ADOPTION OF UNIFORM PO CIES AND PROCEDURES FOR TAX EXEMPT FINANCINGS Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: As the City moves forward with the implementation of the Community & Neighborhood Enhancement Program and Redevelopment Project Areas, it is possible that developer interest in tax exempt financing for new projects will be increased. Further, this important tool in implementing both the Neighborhood Enhancement and Redevelopment Programs may offer significant inducement to expedite the implementation of City/Agency sponsored projects , which will be the key to the success of these efforts. Therefore, it appears timely to adopt a uniform set of policies and procedures for the conduct of these financings. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the City of Huntington Beach Tax Exempt Financing Policies and Procedures, including developer submission requirements and developer participation criteria. ANALYSIS: The City and Redevelopment Agency have been successful in the last year in providing tax exempt financing for one new multi-family housing project (Huntington Breakers) and for a mortgage pool to finance single-family- homes for first-time buyers (Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Issue of 1983) . While the staff of this program is now concentrating on the preparation of such a financing for the Terry Park Senior Housing Project, since the thrust of the Neighborhood Enhancement & Redevelopment programs is shifting from a planning phase to implementation, provision of tax exempt financing for a new development will become increasingly important. In addition, staff re- ceives regular inquiries from developers on the possible structure of tax exempt financings for projects which they may propose and additional information on the City's policies and/or requirements for participation. in such a financing. To assure that the City and Agency is prepared to move forward as quickly as possible with the pro- vision of tax exempt financing as may be appropriate for future projects, and to accommodate an anticipated increase level of developer interest in such a program, the attached policies and procedures are presented for the Council 's consideration at this time. These policies establish the City's financing team, locations within which non-resi- dential projects will be considered, increase the City's issuance fee for such financing from 4 of 1% to 2 of 1%, and outline for developers the nature and extent pin A/R1 r, RH84 - 2 January 16, 1984 Page Two of information which might be submitted before such financing can be pursued. The policies also provide a brief outline of the usual course of such financing. The policies also propose that an application fee be received from developers in the amount of $500 (this fee is proposed to cover the cost of staff time devoted to the analysis of developer proposals which do not result in an actual financing) . Lastly, the developer participation criteria establish those type of projects which will receive priority consideration. These criteria are based on the goals and objectives of Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program and will make it clear to developers interested in participating in tax exempt financing the con- ditions under which the City will consider provision of such financing. FUNDING SOURCE: Should not have any budgetary impact, costs of issuing tax exempt securities are paid through proceeds. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not approve the attached Policies and Procedures and instruct staff to continue analyzing proposed tax exempt financings on a case-by-case basis. 2. Refer the Policies and Procedures back to staff for amendment. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Huntington Beach Tax Exempt Financing Policies and Procedures , October 5, 1983. CWT:SVK:lp CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TAX EXEMPT FINANCING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES October 5, 1983 A. POLICIES Under the authority granted by Federal and State statute, and the City's Charter, the City and/or the Redevelopment Agency may provide tax exempt financing for: single-family housing, multi-family housing, office build- ings, commercial facilities, industrial facilities (including new or ac- quisition and rehabilitation/expansion) . 1 . Financing Team The City currently has under contract a team of professionals to con- duct tax exempt financings: Scott Sollers, Vice President Stone & Youngberg One California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 981-1314 Andy Hall , Partner (housing issues) Charles F. Adams (industrial/commercial facilities) Jones, Hall , Hill , White Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1950 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 391-5780 Other participants may be used to conduct a financing if the developer assembles the complete team and receives approval from the City for the use of this team, or as staff determines that due to workload or special venture of a financing that other participants are advisable. 2. Location The City/Redevelopment Agency may provide tax exempt financing within "designated target areas" . These are as follows: For non-residential projects within the: Oakview Redevelopment Project Area Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area; .Redevelopment Survey Areas: Gothard Industrial Corridor Survey Area Beach Boulevard Commercial Corridor Survey Area Other areas as may be subsequently specified, or as may be endorsed on a case by case basis. For Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing These types of projects may be financed anywhere within the City (for multi-family housing projects, the Redevelopment Agency may require a first right on a portion of the units financed as replacement/relocation housing) . 3. Issuance Fee The City charges one-half of one percent of the total amount of any bond issue as an "issuance fee" to cover the City's administrative costs in the preparation and sale of the issue. This fee is in addi- tion to any loan origination or other fees or equity requirements which may be imposed by the lender. The City issuance fee may be paid from bond proceeds and is due and payable in full on the closing date of the issue. For single-family financings, developers will be required to post the one-half of one percent commitment fee in cash or letter of credit prior to the commencement of the transaction. B. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS The developer's responsible for identifying the lender that will partici- pate in the financing and should submit a "letter of commitment" from the lender (for single-family housing transactions, the commitment letter need cover only the construction fiancing; for all other projects, this commit- ment letter should state the lender's participation in both construction and take-out financing) . 1 . Developer Information a. the name of the project b. sponsor c. the organization of this entity (California corporation, general partnership, etc. ) d. identify and provide resume for all participants and/or officers of the corporation. e. summary of the firm's background, previous experience and finan- cial statement, if available. 2. Project Information a. location of the project including the address, parcel number and map b.' documentation of site control (copy of option, escrow instructions or letter of authorization from current owner) c. total dollar amount to be financed d. project budget including land, improvements, offsites, soft costs, etc. e. description of project including number of units, configuration, square footage f. project rent/lease rates or sales prices g. identification of entitlement requirements h. status of entitlement processing i . construction schedule C. PROCESS 1 . Receipt of developer submission 2. Teleconference or meeting with underwriter, bond counsel , Agency, developer and lender to discuss structure, costs, timing of issue, preparation of a schedule, and the identification of all parti- cipants' responsibilities. 3. City Council/Agency adoption of inducement resolution Note: Development entity should not take title to land nor open escrow nor execute option prior to the passage of this inducement resolution for any project except single-family housing, if the land acquisition is to be included as part of the financing. 4. Entitlement Processing The City/Agency prefers that all entitlement processing be com- plete and the project be approved by the City (except plan check) prior to the adoption of an inducement resolution, if possible. If this is not possible, developer should have applied for all discretionary City approvals and should have received a date upon which approval of the project will be submitted to the City Council or Planning Commission for consideration. 5. Structure Financing/Prepare Documents 6. Market Bonds 7. Close Escrow/Proceeds Available (City issuance fee due) T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL FINANCE PROGRAM Developer Submission Requirements Prior to selection as a participant in a tax exempt financing, all developers must submit the following information. 1. Acceptable Evidence of Site Control a) Title is shown by records of Orange County Assessor to be vested in the person or entity that is proposing to develop the property. b) If title is shown in records of the Orange County Assessor as vested in another person or entity - then a letter from vested owner stating availability of the site. c) Copy of option to purchase. d) Copy of executed lease for property. 2. Identification of .Developing Entity a) Identification of entity to develop project as limited or general partnership, joint venture, California corporation, or other, is required; b) Identification of principals or corporate officers and a background -resume for each is required. 3. Developer Experience a) A detailed resume of previous experience of the developing entity or its participants is required. This should include, but is not limited to, a listing of previous projects, the location, nature, size, number of units, cost and year built. The resume should also state whether the project is still owned and/or managed by the developing entity or any of its participants. b) If the developing firm is publicly held, an annual report must be pro- vided; if the firm is privately owned, a profit/loss statement for the last three years (including dollar volume of sales) must be provided. 4. Project Information The following must be submitted: a) Location of site - assessor' s parcel map required. b) Number of units, unit size, number of bedrooms, approximate rents/ sale prices, amenities to be provided. c) Preliminary pro-forma for project. d) Total principal amount of tax exempt financing to be requested. e) Development drawings of the project are required, including site plan, elevations, and typical unit plans of a nature suitable for submission to a bond rating agency. 5. Application Fee Each developer packet must be accompanied by a check in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to cover the cost of application proces- sing. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL FINANCE PROGRAM Developer Participation Criteria 1. Housing Project Priority will be given to those projects that provide one or more of the following: a) Housing units consistent with the needs identified in the City' s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan and the adopted Housing Assistance Plan. b) Twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the project's units as affordable; defined as: 1) For Sale Units : Sales prices affordable to households earning no more than 120 percent of the County' s median household income as established by the Orange County Information Housing Development Office. 2) Rental Units : Rents that do not exceed 30 percent of the monthly gross income of households earning no more than 80 percent of HUD' s published median income for the Santa Ana/Anaheim/Garden Grove SMSA. c) A relocation/replacement housing resource for displacees of the City' s Redevelopment Agency 2. Industrial/Commercial Projects Priority will be given to those projects that provide one or more of the following: a) Are developed by entities with headquarter offices in Huntington Beach; b) Provide expansion opportunities to existing industrial/commercial firms in Huntington Beach; c) Provide the opportunity to consolidate parcels or develop large parcels to facilitate office/industrial park environment. d) Projects that provide facilities or services not now available in Huntington Beach or that are currently available on only a limited or insufficient basis. t e) Commercial projects with high rate of taxable sales/square foot of development. f) Labor intensive industrial or commercial projects that generate a high number of new jobs/square foot of development. g) Sponsors of facilities that provide private transportation ser- vices for employees as alternative to private automobile use to and from place of employment (car pool , van pool ). h) Projects that will provide facilities or services of a regional , State- wide, or National basis (i .e. , regional headquarters). i ) Projects that will attract high rate of ancillary uses (i .e. , subcon- tractors, suppliers, etc. ) . /a 0 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date DacPmhPr 13, IQ Al Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator f� cti� Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Serv' Subject: Emergency Ordinance To Delete Sales Tax Exempti r Corgmerc Operators of Waterborne Vessels Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The State Board of Equalization has notified the City of the need to amen our local sales tax ordinance by deleting the exemption for operators of waterborne vessels for commercial purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Approve an emergency ordinance to delete the exemption for operators of waterborne vessels for commercial purposes. ANALYSIS: Our present sales and use tax ordinance, administered by the State Board of Equalization, has an exemption for commercial operators of waterborne vessels. This exemption was adopted in order to comply with State law. The exemption in the State law expires on January 1, 1984. As of that date our local ordinance will not comply with the law. Under our agreement with the State Board of Equalization to collect taxes, the City must maintain a local ordinance in compliance with the provisions in the State law. The City receives over $11 million a year from sales tax collections under this State law. This exemption for commercial operators of waterborne vessels is similar to the exemption for commercial airlines whereby operators of airlines (and commercial waterborne vessels) are exempted from paying sales tax on purchases of tangible personal property which is used or consumed in their operation as a common carrier of passengers or property. The City has no control over whether these exemptions are allowed or not. The City is involved only because our local ordinance must be in compliance with State law on such exemptions or else the State Board of Equalization is technically not permitted to collect our local portion of the sales tax. As indicated in the attached letters from the State, the need for this emergency a ordinance was created when the Governor vetoed legislation which would have extended for ten more years the current exemption for waterborne vessels. The Governor apparently preferred a two year extension and the Legislature will consider such a two year extension when they reconvene in January, 1984. In the meantime, however, all cities must amend their local ordinances to comply with the expiration of the current exemption on January 1, 1984. The ordinance that is recommended for Council approval also includes a provision which anticipates legislative reinstatement of the exemption into State law so that further City action will not be necessary if and when such reinstatement occurs. The State Board of Equalization has notified the City that the amended ordinance PIO 4/81 must be received by December 15, 1983. We advised them that the amended ordinance would be acted upon at the December 19, 1983 Council meeting, which will meet with their approval . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: None, other than to deny the emergency ordinance, which would result in a loss of City revenue. ATTACHMENTS: State Board of Equalization letters STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CONWAY H. COLLIS First Distrkt,la Angeles 1020 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA ERNEST J. DRONENBURG. JR. (P.O..BOX 1799, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95808) Second District,Son 04" Telephone (916) 445-3007' WTh`rd�°K«"»b RICHARD NEVINS Fourth District.Pasadena _ KENNETH CORY November 28 , 1983 Controller.Socram.r+a DOUGLAS D. BELL Executim Secretary CTTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .3014 DI`?SCTOR OF FINANCE 1 . 00 . 2000 MAIN ST. 4-56 P . O. BOX 711 HUNTINGTON .BEACH, CA 92648 Gentlemen: In our letter dated November 18 , 1983 , we informed you of the need to amend your Bradley-Burns Ordinance to : . delete the exemption .for operators of waterborne vessels.. Since .this .exemption will no longer be applicable on January 1 , 1984 , your present ordinance will not comply with the law and our agreement to collect . taxes will no longer be valid. Therefore , it is imperative that we receive the requested. four certified copies of the amendments to your Bradley-Burns Ordinance on or before December 15 , 1983 . If you anticipate some difficulty in getting the amended ordinances to this office by the above date , please call me at the number listed above as soon. as possible . Very trul s , K. H . Christensen Supervisor , Local Tax Unit 0532A , r.) L • rJ �J � irM 7 —J R (a) , e STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Firstg hK,i;A g:b; 1020 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA ERNEST J. DRONENBURG, JR. (P.O. BOX 1799, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95808) Second District,San Diego Telephone (916) 445-3007 "'TM;;dDis Kt,Ken+N+ad RICHARD NEVINS Fourth District,Pasadena November 18, 1983 KENNETH CORY Controller.Sacramento �J U uciAs D. BELL . - uKw Secrdary CTTY OF HUNTILNGTON 3EACH 3014 � 1 r ; DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 1 . 00 k'L Lel� 2000 NfAIN ST. 4—.56 g v0V 28 1983 ® 12 P . O. BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 ` � k: i�TRATIVE r 11 ;cririCrS DEPT. r>� To City Addressed: Chapter 5 of the Statutes of 1979 provided for the repeal of Sections 7202 and 7203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and the addition of new' Sections 7202 and 7203 operative January 1, 1984. The effect of, this is to delete from the required provisions of the county and city Bradley-Burns ordinances the exemptions for operators of waterborne vessels . AB 900 was introduced in the current legislative session to postpone the effective date of this change in the prior provisions of the Bradley-Burns ordinances to January 1, 1994 . This bill was passed by the Assembly and Senate but was vetoed by the. Governor . The Governor ' s veto message stated , in effect , that he would not object to a two-year extension . of these exemptions if a bill to that effect_ .were introduced into the Legislature in January of 1984 . Because the 1979 changes to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law remain operative it is imperative that all city and county ordinances be amended prior to January 1, 1984 . . There is a possibility that the waterborne vessel exemptions will be restored early in 1984 . Therefore , there must be a contingent amendment to those ordinances to provide for the watercraft exemption to be reinstated if the law is. again changed . Your city enacted a short form ordinance on Form BT-527A Rev. 1 (8-73) . Enclosed are . copies of proposed ordinances to amend 'the sections of your o.rd_inance relating to exemptions and exclusions that may be used. . Many cities have codified their Bradley-Burns sales and use tax ordinances . If your city has done so, the section numbers in the ordinance forms will have to be _changed to correspond to the sections in the city code . (a) -2- Please have the amendments made to your Bradley-Burns Ordinance and forward four .. certified copies on or before December 15, 1983 , to: State Board of Equalization P. O. Box 1799 Sacramento, CA 95808 Attn: Keith Christensen Local Tax Unit Sincerely, Douglas D. Bell Executive Secretary ORDINANCE. NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. IMPOSING A SALES .AND USE TAX TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The City. Council of the City of does . ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 13 of Ordinance No. .is amended to read: Section 13. EXCLUSIONS AND EXEMPTIONS . (a) The amount subject to tax shall .not include any sales or use tax imposed by the .State of -California upon a retailer or consumer .. (b) The storage , use., or other consumption of tangible personal property, the gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to tax under a sales and use tax ordinance enacted in accordance with . Part 1 . 5 -of Division 2 of the Revenue and . Taxation Code by any city and county, county, or city, in this state shall be exempt from the tax due under this ordinance. . (c) There are exempted from .the computation of the. amount of the sales tax .the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property to operators of aircraft to be used or. consumed principally outside the city in which the sale is made and directly. and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state , ' the United States,. or any foreign government. (d) In addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366 . 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code the storage , use , or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and ' exclusively in the use of . such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government is exempted from the use tax. Section 2. Section 13 of Ordinance No. as amended by Section 1 of this ordinance is amended to read: Section 13. EXCLUSIONS AND EXEMPTIONS. (a) The amount subject to tax shall not include any .sales or use tax imposed by the State of California. upon a retailer or consumer . (b) The storage , use, or other consumption of tangible personal property, the gross receipts from the -2 sale of which have been subject to tax under a sales and use tax ordinance enacted in accordance with Part 1. 5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code by any city and county, county, or city in this state shall be exempt from the tax due -.under this ordinance . (c) There are exempted from the computation of the amount of the sales tax the gross receipts f-rom the sale of tangible personal property to operators of waterborne vessels to be used or consumed principally outside the City ,in which the .sale is -made and directly and exclusively in the carriage of persons or property in such vessels for commercial purposes . (d) The storage , use , or other consumption of- tangible personal property purchased by operators of waterborne vessels and used or. consumed by such operators directly and 'exclusively in the carriage of persons or property of such vessels for commercial. purposes is exempted from the use tax. (e) There are exempted from the computation of the amount of the sales tax the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally. outside the city in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft : as common carriers .of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state , the. United States , or any foreign government. (f) In addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and. 6366 .1 of the Revenue and :Taxation Code the storage , use, or other consumption of tangible personal. property purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by - such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as _ common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States , or any foreign government is exempted from the use tax. - Section 3 . Section l shall be operative. January 1, 1984 . Section 4 . Section 2 shall be operative on the operative date of any act of the Legislature of, the . State of California which amends Section 7202 of the Revenue and Taxation Code or which repeals and reenacts Section 7202 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to provide an exemption from city sales and use taxes for operators of waterborne vessels in the same , or substantially the same, language as that existing in subdivisions (i) (7) and ( i) (8) of . Section 7202 as those subdivisions read on October 1, 1983. Section 5. This ordinance relates to 'taxes for the usual and current expenses of the City and shall take effect immediately. locuther" 1ransp ortctlon Company Southern Pacific Building . One Market Plaza San Francisco,California 94105 ARNOLD 1.WEBER SCNIOR GENERAL ATTORNHY S 28439 (415 941-1771 November 7, 1983 City Council . City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Southern Pacific Transportation Co. , et al. v. Board of Equalization, et al. #810433, San Francisco Superior Court Gentlemen: Our records do not show acknowledgment of service of process by you in the above case. Unless we receive something f::o:n. vou, or from the county if the county has been designated as your agent for service of process , showing that service is ac�knowled,ged, we will proceed with personal service. The costs of such service will, of course, be chargeable against you under Code of Civil Procedure section 415 . 30 (d) . The summons and complaint in this matter was mailed to you last August. Very truly yours , D i zI 1983 CITY OF HUN T INGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE i 7� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 14, 1983 County Counsel County of Orange 515 N. Sycamore Street - Room 405 Santa Ana, California The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at its regular adjourned meeting held Monday, October 10, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 5314 which requests the County to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of Southern Pacific Transpor- tation Company, et al , V. Board of Equalization of the State of California, et al , Case No. 810433. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 5314 for your information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cb enc. cc: City Attorney 1 Telephone: 714-536-5227) /4 /3 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION. Date 29 Septemb 83 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council GLK� 60 9 Submitted by: City .Administrator Charles Thompson ; - 0 Prepared by: City Attorney Gail Hutton c pl Subject: Resolution Asking County of Orange o Def. . y in Tax Suit Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: ,/ STATEMENT: Southern Pacific Transportation Company and other railroads have brought suit against the state Board of Equalization, the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach and other cities , counties , and revenue districts for rail transportation property taxes assessed and collected . California Revenue and Taxation Code section 5149 provides that , upon application to the Board of Supervisors , the County Counsel may be directed to undertake the defense of any individual city. RE_COMMEN_DATION: The attached resolution be adopted and the City Clerk di- rected to forward copy to the Office of the County Counsel . FUNDING SOURCE : Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Attorney will defend this lawsuit. GH:ahb Attachment PIO 4/81 RESOLUTION NO. 531<< A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO UNDERTAKE THE DEFENSE OF THE CITY IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. , CASE NO. 810433 WHEREAS, Southern Pacific Transportation Company and other railroad companies have brought suit against the Board of Equalization of the State of California, the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach, and other cities , counties and revenue districts for taxes collected on rail transportation property by the defendant counties on behalf of the defendant cities and other revenue districts; and Section 5149 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code provides that when such a suit is filed, a city may call upon the county to undertake the defense of the action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby requests the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of Southern Pacific Transportation Company, et al. v. Board of Equalization of the State of California, et al. , Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 810433 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a/ egular r meeting thereof held on the loth day of October 1983. ATTEST:6;�� Mayor City Clerk ahb 9/29/83 1. r" REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: /I City Administrator City AttorneyC� �- �3 soup 2. J Res. No. 531Ci r-- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE j ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the loth day of October , 19 83 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Thomas City Clerk acid ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I � 06 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date _August 17 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members COUNCIL Submitted to: Y Y BY CITY D Submitt�d by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat AYpgpVE 19F3, r Prepared by: Robert Franz, Chief of Administrative Servic sue`f~ / J CITY CL Subject: 1983-84 Tax Rate Re,5. "3�3 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue The City Charter states that the City Council shall levy a tax upon property prior to August 31st. If this is not done by this date, the rate for the preceding,fiscal year will automatically be adopted. Recommendation Adopt the attached resolution setting the tax rate for voter approved indebtedness at. $.05682 per hundred dollars of assessed value. Analysis The City receives a pro rata portion of the one dollar basic property tax rate. In addition, the City is entitled to a tax levy for voter approved indebtedness. The recommended tax rate will provide a portion of this indebtedness and comply with recent AB 377 (see attached). Funding Source N/A Alternative Actions 1. Adopt one of alternative: rates attached. 2. Take no action through August 31, 1983, thereby activating last year's rate. 3. Select a different rate other than those proposed. 4. Direct staff to provide other rates before August 31, 1983. Attachments 1. Tax rate:alternative schedule 2. Proposed resolution RF/DV:pj PIO Q81 CITY OF HUNTINGTOI .,CH Person to . . Act: Annabelle Richards 2000 Alain Street Huntington Beacir, Calif. 92648-- -Phone No. (714) 536-5228 ext. Attn: City Clerk Lessee/Tenant 12 Month Total Rent (As of 03/01/87) Period Paid During Please Include Mailing Address Ending Period END CAFE, THE 12/31/86 $ 72,039 Mr. John Gustafson P. U. Box III Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 FEEDBACK FOUNDATION 12/31/86 0 P. O. Box 3098 Santa Ana, California 92703 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK 12/31/86 4,200 P. O. Box 3666 Los Angeles, Calif. 90051 HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE 12/31/86 1 OFFICERS ASSOCIATION P. O. Box 896 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH 12/31/86 1 COMMUNITY CLINIC Ms. Martha Earlabaugh 322 Fifth Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK 12/31/86 22,149 EQUESTRIAN CENTER Willard & Mary Harris, Mr. Ed Milligan 18381 Goldenwest Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 JACK'S 12/31/86 19,386 Mr. & Mrs. Jack Clapp 1210 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 LEGAL AID SOCIETY 12/31/86 2,400 2700 N. Main Street Santa Ana, Calif. 92701 MAXWELL'S 12/31/86 311,391 WPL Industries Mr..Paul Wimmer 317 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Calif. 91648 2987j/Pg. -2- CITY OF HUNTINGTON 1. ..CH Person to t..,+. --_ct: Annabelle Richards - '2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Phone No. (714) 536-5228 ext. Attn: City Clerk Lessee/Tenant 12 Month Total Rent (As of 03/01/87) Period Paid During Please Include Mailing Address Ending Period NEPTUNE'S LOCKER 12/31/86 $ 31,918 Mrs. Ella Christensen do Ms. Joy Smith 633 Hartford Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 PAY N PLAY RACQUETBALL 12/31/86 8,994 Mr. Charles Hohl 14731 Goldenwest Westminster, Calif. 92683 PIER REALTY 12/31/86 7,200 Ms. Natalie Kotsch 220 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 ROBINWOOD LITTLE LEAGUE 12/31/86 1,000 P. O. Box 1384 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647 SEAVIEW LITTLE LEAGUE 12/31/86 1 P. O. Box 7200 Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626 TACKLE BOX 12/31/86 13,393 Mrs. Ella Christensen do Ms. Joy Smith 633 Hartford Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 VIC'S 12/31/86 17,238 Mr. be Mrs. Monte Nitzkowski P. O. Box 488 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 WIND N SEA SURFBOARDS 12/31/86 8,400 Mr. Guy P. Guzzardo 520 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 ZACK'S 12/31/86 16,085 Mr. be Mrs. Cecil Wheat 239 Lake Street - Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 2987j/Pg.-3- CITY OF HUNTINGTO*--CH Person to * ct: Annabelle Richards 2000 Alain Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Phone No. (714) 536-5228 ext. Attn: City Clerk Lessee/Tenant 12 Month Total Rent (As of 03/01/87) Period Paid During Please Include Mailing Address Ending . Period ZACK'S TOO 12/31/86 $ 13,984 Mr. Lac Mrs. Cecil Wheat 239 Lake Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 GREG BOSTON 12/31/86 900 412 Fullerton Avenue Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 HAROLD BUTLER ENT. 12/31/86 1,200 P. O. Box 3708/Lease Acctg. La Mirada, Calif. 90637 H.B. EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION 12/31/86 2,160 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 HUNTINGTON HARBOR YACHT 12/31/86 9,437 3821 Warner Huntington Beach, Calif. 92649 PUBLIC CABLE TV 12/31/86 1,200 18301 Gothard Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 RLM PROPERTIES 12/31/86 200,000 Huntington Beach Inn Box 8680/660 Newport Center #t 105 Newport Beach, Calif. 91658 SANDBLAST METAL 12/31/86 12,125 8671 Edison Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 SULLY MILLER 12/31/86 20,755 3000 E. South Street P. O. Box 5399 s Long Beach, Calif. 90805 WOODHALL GROWERS 12/31/86 6,150 15161 Van Buren Midway City, California.. .. .: - 2987j/Pg. -4- - CITY OF HUNTINGTO1 CH Person to _ ..ct: Annabelle Richards 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Phone No. (714) 536-5228 ext. Attn: City Clerk Lessee/Tenant 12 Month Total Rent (As of 03/01/87) Period Paid During Please Include Mailing Address Ending Period TOWER ENTERPRISES 12/31/86 $ 1,200 P. O. Box 656 Sunset Beach, Calif. GREEN BURRITO 12/31/86 9,922 317 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Calif. 92649 NELSON & SONS 12/31/86 4,302 1844 Goldenwest Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 2987j/Pg. -5- - - =:-IM s:; Page #3 - Council Minutes - V76 SE;AE'r 3SV3d !��6:s1lsf�ir? The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: I'i�•�.V t!J ,.. ' g AYES: Pattinson, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Wider NOES: Bartlett 3SV3d ABSENT: Coen 4 Wo0001 On motion by Pattinson, second Gibbs, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare cc' such an ordinance for the June 21, 1976 Council meeting. Motion carried. i`IM la- � ! y 3SV3d ti INCREASE IN TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 4 W(�0001 On motion by Pattinson, second Siebert, Council directed the City. Attorney to ry�kro of prepare an ordinance increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax to 6'/,. Motion carried. jM 9!c SE cn A motion was made by Gibbs, second Shenkman, that Council approve $5,000 for the 19 3SV3d ' Community Concert Banda nWnd00s Councilman Shenkman suggested that each Council person submit to staff by Friday, :IM)-W C= the items they would like placed for inclusion in the budget and which could be $ECn= discussed at the June 21, 1976 Council meeting. The motion was then withdrawn. n3SV3da ,t c �wne00f FUNDING FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT :,Ie" fir On motion by Shenkman, second Pattinson, Council directed that $200,000 from the j!;-.IM WJ C• Contingency Fund be designated for downtown redevelopment. The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: �``':�wne en 3SV3d 1#Ot AYES: Bartlett Pattinson Gibbs Siebert Shenkman Wieder V ! NOES: None ?11M 0 2 ABSENT: Coen +,3E PA� E ` i l;!N 3SV3d' ,l A motion was made by Pattinson, second Gibbs and carried unanimously to delete the ���q Wna00 following programs: ! �` I: ! ,, A ti.IM ri•�.( Refuse Contract ;+_`SE Nod �, !_ Appraiser Fees r`g 3SV3d? Civic Promotions (Dues S Memberships) ; W0N00 Man In Washington Program +:`�ti" Y Planning Department Temporary Salaries o cS Fire Department Dress Uniforms P JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION ; i_.M 3SV3d; wnu00 '; Mayor Wieder stated that a joint meeting would be held between the City Council and the Recreation and Parks Commission regarding park acquisition and development and 'i!`MC=II!€€ park maintenance costs. E m Ml 3SV3d' The City Administrator reported on park acquisition and suggested that staff be f�F. wnnDO directed to review the City's Master Plan of Parks. Discussion was then held regarding estimated income 7/1/76 to 6/30/77 and Proposed iE m Development Projects, 1976-77. �. ,>•+ 35V3d WOU06 G) _M rnG .. 1m 1 'y En i 3SVId eni,,.n®w.ni neBUrMAw+f.w ,I�--:•�••• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FOR N[A 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 7, 1989 Orange County Auditor P. 0. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92702-0567 Attn: Neil Gruber Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution 6058 setting the tax rate for 1989-90 for the City of Huntington Beach which was approved by the City Council on August 21 , 1989. Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:bt Enc. (Telephone:714-536-5227) REQUESAOR CITY COUNCIL- ACT _ ga3 Date August 9.1, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator Subject: 1989/90 Tax Rate APPROVED BY CITY COUN M' —:. ;F—- PJ—/ 19.19 Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Y s -- - G n Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue: The City Charter states that the City Council shall levy a tax upon property prior to ugust 31, 1989. If this is not done by this date, the rate for the preceding fiscal year will automatically be adopted. Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution setting the tax rate for voter approved in e e ness a . 5419 per hundred dollars of assessed value. Analysis:. The City receives a pro rata portion of the one dollar basic .property tax rate. In addition, the City is entitled to tax levy for voter approved indebtedness. Last years rate was .05470 which is decreased for 1988/89 due to the 1970 Park Bond issue decreasing slightly as it does every year as assessed valuation increases. The levy for employee retirement indebtedness remains the same. Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternative Actions: 1. Take no action through August 31, 1989. (Previous Year's rate would be assumed). 2. Select a different rate other than that proposed. 3. Direct staff to provide other rates before August 31, 1989. Attachments: Proposed Resolution. 0140J No 5/85 0140J RESOLUTION 6058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1989/90 TAX RATE IN SAID CITY. ;I WHEREAS, full cash value of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for fiscal year 1989/90 is $9,033,404,047; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the one dollar ($1.00) Basic Property Tax Rate levied by the County Board of Supervisors as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities; and WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation upon the taxable property within the City of Huntington Beach as revenue to pay a portion of the voter approved indebtedness for said city for the 1988/89 fiscal year is the sum of $4,895,202; and WHEREAS, the tax rate herein is levied pursuant to Section 93 of the Revenue and- Taxation Code for the purpose of paying voter approved indebtedness of the City of Huntington Beach; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1989/90 be fixed at zero and .05419/100ths dollars ($.05419) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1. Employee Retirement $ .04930 2. 1970 Park C.O. Bond .00489 Total .05419 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington )eaeach at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of August, 1989 Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FOR M: 6 City Clerk City tto REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IN D D ROVED: i.ty dministra or ie o �n nis ra ive e REQUER FOR CITY COUNCI� ACTION Date August 11, 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members or� Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrat . <APOVFD BY CITY COUNCILpPrepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator Q6 �- IS 19.11..F Subject: 1988/89 Tax Rate V CITY CLERK Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: The City Charter states that the City Council shall levy a tax upon property prior to August 31, 1988. If this is not done by this date, the rate for the preceding fiscal year will automatically be adopted. Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution setting the tax rate for voter approved indebtedness at .05470 per hundred dollars of assessed value. Analysis: The City receives a pro rata portion of the one dollar basic property tax rate. In addition, the City is entitled to tax levy for voter approved indebtedness. Last years rate was .05490 which is decreased for 1988/89 due to the 1970 Park Bond issue decreasing slightly as it does every year as assessed valuation increases. The levy for employee retirement indebtedness remains the same. Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternative Actions: 1. Take no action through August 31, 1988. (Previous Year's rate would be assumed). 2. Select a different rate other than that proposed. 3. Direct staff to provide other rates before August 3.1, 1988. Attachments: Proposed Resolution. I�/v 0140J Plo 5/85 REQUEb f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date June 8, 1988 Submitted to: HONORABLE MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: PAUL E. COOK, City Administrator Prepared by: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrat Subject: Adoption of Appropriation Limitation from Article 13(B) of t e California Constitution APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Consistent with Council Policy? [x] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 19-A- Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternativ ISSUE: Article 130 of the California Constitution requires that the City adopt an Appropriation Limit (the Gann Limit). The City's appropriations from proceeds of taxes cannot exceed the limit. We have computed the City's appropriation limit for fiscal year 1988/89 at $67,600,894. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the appropriation limit of $67,600,894 for fiscal year 1988/89 and appropriate all unappropriated fund balances to reserves. ANALYSIS: Article 13(B) was passed by the voters of California in November, 1979 and applies to all governmental units in California. Its intent was to limit real growth in governmental spending to population and cost-of-living increases. If a government collects more taxes than it can legally spend, the excess must be rebated to the citizens. In recent years Article 13 (B) has become more important because many governments are approaching or exceeding their appropriation limits. Last year the State of California rebated excess taxes. Below are definitions of certain technical terminology contained in Article 13(B): - Proceeds of Taxes - Tax revenues and proceeds from user fees and regulatory licenses to the extent that they exceed the costs to provide the service or collect the revenues. - Non-Proceeds of taxes - Revenues other than proceeds of taxes. - Base Year Appropriation Limit - Appropriations from proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year 1978-79. - Appropriations Subject to the Limit - All legally adopted budgeted appropriations less certain statutory exclusions including debt service appropriations, appropriations of separate legal entities (Redevelopment Agency, Public Facilities Corporation, etc), appropriations of enterprise and internal service funds (Water, Equipment Replacement, etc) and appropriations to comply with mandates of the court or Federal Government. - Appropriation Limit - The Base Year (1978-79) Appropriation Limit increased by cost-of-living and population factors. PIO 5185 I UEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTI( Adoption of Appropriation Limitation from Arc«ie 13(B) of the California Constitution Each year the State of California Department of Finance certifies the population of the City of Huntington Beach. As of January 1, 1988 the population was 187,740, a .44% increase over the prior year. The inflation index certified was 3.93%. The factor that the City can increase the prior year limit is 1.04386 (1.0044 x 1.0393). The appropriation limit for 1987/88 was $64,760,342. The 1988/89 limit is $67,600,894 ($64,760,342 x 1.04386). The initiative requires that the City's appropriations subject to the limit be less than the appropriation limit. Any excess must be rebated to the taxpayers. The City is in compliance with this part of the law since appropriations subject to the limit are $59,514,418, which is $8,086,476 less than the appropriation limit. The law also requires that the city's appropriations from proceeds equal or exceed proceeds of taxes. The attached resolution allows the City to comply with this provision of the law by appropriating all unappropriated fund balances into reserves. Governmental units in California have interpreted this law in many different ways. We have been careful to consistently apply the law to both our current year and base year calculations. Staff will monitor this limit closely during the year and will notify Council if the City approaches its limit. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a limit with a different interpretation of the law. Attachments 1. Computation of Appropriation Limit. 3806j T _)UEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTI" Adoptioi. _,. Appropriation Limitation from Ar___,.e 13(B) of the California Constitution GANN INITIATIVE CALCULATION OF APPROPRIATION LIMITS 1988/89 1986/87 ESTIMATED DESCRIPTION GEN FUND PROCEEDS NON-PROCEEDS INTEREST TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 18,124,000 4,316,000 0 22,440,000 OTHER LOCAL 30,625,000 1,123,000 0 31,748,000 TAXES LICENSES&PERMITS 2,238,644 1,057,456 0 3,296,100 FINES & 0 2,570,000 0 2,570,000 FORFEITURES USE OF M & P 1,749,361 2,047,639 820,000 4,617,000 FROM OTHER 8,354,000 397,000 0 8,751,000 AGENCIES CHARGES FOR CURR 1,276,000 2,021,200 0 3,297,200 SVC OTHER REVENUE 0 596,100 0 596,100 TRANSFERS 0 1,300,000 0 1,300,000 TOTAL GEN FUND 62,367,005 15,428,395 820,000 79,615,400 DESCRIPTION OTHER GOVT FUNDS PROCEEDS NON-PROCEEDS INTEREST TOTAL GAS TAX FUND 0 6,936,200 220,000 7,156,200 FEDERAL REVENUE SH 0 0 0 0 PARKING STRUCTURE 778,813 778,813 PA & D FUND 1,500,000 1,375,000 100,000 2,975,000 SEWER FUND 220,000 10,000 300,000 530,000 DRAINAGE FUND 0 650,000 200,000 850,000 CABLE TV FUND 200,000 0 8,500 208,500 DEBT SVC FUND 0 459,500 5,000 464,500 GRANTS FUND 0 1,268,297 0 1,268,297 REPAYMENTS OF 1,255,644 1,255,664 RDA LOANS HUD SUBSIDY FUND 0 211,255 93,409 304,664 CAPITAL PROJ. FUND 0 5,610,000 0 5,610,000 TOTAL OTH GOVT 3,175,664 16,520,252 1,705,722 21,401,638 FUNDS TOTAL ALL GOVT 65,542,669 31,948,647 2,525,722 100,017,038 FUNDS GUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTT. Adoption of Appropriation Limitation from Arctile 13(B) of the California Constitution TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS GOVT FUNDS GENERAL FUND 79,291,351 GAS TAX FUND 9,161,000 REVENUE SHARING 610,000 CAP PROJ 7,110,000 PUBLIC COMM FUND 219,215 PA & D FUND 2,325,950 SEWER 515,000 DRAINAGE 1,795,000 GARAGE CAP PROJ 5,150,000 DEBT SVC 474,000 GRANTS 1,495,297 TOTAL 108,156,813 LESS NON PROCEEDS 31,948,647 LESS REDEV AGCY COST 1,800,000 LESS W/C TRAN 1,886,000 LESS LIAB TRAN 2,801,000 LESS EST FLSA COSTS 100,000 LESS INT ON NON-PROC 827,698 LESS RDA-GAS TAX, DRAIN- 6,550,000 AGE, PKG STRUCTURE LESS HBPFC AND P.A. 569,050 LESS FICA COSTS 75,000 LESS HBCIC PMT 1,475,000 LESS REV SHG 610,000 APPROP FROM PROCEEDS 59,514,418 APPROPRIATION LIMIT 67,600,894 APPROP FROM PROCEEDS 59,514,418 SPENDING CAPACITY 8 086.476 i_11rrY _ I - WTso,✓ OFFICES OF � ADRIAN KUYPER THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY COUNSEL O M COUNTY O F ORANGE WILLIAM J. McCOURT CHIEF ASSISTANT O E�� 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ARTHUR C. WAHLSTEDT, JR. �11F0 G�4t' MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 1 LAURENCE M.WATSON :,. SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702-1371379 C�"C ,`' ASSISTANTS Writer's Direct Dial N&Mwo. 714/834-3300 714/ 8 3 %`=43 7\9 \�� -'-•` VICTOR T.BELLERUE DAVID BEALES JOHN R.GRISET TERRY C.ANDRUS !\ EDWARD N.DURAN CLAUDIA L.COWAN IRYNE C.BLACK JAMES L.TURNER July 8, 1988 RICHARD D.OVIEDO PETER L.COHON BENJAMIN P.DE MAYO NICHOLAS S.CHRISOS HOWARD SERBIN DAVID G.EPSTEIN DANIEL J.DIDIER THOMAS F.MORSE GENE AXELROD WANDA S.FLORENCE ROBERT L.AUSTIN HOPE E.SNYDER DONALD H.RUBIN THOMAS C.AGIN DAVID R.CHAFFEE SHERIE.A.CHRISTENSEN SEN TO: The Cityof Huntington Breach BARBARAL. TO SARAL.PAR ER g BARBARA L.STOCKER SARA L.PARKER JAMES F.MEADE ADRIENNE K.SAURO STEFEN H.WEISS KARYN J.DRIESSEN SUSAN STROM RE: Notice of Action To Recover Taxes DEPUTIES Levied on State-Assessed Property (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5148 ) Please take notice that on June 24 , 1988 , the County of Orange was advised by the State Board of Equalization that it has been served with a summons and complaint seeking refund of property taxes paid . A copy of the Notice received from the Board of Equalization, and any related attachments, is enclosed herewith, and incorporated herein by reference. This action seeks refund of property taxes, a portion of which was collected by the County of Orange on behalf of the City. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this notice, the City may intervene in this action. If any judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against the County, please take further notice that the County shall be entitled to recover separately from the City and other tax entities those taxes collected by the County on behalf of the City and other tax entities which are subject to refund to the Plaintiff as a result of the judgment. The County may, if it chooses to do so, offset the amount of the judgment and interest recoverable by it from the City and other tax entities against amounts held in the County treasury therefor, or against amounts due and payable thereto, including, but not limited to, property tax apportionments. Very .truly yours, ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL By David a ee, -epu DRC:rer Enclosures i z r r% sr STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WLt~DsmeBENNETT Fast 1020 N STREET, SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA C' L ' ' (P.O.BOX 942879.SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 94279-0001) r CONWAY M"COLLIS 916/4 4 5—4 3 8 0 - - Second D 5irK1.L°5 Angeles ERNEST J.DRONENSURG.JR- I Tnuc D�st-.c:.San D-e^,- 9 T - - PAUL CARPENTER Feuru.D:Slr.cl.Los Argeies l ' :3 Ga:,r DAVIS June 21 , 1988 U `°""a�.'a"a"re"'° CMpr RAM80 � Executive Setrerary JUN 7 8 �cta _ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors COUNTY COUNSEL S OFFICE of the County of Orange 10 Civic Center Plaza, 5th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Sir or Madam: RE : Complaint for Property Tax Refund; San Diego Pipeline Company v. State Board of Equalization, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C688463 — Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148, as added by Chapter 1262 , Statutes of 1987 (AB 2120 ) , you are hereby advised that your county has been named as a defendant in the above-referenced action to recover taxes levied on state- assessed property. Section 5148 requires that service of the summons and complaint in this type of property tax refund action be made only upon the Board and that the Board shall serve as agent of the defendant county or counties for the purpose of service of process only. The enclosed Summons and Complaint for Refund of Property Taxes were served on this' Board June 16 , 1988 . The county has 30 ' days after this date in which to file an appropriate response . i Your attention is directed to subdivision ( b) of section 51" which requires that a defendant county notify any city for which the county collected taxes of this action. The notice to f the city is required within 30 days after receipt of this advice. Questions and copies of responsive filings should be - - directed to Deputy Attorney General Philip Griffin at the office of the Attorney General of the State of California, 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 90010 o 213/736-2131 . SDPC S&C 2 June 21, 1988 Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by dating and signing the enclosed copy thereof and returning it to us in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope as soon as possible . Very truly yours, aafies J . Delaney Chief Counsel _ JJD/RRK : rz Enclosures cc: Phil Griffin, Deputy Attorney General- Kit Berman , CSAC . County : Signed • Dated : 1744H SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) FOR COURTWS ONLY �SO/QIARA USO OI3A CORM NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (Aviso a Acusado) - i BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA , �O _�. •✓ 7- -y ^' ` Cos A--e-ex-, Co� � r � G�° � J Cal✓N /' y c:> .i/ S -� is'e'✓^' ✓J YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: �J t (A Ud. le esta demandai7do) �-" JUN 2 g SAW DIEGO PIPELINE COi'-;PANY COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this sum- Despues de que le entreguen esta citation judicial usted mons is served on you to file a typewritten re- tiene un plazo de 30 DIAS CALENDARIOS para presentar sponse at this court. una respuesta escrita a maquina en esta torte. A letter or phone call will not protect you: your Una carta o una Ramada telefonica no le ofrecera typewritten response must be in proper legal protection; su-respuesta escrita a maquina tiene que form if you want the court to hear your case. cumplir con las formalidades legales apropiadas si usted If you do not file your response on time. you may quiere que la torte escuche su caso. lose the case. and your wages. money and pro- Si usted no presenla su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder perty may be taken without further warning from el cases y le pueden guitar su salariay su dblero y ottas cocas the court. de su propiedad sin aviso adicional poi parte de la torte. There are other legal requirements. You may Existen otros requisitos legales. Puede que usted quiera want to call an attorney right away. If you do not Ilamar a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un know an attorney.you may call an attorney refer- abogado, puede Ilamar a un servicio de referencia de ral service or a legal aid office(listed in the phone abogados o a una oFtcina de ayuda legal(vea el directorio book). telefdnico). CASE NUMBER: fNuwre'o del Caw, I The name and address of the court is: if/nombre y direction de la torte es) A •rl Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles 111 North Hill Street �I'1 U Los Angeles,-.- California 90012 Case o Judge GEERNAER The name. address. and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney. is: (El nombre. la direccion y-el numero de reWono del abogado del demandante. o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es) Richard D. Fybel, Esq. Morrison & Foerster 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor . Los Angeles , California 90071 ( 213 ) 626-3800 DATE: Frank S.Zolin. Clerk. by . Deputy ;Ft-Chit ;JUN ( 1988 +.Acrua.fo, t%�le�rado. ISEAL: NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served - 1. C as an individual defendant. i2. C as the person sued under the fictitious name of !specify): 3. on behalf of fspecify): Board of Equalization of the ' State of California under: i CCP 416.10 (corporation) Q CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 Idefunct corporation) C CCP 416.70 Iconservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) Q CCP 416.90 (individual) xx other:416 .50 4. Cj. ] by personal delivery on !dare): 1 76S616e•9.43 Form Aaoolea Dv Ru4 9e2 (Sao reverse for Proof o1 Service) 1uo.0af COuncd of Canfo,ros Cl IMMONS ccP 312 2: i .. ,�i t,os,.t :.� — `�O i it� • SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORIUTA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1� NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENTC68 QQ _ - f' f Case No. I You are hereby notified that this case has been assigned to the TRIAL COURT DELAY i REDUCTION PROJECT PURSUANT TO CrRDER OF Court dated October 15, 1987. 1. This case is assigned Case assign,ed��� r�'� for all purposes as followsto Judge GEER AEl 2. This case will be governed by special Project Rules published as CHAPTER 11 of the LOCAL RULES of this Court. 3. These rules will be strictly enforced and counsel will be expected to be familiar with them. 4. It shall be the duty of each plaintiff (and cross-complainant) to serve a copy of this notice with the complaint and (cross-complaint). The following critical provisions of the Project Rules are summarized for your assistance. APPLICATION The Project Rules are effective October 15. 1987. The Project Rules shall apply only to civil cases filed in or transferred to the Central District and assigned to a pilot project judge for all purposes. PRIORITY OVER OTHER RULES The Project Rules shall have priority over Local Rules and the California Rules of Court. All court policy statements and policy manuals will be applicable, if appropriate, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Project Rules or any orders made thereunder. CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JUDGE A challenge under Code of Civil Prodedure Section 170.6 must be made within 10 days after notice of assignment to a project judge. TIME STANDARDS Cases assigned to the Trial Court Delay Reduction Project will be subject to processing under the following time standards: Complaints All complaints shall be served within 60 days of filing and a proof of service shall be filed within 65 days of filing. E 333/1 Z-e7 • . •- O ,ram f' - LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT e.r �f1 PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL FILING FORM - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ' L 32 „ 1 . C3 case `+�• t ATTORNEY OF RECORD: CASE NUMBER ° Judge GEERNAER'r i NAME: Richard D. Fy bel 9 -•. C68 , FIRM. Morrison & Foefster ADDRESS:- 333 South Grand Ave. , 38th F1 . NEW FILING S I ,f CITY- Los Angeles STATE CA Zip 90071 t 7 p PHONE: 1213 , 626 _ 3800 IIiIIIIiIIIiIIIIIaIl�lli BSI FEE: S. -00 r FORMA PAUPERIS NO FEE CLASS ACTION? J Yes `f No Ci NATNL. GOVT. _ WAIVED: 6103 G.C.,6103.9 G.C. r-. I a WRONGFUL DEATH yes — No t ' 1 1 (MO 1 ❑ ❑ T ❑ l T ❑ ❑ � I I III, I I I�Iln I1� I I �IIi�Ila la I10 i.I I I I la I,II IIII IIII I I QIII IIII QII IIII I I IIII�I III A7100 A6011 A6040 A6132 A6141 ❑ M ❑ T( TE ❑ I ❑ ❑ A7210 A6012 A6030 A6122 A6160 I. II Illllln�� I �f Ila1 IIII ( (�II� I I IIII[<IIIII� I I I I IQI(�Ill�a A7220 A6020 A6000 A6121 A6110 A7221 A6151 A6153 A6130 A6100 WRITS fl nl�IIl 118 all l I l� 11111 la a� I I�I�B lla III I (II116 I ��I III A7200 A6152 A6150 A7300 2A WARNING: PHOTOCOPIES OF THIS FORM ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR FILING AND COULD RESULT IN REJECTION RETURN OF YOUR DOCUMENTS UNTIL AN ORIGINAL OF THIS FORM IS COMPLETED. su/ 2•s� .2 Eli 1 RICHARD D. FYBEL J U N 2 6 THOMAS H. STEELE 2 JOYCE B. HUGHES COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICES MORRISON & FOERSTER 3 333 South Grand Avenue f D ED38th Floor c' 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 a Telephone: (213) 626-3800 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 SAN DIEGO PIPELINE COMPANY 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF C 8 S A1jnW1ISA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGEL40JUdge DEL_ 10 JJ 11 SAN DIEGO PIPELINE COMPANY, C OfS 12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR TAX REFUND 13 V. - RECEIVED 14 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE State Soord of Equoiixction OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Socromento 15 COUNTY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF SAN JUN 161988 BERNARDINO, and COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Cindy Rernbo 16 Executive Dimeor Defendants . 17 lg Plaintiff San Diego Pipeline Company ( "SDPC" ) complains 19 of defendants, and each of them, as follows : 20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 21 (For Refund of Taxes for the Tax Year 1983-1984 22 by Plaintiff San Diego Pipeline Company Against 23 Defendants Board of Equalization of the 24 State of California, County of Los Angeles, 25 County of Orange, County of San Bernardino,- and 26 County of San Diego) 27 1 . SDPC is and at all times mentioned herein was a 28 corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the 1 1 State of California. Its principal place of business is located ` 2 at 888 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California. SDPC is 3 engaged in business as a common carrier of petroleum products in 4 California. 5 2 . The Board of Equalization of the State of 6 California (the "Board" ) is and at all times herein mentioned was 7 a political subdivision and agency of the State of California. 8 3 . The County of Los Angeles, the County of Orange, 9 the County of San Bernardino, and the County of San Diego 10 (collectively, the "Defendant Counties" ) are and at all times 11 herein mentioned were political subdivisions of the State of 18 -California. 13 4 . This action is brought pursuant to Article 2, 14 Chapter 5, Part 9, Division 1 of the California Revenue and 15' Taxation Code,- including Section 5148 thereof . 16 5 . By Notice of Unitary Value dated May 20, 1983 (the 17 " 1983 Notice of Unitary Value" ) , the Board notified SDPC that the 18 Board had determined the full value of SDPC' s property subject to 19 state assessment to be $13, 000,000 for the tax year July 1, 1983 20 through June 30, 1984 . 21 6 . On or about July 11, 1983, pursuant to Revenue and 22 Taxation Code Section 741, SDPC timely filed with the Board a 23 "Petition for Reassessment; Motion to Rescind Assessment as to 24 warehouse Type Tank Storage and Related Terminal Facilities" (the 25 " 1983 Petition" ) . 26 7 . Pursuant to the 1983 Petition, the Board conducted 27 hearings on November 30, 1983 and December 1 , 1983 . The Board 28 issued its Findings and Decision dated June 27 , 1984 (the " 1984 2 I 1 Findings and Decision" ) , affirming without change the assessed 2 value for SDPC's property in-- the amount shown in the 1983 Notice 3 of Unitary Value. 4 8 . on the basis of the 1984 Findings and Decision, 5 SDPC was notified by the Board that the full value of SDPC's 6 property had been allocated among the local tax rolls for the 7 Defendant Counties and cities therein. The Board allocated a 8 total value of $12, 990, 990 to the Defendant Counties as follows : 9 County and Cities Therein Allocated Value 10 County of Los Angeles $ 316, 680 11 County of Orange 4, 928, 720 12 County of San Bernardino 28,230 13 County of San Diego 7 ,726, 360 14 9 . SDPC timely paid taxes in the amount of $170, 585 . 50 15 to the Defendant Counties, of which amount $142,089 . 96 was paid 16 for property that had been assessed by the Board. The remaining 17 $28 , 495 . 54 was paid for locally-assessed property and is not at 18 issue in this Complaint. Payments were made to the Defendant 19 Counties in the following amounts: 20 Counties and Cities Therein Amount Paid 21 County of Los Angeles $ 1 , 960 . 97 22 1 , 927 . 55 23 County of Orange 32 , 103 . 64 24 32, 103 . 64 25 County of San Bernardino 393 . 40 26 County of San Diego 51, 048 . 15 27 51 , 048 . 15 28 3 t 1 10 . The assessment of SDPC's property at issue in this 2 Complaint was based upon an. determination that produced an 3 erroneously high value and therefore resulted in an erroneous and 4 illegal assessed value for SDPC' s property. ' As a matter of law, 5 the assessment by the Board used improper valuation methodology, 6 assessed property (i.e. , SDPC' s warehouse-type storage tanks and 7 related terminal facilities) in excess of the Board' s 8 jurisdiction as defined by Article XIII, Section 19 of the 9 California Constitution, and was made in violation of SDPC'S 10 rights of due process and equal protection under Article I, 11 Section 7 of the California Constitution, and Amendment XIV, 12 Section 1 of the United States Constitution. 13 11 . The correct full value of SDPC' s properly assessed" 14 property for the tax year 1983-1984 was no more than $3,338,000. 15 The correct full values of SDPC' s property allocated to the. 16 Defendant Counties and the proper taxes for said allocated 27 property are no more than the following amounts : 18 County and Cities Therein Property Value Taxes 19 County of Los Angeles $ 81, 314 $ 998 . 45 20 County of Orange 1, 265,545 14, 203.57 21 County of San Bernardino 7,249 101 . 01 22 County of San Diego 1 , 983, 893 21 , 181 .23 23 12. As a consequence of the illegal overvaluation of 24 SDPC's property and the illegal state assessment of SDPC's 25 warehouse-type storage tanks and related terminal facilities, - 26 SDPC has overpaid taxes to the Defendant Counties in at least the 27 following amounts : _ 28 4 Overpayment 1 County and Cities Therein 2 County of Los Angeles $ 2,890 .07 3 County of Orange 41, 112. 87 . 4 County of San Bernardino 292 .39 5 County of San Diego 61,310 .37 6 13 . Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5096 7 and 5097 , SDPC timely filed with the Board and each of the 8 Defendant Counties a separate "Claim for Refund of Unitary 9 Property Taxes ( for Taxable Year July 1, 1983 through June 30, 10 1984 ) " (the "1983 Claims" ) . 11 14 . The Counties of San Bernardino and San Diego have- . 12 notified SDPC of their rejection of the 1983 Claims by notices 13 dated January 18, 1988 and February 3, 1988 respectively. As of 14 the filing of this Complaint, SDPC has not received responses to 15 the remaining 1983 Claims . Six months having passed since the 16 filing of the 1983 Claims, SDPC hereby deems such remaining 1983 17 Claims as denied. SDPC therefore brings this cause of action 18 against the Board and the Defendant Counties pursuant to 19 Article 2, Chapter 5, Part 9 , Division 1 of the California 20 Revenue and Taxation Code, including Section 5148 thereof. 21 15 . SDPC has exhausted its administrative remedies and 22 fulfilled all procedural prerequisites to the bringing of this 23 cause of action. 24 16. No refund of the amounts set forth in Paragraph 12 25 hereof has been made by the Defendant Counties to SDPC. 26 17 . Based on the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 27 through 16 hereof, SDPC is entitled to a refund of taxes, plus 28 - 5 ` 1 interest thereon at the legal rate, from dates of payment, as 2 follows: 3 County and Cities Therein Amount 4 County of Los Angeles $ 2, 890.07 5 County of Orange 41,112 .87 6 County of San Bernardino 292 . 39 7 County of San Diego 61, 310 . 37 8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (For Refund of Taxes for the Tax Year 1984-1985 10 by Plaintiff San Diego Pipeline Company Against 11 Defendants Board of Equalization of the State of 12 California and County of San Diego) 13 18. SDPC realleges and incorporates herein by this 14 reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 4 15 hereof. 16 19 . By Notice of Unitary Value dated May 25, 1984 (the 17 "1984 Notice of Unitary Value" ) , the Board notified SDPC that the 18 Board had determined the full value of SDPC' s property subject to 19 state assessment to be $20,000,000 for the tax year July 1, 1984 20 through June 30, 1985 . 21 20. On or about July 16, 1984, pursuant to Revenue and 22 Taxation Code Section 741 , SDPC timely filed with the Board a 23 "Petition for Reassessment; Motion to Rescind Assessment as to 24 Warehouse Type Tank Storage, Related Terminal Facilities, Land 25 and Rights-of-Way" (the "1984 Petition" ) . 26 21 . Pursuant to the 1984 Petition, the Board conducted 27 a hearing on September 13, 1984 . The Board issued its Findings 28 and Decision dated May 8, 1985 (the "1985 Findings and 6 I Decision" ) , affirming without change the assessed value for 2 SDPC's property in the amourLt shown in the 1984 Notice of Unitary 3 Value. 4 22 . On the basis of the 1985 Findings and Decision, 5 SDPC was notified by the Board that the full value of SDPC's 6 property had been allocated among the local tax rolls for the 7 Defendant Counties and cities therein. The Board allocated a 8 total value of $20, 000, 140 to the Defendant Counties as follows: 9 County and Cities Therein Allocated Value 10 County of Los Angeles $ 415,790 11 County of Orange 6,999,770 12 County of San Bernardino 25, 610 13 County of San Diego 12,558,970 14 23 . SDPC timely paid taxes in the amount of $229,504. 24 15 to the Defendant Counties, of which amount $208,001. 19 was paid " i6 for property that had been assessed by the Board. The remaining 17 $21,503 . 05 was paid for locally-assessed property and is not at 18 issue in this Complaint. Payments were made to the Defendant 18 Counties in the following amounts : 20 Counties and Cities Therein Amount Paid 21 County of Los Angeles $ 2,460. 32 22 2 , 438 .23 23 County of Orange 41, 841.78 24 41, 841 .78 25 County of San Bernardino 352 .83 26 County of San Diego 70, 284. 65 27 70, 284 . 65 28 7 1 24 . The assessment of SDPC's property-at issue • in this 2 Complaint was based upon a determination that produced an 3 erroneously high value and therefore resulted in an erroneous and 4 illegal assessed value for SDPC's property. As a matter of law, 5 the assessment by the Board used improper methodology, assessed 6 property (i .e. , SDPC's lands, rights of way, and warehouse-type 7 storage tanks and related terminal facilities) in excess of the 8 Board' s jurisdiction as defined by Article XIII, Section 19 of 9 the California Constitution, and was made in violation of SDPC' s 10 rights of due process and equal protection under Article I, 11 Section 7 of the California Constitution, and Amendment XIV, 12 Section 1 of the United States Constitution. 13 25 . The correct full value of SDPC's properly assessed 14 property for the tax year 1984-1985 was no more than $4,504 , 000 . 15 The correct full values of SDPC's property allocated to the 16 Defendant Counties and the proper taxes for said allocated 17 property are no more than the following amounts : 18 Counties and Cities Therein ' Property Value Taxes 19 County of Los Angeles $ 93, 635 $ 1, 103 . 15 20 County of Orange 1,576,337 15, 646 . 89 21 County of San Bernardino 5,767 79 . 46 22 County of San Diego 2,828,260 30, 012 . 36 23 26. As a consequence of the illegal overvaluation of 24 SDPC ' s property and the illegal state assessment of SDPC's land, 25 rights of way, and warehouse-type storage tanks and related 26 terminal facilities, SDPC has overpaid taxes to the Defendant 27 Counties in at least the following amounts: I 28 8 1 County and Cities Therein Overpayment 2 County of Los Angeles $ 3,795 .40 3 County of Orange 65, 182 .37 4 County of San Bernardino 273.37 5 County of San Diego 103, 257 .46 6 27 . Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5096 7 and 5097 , SDPC timely filed with the Board and each of the 8 Defendant Counties a separate "Claim for Refund of Unitary 9 Property Taxes ( for Taxable Year July 1, 1984 through June 30, 10 1985 ) " (the "1984 Claims" ) . 11 28 . The County of San Diego has notified SDPC of its 12 rejection of SDPC' s 1984 Claim by a notice dated April 1, 1988 . 13 As of the filing of this Complaint, SDPC has not received 14 responses to the remaining 1984 Claims . SDPC therefore brings 15 this cause of action against the .Board and the County of San 16 Diego pursuant to Article 2 , Chapter 5, Part 9 , Division 1 of the 17 California Revenue and Taxation Code, including Section 5148 lg thereof . . 19 29 . SDPC has exhausted its administrative remedies and 20 fulfilled all procedural prerequisites to the bringing of this 21 cause of action. 82 30 . No refund of the amounts set forth in Paragraph 26 . 83 hereof has been made by the Defendant Counties to SDPC. 24 31 . Based on the allegations contained in Paragraphs 18. 25 through 30 hereof, SDPC is entitled to a refund of taxes from the 26 County of San Diego in the amount of $103,257 .46, plus interest 27 thereon at the legal rate from date of payment. SDPC will 28 supplement this Complaint to seek refunds from the remaining 9 ,a a A , 1 Defendant Counties if they also reject the remaining 1984 Claims <; 2 within six months of filing, or if the time period for the 3 remaining Defendant Counties to do so expires without any 4 response. 5 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (For Refund of Taxes for the 1985-1986 Tax Year 7 by Plaintiff San Diego Pipeline Company Against 8 Defendants Board of Equalization of the State of 9 California and County of San Diego) 10 32 . SDPC realleges and incorporates herein by this ' 11 reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 4 12 hereof. 13 33 . By Notice of Unitary Value dated May 31, 1985 (the ' 14 " 1985 Notice of Unitary Value" ) , the Board notified SDPC that the 15 Board had determined the full value of SDPC's property subject to 16 state assessment to be $18, 000,000 for the tax year July 1, 1985 17 through June 30, 1986 . 18 34 . On or about July 22, 1985, pursuant to Revenue and 19 Taxation Code Section 741, SDPC timely filed with the Board a 20 "Petition for Reassessment; Motion to Rescind Assessment as to 21 Warehouse Type Tank Storage, Related Facilities, Land and Rights- 22 of-Way" (the "1985 Petition" ) . 23 35 . Pursuant to the 1985 Petition, the Board conducted 24 a hearing on November 5, 1985 . The Board issued its Findings and 25 Decision dated April 9 , 1986 (the " 1986 Findings and Decision" ) , 26 affirming without change the assessed value for SDPC' s property 27 in the amount shown in the 1985 Notice of Unitary Value. 28 10 } 1 36 . On the Yiasis of the 1986 Findings and Decision, 2 SDPC was notified by the Board that the full value of SDPC's 3 property had been allocated among the local tax rolls for the 4 Defendant Counties . The Board allocated a total value of 5 $18, 000, 130 to the local tax rolls -of the Defendant Counties as 6 follows : 7 County and •Cities Therein Allocated Value 8 County of Los Angeles $ 364,400 I 9 County of Orange 6, 229, 710 ( 10 County of San Bernardino 49, 750 .11 County of San Diego 11 , 356,270 12 37 . SDPC timely paid taxes in the amount of $205, 678. 98 13 to the Defendant *Counties, of which amount $195,409 . 05 was paid 14 for property that had been assessed by. the Board. The remaining 15 $10,269 . 93 was--paid for locally-assessed property and is not at 16 issue in this Complaint. Payments were made to the Defendant 17 Counties in the following amounts: 18 Counties and Cities Therein, Amount Paid I 19 County of Los Angeles . $ 2 , 162 . 14 20 2, 147 . 31 21 County of Orange 36, 873 . 27 22 36, 873 .27 23 County of San Bernardino 630. 51 24 County of San Diego 63, 496. 24 25 63, 496 . 24 ' 26 38 . The assessment of SDPC' s property at issue in this t 27 Complaint was based upon a determination that produced an 28 erroneously high value and therefore resulted in an erroneous an : 11 1 illegal assessed value for SDPC's property. As a matter of law, 2 the assessment by the Board used improper methodology, assessed 3 property (i.e. , SDPC's lands, rights of way, and warehouse-type 4 storage tanks and related terminal facilities) in excess of the 5 Board' s jurisdiction as defined by Article XIII, Section 19 of 6 the California Constitution, and was made in violation of SDPC' s 7 rights of due process and equal protection under Article I, 8 Section 7 of the California Constitution, and Amendment XIV, 9 Section 1 of the United States Constitution. 10 39 . The correct full value of SDPC's properly assessed 11 property for the tax year 1985-1986 was no more than $3,758,000 . 12 The correct full values of SDPC's property allocated to the 13 Defendant Counties and the proper taxes for said allocated 14 property are no more than the following amounts: 15 Counties and Cities Therein Property Value Taxes 16 County of Los Angeles $ 76,078 $ 899 . 71 17 County of Orange 1,300, 616 14,795 . 73 i8 County of San Bernardino 10, 387 131 . 64 19 County of San Diego 2,370, 920 24, 969 . 70 20 40 . As a consequence of the illegal overvaluation of 21 SDPC' s property and the illegal state assessment of SDPC' s lands, 22 rights of way, and warehouse-type storage tanks and related 23 terminal facilities, SDPC has overpaid taxes to the Defendant 24 Counties in at least the following amounts : 25 26 27 28 12 y 1 County and Cities Therein Overpayment 2 County of Los Angeles $ 3,409 .74 3 County of Orange 56,073.08 4 County of San Bernardino 498 .87 5 County of San Diego 94, 630 .58 '. 6 41 . Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5096 7 and 5097, SDPC timely filed with the Board and each of the 8 Defendant Counties a separate "Claim for Refund of Unitary _. 9 Property Taxes (for Taxable Year July 1, 1985 through June 30, 10 1986) " (the "1985 Claims" ) . 11 42. The County of San Diego has notified SDPC of its 12 rejection of SDPC's 1985 Claim by a notice dated April 1, 1988 . 13 As of the filing of this Complaint, SDPC has not received 14 responses to the remaining 1985 Claims . SDPC therefore brings 15 this . cause of action against the Board and the County of San 16 Diego pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 5, Part 9, Division 1 of the 17 California Revenue and Taxation Code, including Section 5148 18 thereof . 19 43 . SDPC has -exhausted its administrative remedies and 20 fulfilled all procedural prerequisites to the bringing of this 21 cause of action. 22 44 . No refund of the amounts set forth in Paragraph 40 23 hereof has been made by the Defendant Counties to SDPC. 24 45 . Based on the allegations contained in Paragraphs 32 25 through 44 hereof, SDPC is entitled to a refund of taxes from the ' 26 County of San Diego in the amount of $94, 630 .58, plus interest 27 thereon at the legal rate from date of payment. SDPC will 28 supplement this Complaint to seek refunds from the remaining 13 1 Defendant Counties if they, also reject the remaining 1985 Claims 2 within six months of filing, or if the time period for the 3 remaining Defendant Counties to do so expires without any 4 response. 5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (For Refund of Taxes for the 1986-1987 Tax Year •7 by Plaintiff San Diego Pipeline Company Against 8 Defendants Board of Equalization of the .State of 9 California and County of San Diego) 10 46 . SDPC realleges and incorporates herein by this 11 reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 4 12 hereof. 13 47 . By Notice of Unitary Value dated .May 30, 1986 (the 14 . "1986 Notice of Unitary Value" ) , the Board notified SDPC that the 15 Board had determined the full value of SDPC's property subject to 16 state assessment to be $33,000,000 for the tax year July 1, 1986 17 through June 30, 1987 . i8 48 . On or about July 21, 1986, pursuant to Revenue and 19 Taxation Code Section 741, SDPC timely filed with the Board a 20 "Petition for Reassessment" (the " 1986 Petition" ) . 21 49 . On or about November 29, 19'86, SDPC made written 22 submissions in support of the 1986 Petition in lieu of an oral 23 hearing. __ 24 50 . The Board issued its Findings and Decision dated 25 June 16, 1987 (the "1987 Findings and Decision" ) , affirming 26 without change the assessed value for SDPC' s property in the 27 amount shown in the 1986 Notice of Unitary Value. 28 14 i 1 51 . On the basis of the 1987 Findings and Decision, 2 SDPC was notified by the Board that the full value of its 3 property had been allocated among the local tax rolls for the 4 Defendant Counties. The Board allocated a total value of 5 $33, 000, 150 to the local tax rolls of the Defendant Counties as i 6 follows : 7 County and Cities Therein Allocated Value 8 County of Los Angeles $ 1 ,506,850 g County of Orange 13 , 674, 380 10 County of San Bernardino 53,940 11 County of. San Diego 17,764,980 12 52 . SDPC timely paid taxes in the amount of $374, 114 .96 13 to the Defendant Counties, of which amount $363, 681 . 36 was paid 14 for property that had been assessed by the Board. The remaining 15 $10 , 433 . 60 was- paid for locally-assessed property and is not at 16 issue in this Complaint. Payments were made to the Defendant 17 Counties in the following amounts : 18 Counties and Cities Therein . Amount Paid 19 County of Los Angeles $12,215 . 33 20 5, 165. 83 2i County of Orange 81, 395. 38 22 81, 395 . 38 23 County of San Bernardino 676 .50 24 County of San Diego 96, 633 . 27 - 25 96, 633 .27 26 53 . The assessment of SDPC's property at issue in this 27 Complaint was based upon a determination that produced an 28 erroneously high value and therefore resulted in an erroneous and 15 1 illegal assessed value for SDPC's property. As a matter of law, 2 the assessment by the Board used improper methodology, assessed 3 property (i .e. , SDPC's lands, rights of way, and warehouse-type 4 storage tanks and related terminal facilities) in excess of the 5 Board' s jurisdiction as defined by Article XIII, Section 19 of 6 the California Constitution, and was made in violation of SDPC' s 7 rights of due process and equal protection under Article I, i 8 Section 7 of the California Constitution, and Amendment XIV, 9 Section 1 of the United States Constitution. 10 54 . The correct full value of SDPC' s properly assessed 11 property for the tax year 1986-1987 was no more than $24,231,000 . 12 The correct full values of SDPC's property allocated to the 13 Defendant Counties and the proper taxes for said allocated 14 property are no more than the following amounts : i 15 Counties and Cities Therein Property Value Taxes i 16 County of Los Angeles $ 1, 106,434 $ 12,762. 45 i 17 County of Orange 10,040, 679 117, 369 .03 j 18 County of San Bernardino 39 , 606 496 . 73 19 County of San Diego 13, 044, 281 136,411 . 88 i 20 55 . As a consequence of the illegal overvaluation of 21 SDPC' s property and the illegal state assessment of SDPC's lands, . ! ; 22 rights of way, and warehouse-type storage tanks and related i 23 terminal facilities, SDPC has overpaid taxes to the Defendant 24 Counties in at least the following amounts : 25 26 27 28 16 - 1 County and Cities Therein Overpayment 2 County of Los Angeles $ 4,618 .71 3 County of Orange 42,475 . 61 4 County of San Bernardino 179 . 77 5 County of San Diego 49,367 . 18 g SCE.. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5096 7 and 5097 , SDPC timely filed with the Board and each of the- 8 Defendant Counties a separate "Claim for Refund of Unitary g Property Taxes . ( for Taxable Year July 1, 1986 through June 30, 10 1987 ) " (the " 1986 Claims" ) . 11 57 . The County of San Diego has notified SDPC of its 12 rejection of SDPC's 1986 Claim by a notice dated April 1, 1988. 13 As of the filing of this Complaint, SDPC has not received 14 responses to the remaining 1986 Claims. SDPC therefore brings 15 this cause of action against the Board and the County of San 16 Diego pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 5, Part 9, Division 1 of the 17 California Revenue and Taxation Code, including Section 5148 18 thereof . 19 58 . SDPC has exhausted its administrative remedies and 20 fulfilled all procedural prerequisites to the bringing of this 21 cause of action. 22 59 . No refund of the amounts set forth in Paragraph 55 23 hereof has been made by the Defendant Counties to SDPC. 24 60 . Based on the allegations contained in Paragraphs 46 _ 25 through 59 hereof, SDPC is entitled to a refund of taxes from the 28 County of San Diego in the amount of $49, 367 . 18, plus interest 27 thereon at the legal rate from date of payment. SDPC will 28 supplement this Complaint to seek refunds from the remaining 17 1 Defendant Counties if they also-reject the remaining 1986 Claims 2 within six months of filing-,or if the time period for the 3 remaining Defendant Counties to do so expires without any 4 response. 5 WHEREFORE, SDPC prays for judgment against defendants, 6 and each of them, as follows : 7 1 . On the First Cause of Action, for refunds from the 8 Defendant Counties in the following amounts, and for interest g thereon at the legal rate from dates of payment: 10 County and Cities Therein Amount 11 County of Los Angeles $ 2, 890 . 07 12 County of Orange 41, 112 .87 13 County of San Bernardino 292 . 39 14 County of San Diego . 61 , 310 . 37 15 2 . -On the Second Cause of Action, for a refund from 16 the County of San Diego in the amount of $103,257 . 46, and for 17 interest thereon at the legal rate from date of payment; 18 3 . On the Third Cause of Action, for a refund from the 18 County of San Diego in the amount of $94, 630.58, and for interest 20 thereon at the legal rate from date of payment; 21 4. On the Fourth Cause of Action, for a refund from 22 the County of San Diego in the amount of $49,367 . 18, and for 23 interest thereon at the legal rate from date of payment; 24 5 . For attorneys ' fees pursuant to California Revenue 25 and Taxation Code Section 5152; 26 6 . For costs of suit herein; and 27 28 18 1 7 . For such other and---further relief as the Court may 2 deem just and proper. — 3 Dated: June �, 1988 4 RICHARD D. FYBEL THOMAS H. STEELE 5 JOYCE B. HUGHES MORRISON & FOERSTER 6 7 By ' rL� J_ yce .• . Hughes 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff . SAN DIEGO PIPELINE COMPANY 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 26 27 28 L29191 19 OFFICES OF �4• ADRIAN KUYPER THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF ORANGE WILLIAM J. McCOURT M + CHIEF ASSISTANT °-~'•-' 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ARTHUR C. WAHLSTEDT, JR. MAILING ADDRESS:P.O.BOX 1379 LAURENCE M.WATSON SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702-1379 \ \� ASSISTANTS Writer's Direct b\1 Number j 714/834.3300 VICTOR T.BELLERUE DAVID BEALES 714/ 834-4379 JOHN R.GRISET TERRY C.ANDRUS EDWARD N.DURAN CLAUDIA L.COWAN July 8 19 8 8 IRYNE C.BLACK JAMES L.TURNER RICHARD D.OVIEDO PETER L.COHON . BENJAMIN P.DE MAYO NICHOLAS S.CHRI SOS HOWARD SERBIN DAVID G.EPSTEIN DANIEL J.DIDIER THOMAS F.MORSE GENE AXELROD WANDA S.FLORENCE ROBERT L.AUSTIN HOPE E.SNYDER DONALD H.RUBIN THOMAS C.AGIN DAVID R.CHAFFEE SHERIE A.CHRISTENSEN TO: The City of Huntington Beach CAROL D.BROWN SUSAN M.NILSEN 7 BARBARA L.STOCKER SARA L.PARKER JAMES F.MEADE ADRIENNE K.SAURO STEFEN H.WEISS KARYN J.DRIESSEN SUSAN STROM DEPUTIES RE: Notice of Action To Recover Taxes Levied on State-Assessed Property (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5148 ) Please take notice that on June 24 , 1988 , the County of Orange was advised by the State Board of Equalization that it has been served with a summons and complaint seeking refund of property taxes paid. A copy of the Notice received from the Board of Equalization, and any related attachments, is enclosed herewith, and incorporated herein by reference. This action seeks refund of property taxes, a portion of which was collected by the County of Orange on behalf of the City. Within thirty ( 30) days of the receipt of this notice, the City may intervene in this action. If any judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against the County, please take further notice that the County shall be entitled to recover separately from the City and other tax entities those taxes collected by the County on behalf of the City and other tax entities which are subject to refund to the Plaintiff as a result of the judgment. The County may, if it chooses to do so, offset the amount of the judgment and interest recoverable by it from the City and other tax entities against amounts held in the County treasury therefor, or against amounts due and payable thereto, including, but not limited to, property tax apportionments. Very .truly yours, ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL By David R. Chaffee, D-epu DRC:rer Enclosures r T STATE OF CALIFORNIA I STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Junpvii� 1 t WILLIAM M.SENNETT 1020 N STREET,SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA �,• Fast District.Kenitield Ear i^- - tiTY (P.O.BOX 942879,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 94279-0001) CL,� CONWAY H.COLLIS V "' Second District,Los Angeles gpARu �, ^ ^r1 ERNEST J. ORONE R. Third District.San Diego 1T y PAUL CARPENTEq Fourth District.Los Angeles Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Jul 2 0 oAvts ��c= GRAY of the County of Orange �,r,tr91er$dDAVIS 10 Civic Center Plaza, Sth Floor cianiento Santa Ana, CA ' 92701 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE ECINDY roO Dear Sir or Madam: GTE Sprint Communications Corporation v. County of Alameda and the State Board of Equalization; Superior Court for the County of Alameda Case No. 639382-3 - Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148, as added by Chapter 1262 , Statutes of 1987 (AB 2120 ) , you are hereby advised that your county has been named as a defendant in the above-referenced action to recover taxes levied on state- - assessed property. Section 5148 requires that service of -the summons -and complaint in this type of property tax refund action be made only upon the Board and that the Board shall serve as agent of the defendant county or counties for the purpose of service_ of process only. The enclosed Summons and Complaint for Refund of Property Taxes were personally served on the Executive Director of the Board on June 16 , 1988 . The county has 30 days after the date of service in which to file an appropriate response. Your attention is directed to subdivision ( b) of section 5148 which. requires that a defendant county notify any city for which the county collected taxes of this action. The notice to the city is required within 30 days after receipt of this advice. If you have any questions ; please contact Deputy Attorney General Calvin J . Abe at ( 415 ) 557-2719 . Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by dating and signing the enclosed copy thereof and returning it to us in the _ enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope as soon as possible. . Very trulyr_yurs, `James J v Delaney Chief Counsel JJD:cb/1093D Enclosures cc: Kit Berman-CSAC Dated: Signed: t STATE OF CALIFORNIA _e STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION June 21, 1988 wtLtIAMM.6E,`WETT 1020 N STF=ET,SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA First District. (P.O. BOX 942879.SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 94279-0001) CONWAY M =OLLIS econd Oiynu.Los+L:ge.es t ILr][ Er ST J.ORONENBLF#G.JR Third District.San D,edd r )) PAUL CAR:=+t T Eq t UN L Q ; Fcurtri t):slricl.Los 4:g�—_t Clerk of the Board of Supervisors � of the County of Orange ConndwrGRSaYOA%RS 10 Civil Center Plaza , 5th r L COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE Santa Ana , dA 92701 cltyov :,wi:o Eaecut"Saaenry Dear Sir or Madam: GTE Sprint Communications Corporation v. County of Alameda and the State Board of Equalization; Superior Court for the County of Alameda Case No. 639382-3 Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148 , as added by Chapter 1262 , Statutes of 1987 (AB 2120 ) ; you are hereby advised that your county has been named as a defendant in the above-referenced action to recover taxes levied on state- assessed property. Section 5148 requires that service of the summons and complaint in this type of property tax refund action be made only upon the Board and that the Board shall serve as agent of the defendant county or counties for the purpose of service of process only. The enclosed Summons and Complaint for Refund of Property Taxes were personally served on the Executive Director of the Board on June 16 , 1988 . The county has 30 days after the date of service in which to file an appropriate response . Your attention is directed to subdivision ( b) of section 5148 which requires that a defendant county notify any city for which the county collected taxes of this action. The notice to the city is required within 30 days after receipt of this advice. If you have any questions, please contact Deputy Attorney General Calvin J . Abe at ( 415 ) 557-2719 . Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by dating and signing the enclosed copy thereof and returning it to us in the _ enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope as soon as possible . Very trulyrillcz�rs, James J . Delaney Chief Counsel JJD : cb/1093D Enclosures cc: Kit Berman-CSAC Dated: t Signed: SUMMONS • (arACION JUDicau ` NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (Aviso a Acusado) �' duo/M"' any �0(°`LA`p 7i1 i The Counties as listed on the attachment hereto, and the STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, (iY STATE OF CALIFORNIAo) t..i J U N 2 8 1•a C- V L _,we Board of Equal ^ro^ COWNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE Sa:ramento YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF- (A161983 (A Ud. le esd demandando) Gndy nombo y GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION - Executive Direct it You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this sum- Despues de que le entreguen esta dtaddn 1, iaa!fgsted mons is served on you to file a typewritten re- dene un piazo de 30 DIAS CALENDARIOS-p�ara presegtar sponse at this court. una respuesta escrita a maquina en esia cctie: A latter or phone call wW not protect you: your Una carta o una llamada ted4edfdnica no: le fiecera typewritten response must be in proper legal protection; su mspuesta escrita a maquiria lien que form if you want the court to hear your case. cumplir can las ionnalidades legales apropiadas si usted If you do not file Vow response on time.you may quiere que 14 torte escuche su cases lose the case. and your wages. money and pro- Si usted no presents su mspuesta a dempa% puede paler party may be taican without further warning from of casab y le pueden quitar su salaria�su dinery y otrm cvsas the court. de su ptopiedad sin aviso adidonal par parte de la torte There are other legal requirements. You may Existen otras requisitos legales. Puede que usted quiera want to call an attorney right away.If you do not Avnar a un abogado inmediatamente Si no conoce a un know an attorney,you may cab an attorney refer- aboSada puede 11amar a un serviao de referenda de ral service or a legd aid office Misted in the phone abogados o a una oftdna de ayuda legal("m el directorio book). tefefdnko). The name and address of the court is: 0 nombre y direction de la cone es) l 893198 - Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco City Hall, Room 317 San Francisco, CA 94102 The name. address. and telephone numoer of plaintiff's attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre la direction y el n6mero de teleiono del abogado del demandante. o del-demandante cue no ttene abogado. es) Richard N. Wiley Attorney at Law 1350 Old Bayshore, Suite 590 Burlingame, CA 94010 (415) 375-5026 SUN 141988 DONALD W. UICKWBON MARIA JUSTINIANO DATE: Cleric. by Deputy (Fecha) (Actuarial (Delegado) isr�u NOTICE M THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as an individual defendant. 2 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify/: 3. on behalf of lspecitV): State Board of Equalization, et al. under. CCP 416.10 (corporation) Q CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) ocoCtPa4lE aaagrtann'rbor pPartrsetshipl ant )CCP 416.90 (individual) 41b ll uL�l1l1CC 4. j by personal delivery on (derel: fwm Aaaosa ev Ar.aaz ISae frAm for Ptool of swvi l .Judom CouKti at Ca~" e11129sx9l iw%a..+w t. is" SUMMONS. CCF 412.20 j 1 Richard N. Wiley . 2 1350 Old Bayshore, Suite 590 : 3 Burlingame, CA 94010 ENDORSED 4 Telephone (415) 375-5026 Smcranc, l cou u nr sup COW z i .JUN 14 �Q 5 Attorney for Plaintiff T•-: E' 6 GTE Sprint Communications OONALD W. DICKINSON. 7 Corporation Clerk BY NIARIA JUST-NIA 0 ` Deputy cl.,j, 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ` 10 GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS ) 11 CORPORATION ) 12 i 13 Plaintiff, ) NO. 14 ) 15 vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR REFUND • 16 ) OF PROPERTY TAXES 17 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; -COUNTY OF ) [Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 5148] 18 CALAVERAS; COUNTY OF CONTRA ) 19 COSTA; COUNTY OF EL DORADO; ) 20 COUNTY OF FRESNO; COUNTY OF ) 21 IMPERIAL; COUNTY OF KERN; ) 22 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY ) 23 OF MADERA; COUNTY OF MERCED; ) �_- 24 COUNTY OF ORANGE; COUNTY OF 25 PLACER; COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; 26 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; COUNTY ) 27 OF SAN BERNARDINO; COUNTY OF 28 SAN DIEGO; COUNTY OF SAN 29 FRANCISCO; COUNTY OF SAN ) `� 30 JOAQUIN; COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; 31 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; COUNTY ) w 32 OF SOLANO; COUNTY OF ) ~`y 33 STANISLAUS ; COUNTY OF TULARE; ) 34 and the STATE BOARD OF ) 35 EQUALIZATION, STATE OF j 36 CALIFORNIA ) 37 - 38 Defendants. ) 39 Plaintiff alleges: - 1 1 FIRST CAUSE..,-OF ACTION 2 FOR REFUND OF TAX 3 (1984 {Assessment Year) 4 1. Plaintiff GTE Sprint Communications Corporation 5 (hereinafter referred to as "GTE") , formerly known as Southern 6 Pacific Communications Company, is and was at all times 7 mentioned herein a corporation organized and existing under the 8 laws of the State of Delaware and is and was qualified to do 9 business and doing business within the State of California. 10 2 . Defendants County of Alameda, County of Calaveras, 11 County of Contra Costa, County of El Dorado, County of Fresno, - 12 County of _Imperial, County of Kern, County of Los Angeles, 13 County of Madera, County of Merced, County of Orange, County of 14 Placer, County of Riverside, County of Sacramento, County of 15 San Bernardino, County of San Diego, County of San Francisco, 16 County of San Joaquin, County of San Mateo, County of Santa 17 Clara, County of Solano, County of Stanislaus, and County of 18 Tulare (hereinafter referred .to as the "Counties") are and at 19 all times herein mentioned were political subdivisions of the 20 State of California. This action is brought against the 21 Counties under the authority of Section 5148 of the Revenue and 22 Taxation Code. 23 3 . Defendant State Board of Equalization 24 (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") -was at all times 25 herein mentioned, an agency of the State of California charged 26 by Section 721 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with the duty 27 of annually valuing and assessing all of GTE' s taxable unitary 2 1 and nonunitary property within the state. This action is 2 brought against the Board under the authority of Section 5148 3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 4 4 . On May 25, 1984, the Board notified GTE that it 5 had adopted a fair market and assessed value for the California 6 unitary. property of GTE for the 1984 assessment year in the 7 amount of $350, 000, 000. 00. On June 12, 1984, GTE timely filed 8 with the Board a declaration of intent to petition for 9 reassessment of the unitary property value, under the authority 10 of Section 731 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. On July 16, 11 1984, GTE timely filed with the Board the petition for 12 reassessment, requesting a hearing, under the authority of 13 Section 731 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. On October 10 14 and 11, 1984 , a hearing on the petition was held before the 15 Board. On December 11, 1984, the Board denied GTE 's petition.. 16 5. The $350, 000, 000. 00 Board-assessed value of GTE' s 17 unitary property was erroneously and illegally assessed in that 18 nontaxable intangible property was assessed, and invalid 19 valuation methods were utilized. The true- fair market value of 20 GTE' s taxable unitary property for the 1984 assessment year did 21 not exceed $202 , 044, 000.00. 22 6. Pursuant to Section 745 of the Revenue and 23 Taxation Code, the Board allocated the $350, 000, 000 . 00 1984 24 assessment of GTE' s unitary property among the Counties in 25 which the unitary property was situated, and, pursuant to 26 Revenue and Taxation Code Section 756, transmitted to the 3 j 1 Counties ' auditors rolls showing the unitary assessment made by 2 the Board in the Counties. 3 7. During. 1984, the Counties ' assessors assessed tax 4 to .GTE on the 1984 Board-assessed value of the unitary property 5 situated within their respective Counties. GTE -paid the full 6 amount of the taxes so assessed during the years 1984 and 1985. 7 On November 23 , 1987 (County of Alameda) and December 7, 1987 8 (all other Counties) , which were within four years after making 9 the payments sought to be refunded, GTE, pursuant to Section 10 5097 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, timely filed with the 11 Counties ' boards of supervisors written and verified claims for 12 refund of tax in amounts representing the overpayment of 13 property taxes resulting from the overassessment of the unitary 14 property situated in the Counties. In its claims for refund, 15 GTE claimed that the taxes were illegally assessed or levied, 16 and incorporated into those claims documents alleging the taxes 17 were illegally assessed or levied in that nontaxable intangible 18 property was assessed and invalid valuation methods were 19 utilized. Copies of the claims for refund and supporting 20 Exhibits are attached hereto, marked "Attachment All , and made a 21 part hereof. The claims for refund were denied by the County 22 of Alameda on March 8 , 1988 ; by the County of Calaveras on 23 January 4 , 1988 ; by the County of Fresno on January 12 , 1988 ; 24 by the County of Placer on December 22 , 1987 ; by the County of 25 Sacramento on January 19, 1988 ; by the County of San Bernardino 26 on January 18 , 1988 ; by the County of San Diego on February 3 , 4 { 1 1988 ; by the County of San Francisco on December 17, 19-87 ; _by 2 the County of San Mateo on January 26, 1988 ; and by the County 3 of Stanislaus on January 8, 1988 . Copies of the denials of the 4 claims for refund are attached hereto, and marked "Attachment 5 B" . As to those Counties which have not yet ruled on the 6 claims for refund, the claims are deemed denied pursuant to the 7 provisions ►of Section 5141 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 8 8 . This complaint and cause of action for refund of 9 tax has been timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 5148 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 11 9 . No refund of the taxes, or any part thereof, has 12 previously been made to, or applied for the benefit of, GTE. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 FOR REFUND OF TAX 15 (1983 Assessment Year) 16 10. GTE repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 17 3 , inclusive of its complaint and incorporates the same herein 18 as if set out in full. 19 11. On May 20 , 1983 , the Board notified GTE that it 20 had adopted a fair market and assessed value for the California 21 unitary property of GTE for the 1983 assessment year in the 22 amount of $160, 000,000. 00. On June 6, 1983 , GTE timely filed 23 with the Board a declaration of intent to petition for 24 reassessment of the unitary property value, under the authority 25 of Section 731 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. On July 8 , 26 1983 , GTE timely filed with the Board the petition for 27 reassessment, requesting a hearing, under the authority of 5 1 Section 731 of the Revenue 'and Taxation Code. On Septeinber 13 2 and 14, 1983 , a hearing on the petition was held before the 3 Board. On December 13 , 1983-, the Board denied GTE's petition. 4 12 . The $160, 000, 000.00 Board-assessed value of 5 GTE's unitary property was erroneously and illegally assessed 6 in that nontaxable intangible property was assessed. The true 7 fair market value of GTE's taxable unitary property for the 8 1983 assessment year did not exceed $90, 000, 000. 00. 9 13 . Pursuant to Section 745 of the Revenue and 10 Taxation Code, . the Board allocated- the $160,000,000. 00 1983 11 assessment of GTE' s unitary property among the Counties in 12 which the unitary property was situated, and, pursuant to 13 Revenue and Taxation Code Section 756, transmitted to the 14 Counties ' auditors rolls showing the unitary assessment made by 15 the Board in the Counties. 16 14. During 1983, the Counties' assessors assessed 17 tax to GTE on the 1983 Board-assessed value of the unitary 18 property situated within their respective Counties. GTE paid 19 the full amount of the taxes so assessed on or about December 20 8, 1983 and April 1984. On November 23 , 1987 (County of 21 Alameda) and December 7, 1987 (all other Counties) , which were 22 within four years after making the payments sought to be 23 refunded, GTE, pursuant to Section 5097 of the Revenue and 24 Taxation Code, timely filed with the Counties ' boards of 25 supervisors written and verified claims for refund of tax in = 26 amounts representing the overpayment of property taxes 6 1 resulting from the overassessment of the unitary property 2 situated in the Counties. -In its claims for refund, GTE 3 claimed that the taxes were illegally assessed or levied, and 4 incorporated into those claims documents alleging the taxes 5 were illegally assessed or levied in that nontaxable intangible 6 property was assessed. Copies of the claims for refund and 7 supporting. Exhibits are attached hereto, marked "Attachment All , 8 and made a part hereof. The claims for refund were denied by 9 the County of Alameda on March 8, 1988 ; by the County of 10 Calaveras on January 4, 1988 ; by the County of Fresno on 11 January 12 , 1988 ; by the County of Placer on December 22 , 1987; 12 by the County of Sacramento on January 19, 1988 ; by the County 13 of San Bernardino on January 18, 1988; by the County of San 14 Diego on February 3 , 1988 ; by the County of San Francisco on 15 December 17, 1987; by the County of San Mateo on January 26, 16 1988 ; and by the County of Stanislaus on January 8, 1988 . 17 Copies of the denials of the claims for refund are attached 18 hereto, and marked "Attachment B" . As to those Counties which 19 have not yet ruled on the claims for refund, the claims are 20 deemed denied pursuant to the provisions of Section 5141 of the 21 Revenue and Taxation Code. 22 15 . This complaint and cause of action for refund of 23 tax has been timely filed under Section 5148 of the Revenue and 24 Taxation Code. 25 16. No refund of the taxes, or any part thereof, has 26 previously been made to, or applied for the benefit of, GTE. 7 1 WHEREFORE, GTE prays judgment on its causes of action against 2 defendants, and each of them, as follows: 3 ON THE FIRST CAUSE' OF ACTION 4 1. For. the amounts claimed in the claims 5 for refund, in the total amount of 6 $1,717, 135, or such other amounts as 7 provided by law. 8 ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9 1. For the amounts claimed in the claims 10 for refund, in the total amount of 11 $772, 620, or such other amount as provided 12 by law. 13 ON EACH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 1. -For interest as provided by law; 15 2 . For attorney' s fees and costs of suit; 16 and 17 3 . For such other and further relief as 18 the - court may deem proper. 19 / 21 RICHARD N. WILEY 22 Attorney for Plaintiff 23 GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 24 CORPORATION 25 8 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO: I, the undersigned; certify and declare that I have read the foregoing complaint and know its contents. I am an officer of GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the complaint are true. Executed on May 25, 1988, at Burlingame, County of San Mateo, California. I declare under penalty 'of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Craig G: Clymo SE O• OFFICES OF ADRIAN KUYPER �� THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY COUNSEL U M COUNTY OF 0--RANGE WILLIAM J. McCOURT CHIEF ASSISTANT 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ARTFiUR C.WAHLSTEDT,JR. 9lIFoR� MAILING ADDRESS:P.O.BOX 1379 AAURERC C. M. HLSTED SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702.1379 WATSON Writer's Direct Dial Number ASSISTANTS 7141834-3300 VICTOR T.BELLERUE SUSAN STROM JOHN R.GRISET DAVID BEALES N. TERRY C.ANDRUS July 8, 1988 RDYNE WARD C.BLACKAN CLAUDIA L COWAN RICHARD D.OVIEDO JAMES L TURNER O.M.MOORE PETER L.COHON BENJAMIN P.DE MAYO NICHOLAS S.CHRISOS HOWARD SERBIN DAVID G.EPSTEIN DANIEL J.DIDIER THOMAS F.MOOSE GENE AXELROD WANDA S.FLORENCE ROBERT L.AUSTIN HOPE E.SNYDER DONALD H.RUSIN THOMAS C.AGIN DAVID R.CHAFFEE SHERIE A.CHRISTENSEN RE: GTE Sprint Communications Corporation CAROL D.BROWN SUSAN M.NILSEN BARBARA L.STOCKER SARA L.PARKER V. County of Alameda and the State JAMES F.MEADE SHARON LOWSEN Board of Equalization STEFEN H.WEISS Alameda County Superior Court No. 639382-3 DEPUTIES NOTICE: Attachments to the complaint filed in the above-referenced case will be provided upon written request. LIABBAN & BI\i;`KER L_LAW�ERS 10880 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1200 Los Angeles California 90024 (213)470-6010 April 1 3, 1988 FAX(213)470-6735 Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 Main Street Hungtington Beach, California 92648 Re: Telephone Users Tax Ladies and Gentlemen: I am an attorney and am preparing a survey of the extent to which local cities are now imposing some form of telephone users tax. With respect to your City' s municipal tax law, I am interested in ascertaining the following information: 1 . Does your City, in any manner, impose a municipal , tax with respect to persons using telephone communication services in your City? 2 . If the answer to question number one is yes, please provide the following additional information: (a) On what base is the tax calculated; (b) What is the rate of tax; (c) Who is liable; (d) - How is the tax collected; (e) What are the procedures for remittance of the tax; (f) What penalties and what rate of interest is imposed on any delinquencies with respect to the payment of this tax or on any deficiencies with respect to the tax; (g) Since when has this tax been imposed; (h) What forms have been prepared for the calculation, collection and remittance of this tax. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION NOFFMAN SABBAN Fsr BRUCKER 'LAWN"ERS .- Huntington Beach City Clerk April 13, 1988 Page -2- Additionally, please furnish me with copies of your local ordinances, if any, which impose this tax and describe the manner of determination, collection and remittance. All correspondence should be addressed as follows : Anatole Klebanow, Esq. Hoffman, Sabban & Brucker 10880 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90024 Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, ato a Kleba ow AK6 :sc ! RE UE5 f FOR CITY COUNCRACT N. -` - Q �w Date _ MArnh 9.3, 19RR Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator• Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administr. Subject: Transient Occupancy Tax AX D.BY CITY GO CIL �1 Consistent with Council Policy? N] Yes [ ] New Policy or E CITY CLE Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: ICY Statement of Issue: The City of Huntington Beach's occupancy tax is less than similar cities in California. Recommendation: Raise the City's occupancy tax rate to ten percent (10%) effective upon a date to be determined legally practicable. Analysis: At present, the City's occupancy tax rate, the city tax on room rental rates at hotels motels, is tied to the state's sales tax rate. Therefore, the tax imposed by the City has remained at six percent (6%) since the State of California has maintained a six percent (6 %) sales tax. The majority of other .California cities have established substantially higher occupancy or bed tax rates. At the current six percent (6 %) rate, the City would receive approximately Four Hundred Thousand dollars ($400,000) in occupancy tax revenue for next fiscal year (1988/89). If the recommended rate of ten percent (10%) is approved, the estimated occupancy tax revenue for next fiscal year (1988/89) would be approximately Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand dollars ($667,000). In addition, various proposals for future hotels/motels total in excess of twenty-two hundred (2,200) new rooms. Assuming the Orange County average occupancy rate of seventy percent (70%) and using the projected rental rates, these additional rooms will generate additional occupancy tax revenue of roughly $3,000,000 per year at the current rate of 6% or an estimated. $5,250,000 per year at the proposed 10% rate. As the room rates increase in future years, the occupancy tax revenue would also increase by a proportionate amount. Funding Source: Not applicable.. Alternative Action: Any rate other than 6 or 10%. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Survey by Finance 3. Survey by Mayer Corp. 3685j �® NO 5/85 w RESOLUTION NO. 5859 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A 10% COMBINED STATE AND LOCAL USE TAX RATE FOR TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY WHEREAS, there is currently in effect. a 6% combined state and local use tax rate for transient occupancy; and Pursuant to Section 3 .28 .030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach shall declare such tax rate from time to time. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach resolves as follows: The combined state and local use tax rate for transient occupancy shall be 10% . This resolution shall become effective 60 days after adoption . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April , 1988 . yor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorneys-�S-e' REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator ��^ Director of Administ� ve Services / be 5859 Res. No. 5859 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Be: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of April 19 88 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, Green. Finley. Erskine, Mays, Winchell , Ranaister NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California a 5.c15Q 1Afl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To From Rich Barnard Gail Hutton Asst . to City Administrator City Attorney Subject Transient Occupancy Use Tax Date March 24, 1988 Statement of Facts: The city administration desires to increase the current percentage of the combined state and local use tax rate for transient occupancy . The question is can the city increase this tax without a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors? Analysis: Article 13A, §4 Special taxes; . imposition states: "Cities, counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district" . This section was added to the constitution June 6, 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13 which limited the real estate tax to one percent and was added specifically so that local agencies could not make up any loss of revenue from the limitation on real property tax . While the tax under discussion here was in effect before June 6, 1978 an increase in tax is by case law prohibited by this section . (Huntington Park v. Martin (1985) 211 Cal .Rptr . 133, 38 Cal .3d 100 . ) In examining whether or not our tax is a special tax requiring a two-thirds vote we look to case law. In the City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell (1982 ) 184 Cal .Rptr . 714 , 32 Cal .3d 47 , the court examined this question using the following rationale in analyzing the term "special tax" . "In keeping with these principles, we construe the term 'special taxes ' in section 4 to mean taxes which are levied for a specific purpose rather than, as in the present case, a levy placed in the general fund to be utilized for general governmental purposes . This is a Rich Barnard Asst . to City Administrator Page Two March 24 , 1988 common meaning of the term, as is evident from the authorities cited above . More important, such a construction will provide the voters with the 'effective ' property tax relief we discussed in Amador to the extent the section clearly requires a two-thirds vote for the adoption of a 'special tax, ' while ascribing some meaning to every word used in the section. " Conclusion: It is therefore this office 's opinion that since our occupancy tax goes to the general fund of the city, it is not a special tax within the meaning of Article 13A §4 and can be enacted by the City Council without a vote of the electorate . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney JzS- GH:AJF:bc J• ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH ROBERT J. FRANZ From DAN T. VILLELLA To Deputy City Administrator Director of Finance Subject TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX Date FEBRUARY I, 1988 We have conducted a survey of thirteen other cities who have tourism: 1. Anahei m 10% 2. Arcadia 8% 3. Beverly Hi I Is 1 1 0 4. Burbank 10% 5. Desert Hot Springs 8% 6. Laguna Beach 8% 7. Newport Beach 9% 8. Pasadena 10% 9. Palm Desert 6% 10. Palm Springs 9 0 11. San Francisco 1 1 0 12. Sausalito 8% 13. South Lake Tahoe 8 As you can see, we are at the low end of the spectrum. The average of the cities surveyed is approximately 9%. r/ DAN T. VILLELLA Director of Finance DTV:skd - bc: Jim Lewis 3616j • w THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION February 23, 1988 CITY TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX Newport Beach 9% Long Beach 10% Los Angeles 12% Anaheim 10% Irvine 8% San Clemente 8% Costa Mesa 6% Santa Ana 9% Laguna Beach 8% Sunset Beach 9% Seal Beach 9% R. 660 Newoort Center Drive. Suite 1050 Box 868E Newport?each, Coiiforn;o 92658-8680 (714) 759-8091 OFFICES OF KUY J 9�, T H E COUNTY COUNSEL AD COUNTY COUNSELR COUNTY OF ORANGE WILLIAM J. McCOURT CHIEF ASSISTANT (� �Q 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ARTHUR C. WAHLSTEDT, JR. 9 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 1379 LIFOR� SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 1379 LAURENCE M. WATSON Writer's Direct Dial Number ASSISTANTS 714i834-3300 71y/ 834-43 79 VICTOR T.BELLERUE DAVID BEALES JOHN R.GRISET TERRY C.ANDRUS March 18 , 1988 EDWARD N.DURAN CLAUDIA L.COWAN IRYNE C.BLACK JAMES L.TURNER RICHARD D.OVIEDO PETER L.COHON BENJAMIN P.DE MAYO NICHOLAS S.CHRISOS HOWARD SERBIN DAVID G.EPSTEIN DANIEL J.DIDIER THOMAS F.MORSE GENE AXELROD WANDA S.FLORENCE ROBERT L.AUSTIN HOPE E.SNYDER DONALD H.RUBIN THOMAS C.AGIN DAVID R.CHAFFEE SHERIE A.CHRISTENSEN TO: The City of Huntington Beach BARBARAOL D.BROWN SUSAN MARKEN BARBARA L.STOCKER SARA L.PARKER JAMES F.MEADE ADRIENNE K.SAURO STEFEN H.WEISS KARYN J.DRIESSEN SUSAN STROM Re: Notice of Action To Recover Taxes Levied on State-Assessed Property DEPUTIES (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5148 ) Please take 'notice that on March 10, 1988 , the County of Orange was advised by the State Board of Equalization that it has been served with a summons and complaint seeking refund of property taxes paid. A copy of the Notice received from the Board of Equalization, and any related attachments , is enclosed herewith , and incorporated herein by reference . This action seeks refund of property taxes, a portion of which_ was collected by the County of Orange on behalf of the City. Within thirty ( 30 ) days of the receipt of this notice , the City may . i_ntervene in this action. If any judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against the County , please take further notice that the County shall be entitled to recover separately from , the City and other tax entities those taxes collected by the County on behalf of the City and other tax entities which are subject to refund to the Plaintiff as a result of the judgment. The County may, if it chooses to do so, offset the amount of the judgment and interest recoverable by it from the City and other tax entities against amounts held in the County treasury therefor, or against amounts due and payable thereto, including , but not limited to, property tax apportionments . Very truly yours , ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL By nn David R. Chaffee, Deput DRC Enc r 4f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas MP1 _ ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM. CALIFOANIA §2803 t. E.H. STOCKERT Division Manager November 20 , 1987 Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach - 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Madam: The Southern California Gas Co. is requesting authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission to refund certain amounts to its customers relating, primarily, to refunds received by the Gas Company from its interstate suppliers . The refund plan is similar to that used for the refunds made in December 1985 . The Gas Company expects to make the refund by credit to bills during December 1987 . Should your City wish to consider refunding the Utility Users ' Tax corresponding to this refund amount, the Gas Company is willing to assist your City by passing that tax refund on to eligible city residents, including it with the Gas Company refund during our regular billing operation in December 1987 . However, we are prepared to assist in making utility users ' tax refunds only if the amount of the tax refund is calculated and distributed uniformly and the Gas Company is expressly authorized by your City to offset the tax refunds through a credit against current utility users ' tax collections . The refund calculations would be based upon the amount of the utility refund and your City' s July 1983 Utility Users ' Tax rate. If your City agrees to the above approach, please indicate agree- ment by having the appropriate City official sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided, attaching a Resolution of your City Council formally authorizing this agreement and returned to me by November 23 , 1987 . E. H. Stockert Division Manager fmb Enclosure Southern California Gas Company is authorized to proceed with the tax refunds as outlined above and shall be allowed credits against current tax collections of all tax amounts so refunded. It is agreed that the City shall defend and indemnify the Gas Company as to any loss or liability arising from any act or omission by Gas Company in implementing tax refunds on behalf of the City. City of Huntington Beach By Position Date REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 13, 1987 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted b Charles W, C�w' Y� Thcanpson, City Adirninistrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Servi Subject: 1987/1988 Tax Rate i $"d - Consistent with Council Policy? M Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception CT�S• 1 ����� Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: The City Charter states that the City Council shall levy a tax upon property prior to August .31, 1987. If this is not done by this date, the rate for the preceding fiscal year will automatically be adopted. Recon mendation: Adopt the attached resolution setting the tax rate for voter approved indebtedness at .05490 per hundred dollars of assessed value. Analysis: The City receives a pro rata portion of the one dollar basic property tax rate. In addition, the City is entitled to tax levy for voter approved indebtedness. Last years rate was .05529 which is decreased for 1987/88 due to the 1970 Park Bond. issue decreasing slightly as it does every year as assessed valuation increases. The levy for employee retirement indebtedness remains the same. Funding Source: N/A Alternative Actions: 1. Take no action through August 31, 1987. (Previous year's rate would be assumed) 2. Select a different rate other than that proposed. 3. Direct staff to provide other rates before August 31, 1987. Attachments; Proposed Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 5811 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 TAX RATE IN SAID CITY WHEREAS, full cash value of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, for fiscal year 1987/88 is $8 ,364 , 799 ,879; and The City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the one dollar ($1 .00 ) Basic Property Tax Rate levied by the County Board of Supervisors as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments , offices and activities; and The amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation upon the taxable property within the City of Huntington Beach as revenue to pay a portion of the voter approved indebtedness for said city for the 1987/88 fiscal year is the sum of $4',592 ,275; and The tax rate herein is levied pursuant to Section 93 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purpose of paying voter approved indebtedness of the City of Huntington Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1987/88 be fixed at zero and .05490/100ths dollars ($.05490 ) upon each one hundred dollars ($100 ) of assessed property value in said city . The said rate shall be applied as follows : 1 . Employee Retirement $ .04930 2 . 1970 Park G.O. Bond .00560 Total $ .05490 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of adifflii ned Huntington Beach at a/rWLTfar meeting thereof held on the 24th day of August 1987 . aa� yar ATTEST: APPRCVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attftney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED A�.D APPROiD: City Administrator chi-6f ct—Aftinistrative Services 2459L 2 . Res. No. 5811 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) se: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 24th day of August 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Winrhall , MaVS , Einl0V. Kellg- Fr-,king- Groan, RanAistar NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None • arc%! City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California i REQUEP FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION �C'YL Date July 31� / Submitted to: HONORABLE MAYOR JACK KELLY ,� AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL nn Submitted by. CHARLES THOMPSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR�-,•i;o) � ct"Cl Prepared by: GAIL HUTTON, CITY ATTORNEY �� M Subject: RESOLUTION ASKING COUNTY OF ORANGE TO DEFEND CITY IN TAX SUIT Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception S—F O ' Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT: Southern Pacific Transportation Company and other railroads have brought suit against the state Board of Equalization, the County of Orange , the City of Huntington Beach and other cities , counties , and revenue districts for rail transportation property taxes assessed and collected. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 5149 provides that , upon application to the Board of Supervisors , the County Counsel may be directed to undertake the defense of any individual city . RECOMMENDATION: The attached resolution be adopted and the City Clerk directed to forward copy to the Office of the County Counsel. FUNDING SOURCE : Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Attorney will defend this lawsuit . � S Plo 5/85 RESOLUTION NO. 5807 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO UNDERTAKE THE DEFENSE OF THE CITY IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. , CASE NO. 877359 WHEREAS, Southern Pacific Transportation Company and other railroad companies have brought suit against the Board of Equalization of the State of California, the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach, and other cities, counties and revenue districts for taxes collected on rail transportation property by the defendant counties on behalf of the defendant cities and other revenue districts; and Section 5149 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code provides that when such a suit is filed, a city may call upon the county to undertake the defense of the action , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby requests the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of Southern Pacific Transportation Company, et al . v. Board of Equalization of the State of California, et al . , Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco Case No. 877359 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of August , 1987 . ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adminis rator or City Atkorney Res. No. 5807 ` STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) se: CITY OF HUM INGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of August 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Winchell, Mays, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, of. the City of Huntington Beach, California � ia6 ,t STATE OF CALIFORN.1A FkANCHISE TAX`GOARD MaNiRd address: v Legal.Division P.O. Sox 14W Sacramento CA WW7.14W (916) H 9-4630 May 8, 1987 C I TY O HUN r I NG FON +EACH L 1 1 Y HfaLL IP U 8,0X 711 HUNT INGI'ON BCH C:A '3264d Attn: City Clerk Enclosed is a copy of Emergency Regulation 19286 . 8 as filed with the Secretary of State ' s Office on April 2, 1987 (Exhibit A) and the notice of hearing (Exhibit B) with respect to said regulation. After the regulation was filed, the Franchise Tax Board noted certain punctuation and capitalization errors and decided that subdivision (e) of the regulation should be amended to provide for a specific filing date and prescribed form for filing the information required (Exhibit C) . Except for the technical corrections and the revision to subdivision (e) , the regulation as proposed to be amended is exactly the same as Regulation 19286 . 8 originally filed on September 9 , 1985 , copies of which were previously distributed to you on September 16, 1985 . The refiling was required because of an error which occurred at the time the original regulation was processed. A public hearing pertaining to the adoption of Regulation 19286 . 8 and the proposed amendments thereto has been scheduled for June 24 , 1987 . Please refer to the enclosed notice for details. If you have any questions, please contact Bob Mason at ( 916) 369-4630 . Enc. EXHIBIT A Section 19286.8 is adopted to read: 19286.8. City business tax information. (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section: (1) ' Business tax. An amount imposed by a city as either a cognition to, or in connection with transacting business in the cit . The amount may be flat, or may be measured by gross receipts, gross income, number of employees or any other similar basis. A business tax does not include fees or charges for services furnished by the cit , such as police, fire, sewers, building inspection, sanitation, etc. ( 2) Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) . The identifying number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service. ( 3) State Employer Identification Number (SEIN) . The identifying number assigned b� the Employment Development Department of the State of California. ( 4) Board of Equalization Sales Tax Acccunt Number (BEAN) . The identifying number assigned by the Board of Equalization of the State of California. ( 5) State Contractors ' License Number . The identifying number assigned by the State Contractors ' License Board of the State of California. ( 6) City Business Classification Code . The identifying code assigned by a city to each licensed business for classification purposes . (7 ) Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code. A standardized structural coding for identifying industries as developed by Internal Revenue Service. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget. (b) Information Reporting Requirements . This regulation applies only to cities which maintain or have access to a computerized recordkee in or information s stem with respect to business taxes . Information escribed in this section is required to be furnished by Section 19286 . 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and must be used exclusively for state tax enforcement purposes. Information furnished does not become a public record and shall not be open to the public for inspection. (c) The information required to be reported includes the following: ( 1) Name of the business subject to the tax. 21 Mailing address of the business and J _ street address different from mailing address. ( 3) Owner(s) name. ( 4) Owner (s)- adTr—ess. ( 5�eral employer identification number (FEIN) , if the business is a Rartnership or corporation, or owner ' s name and social. security number for all others. State employer i enti ication number (SEIN) may a used in lieu of the tederal identir�ica`Eion number FEIN thefederal identification number is not known. ( 6) Ownership type, e.g. , sole proprietor- ship, corporation or partnership. (7) Amount o annual business tax and, if applicable and available, amount of gross receipts. ( 8) Basis for tax determination, e.g. , gross receipts or flat rate. (9) Frequency of payment of business taxes or renewal of right to do business. ( 10) Date business commenced, if during current reporting period. ( 11) Date business ceased or ownership changed, if during current reporting period. ( 12) Type of business activity. City business classification code or Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code. (d) The following information is also to be furnished if available: ( 1 ) State sales tax number (BEAN) . ( 2) State contractor ' s license number . (e) The business tax information will be reported to the Franchise Tax Board on an annual basis in the form, manner and time established by the Franchise Tax Board NOTE: Authority cited: Section 19253 , Revenue and Taxation Cam. Reference: Section 19286 . 8 , Revenue and Taxation Code . EXHIBIT B NOTICE OF FRANCHISE TAX BOARD EMERGENCY REGULATION HEARING Notice is hereby given, as required by Section 11346.5 of the Government Code, that the Franchise Tax Board has scheduled a PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD-AT 10:00 A.M. ON JUNE 24, 1987, IN THE LEGAL CONFERENCE ROOM AT 9645 BUTTERFIELD WAY, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, to consider, with reference to its authority under Section 19253 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) , the adoption of Section 19286. 8 in Title 18 of the California Administrative Code pertaining to city business tax information. The proposed action interprets, implements , and makes specific Section 19286.8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST Section 19286.8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) was enacted by Assembly Bill 3230 (Stats. 1984, Ch. 1490) . This section provides that each city which maintains a computerized recordkeeping system or has access to a computerized recordkeeping or information system and which assesses a business tax shall annually furnish to the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) specified information for all businesses subject to the tax in the preceding fiscal year . Section 19286.8 further provides that the reports required under this section shall be filed on magnetic media or in other machine-readable form, according to standards prescribed by regulation by the FTB. Cities shall begin providing to the FTB the information required by this section as soon as economically feasible, but no later than December 31, 1990. The information shall be furnished annually at a time and in the form which the FTB may prescribe by regulation. Emergency Regulation 19286 . 8 sets forth the information reporting requirements for cities which maintain or have access to a computerized recordkeeping or information system with respect to business taxes . On September 9 , 1985, Emergency Regulation 19286 . 8 was approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and filed with the Secretary of State' s Office, effective immediately. . Because Section 45 of AB 3230 specifically states that emergency regulations adopted thereunder shall not be subject to the review and approval of OAL, FTB determined that the provisions of Government Code Section 11346 . 1 were not applicable in this matter . Nevertheless, on January 10 , 1987, OAL repealed Emergency Regulation 19286 .8 by operation of law because the regulatory process did not comply with statutory provisions governing the filing of regulations. Pursuant -to the authority provided by Section 19253 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and in accordance with Section 45 of AB 3230 , Regulation 19286. 8 was re-adopted as an emergency regulation and was filed with the Secretary of State' s Office on April 2, 1987 . After the regulation was filed, the Franchise Tax Board noted certain punctuation and capitalization errors and decided that subdivision (e) of the regulation should be amended to provide for a specific filing date and prescribed form for filing the information required. Such amendments shall be made to the regulation before the regulatory process is finalized. INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS: The Franchise Tax Board has prepared an initial statement of reasons setting forth the facts upon which this regulation and proposed amendments thereto are based. The statement includes the specific purpose of the regulation and the proposed amendments and the factual basis for determining that they are necessary. Copies of the express terms of the regulation as filed with the Secretary of State and as proposed to be amended, as well as the initial statement of reasons and all information upon which the proposal is based, are available upon request from the agency officer named below. SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS: The Franchise Tax Board requests interested persons to present statements, contentions or arguments concerning the regulation and the proposed amendments. The statements may be written or oral. Written comments will be accepted until 5 :00 p.m. , July 1, 1987 . The Franchise Tax Board will consider all relevant matters presented to it before filing the amendments to Emergency Regulation 19286.8 . CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OF ACTIONS: Following the hearing, the Franchise Tax Board may file the proposed amendments to the regulation. The Franchise Tax Board may also adopt the amendments with modifications if the changes are nonsubstantive or the resulting regulation is sufficiently related to the text made available to the public so that the public was adequately placed on notice that the regulation as modified could result from that originally filed. The text of the regulation as modified will be made available to the public at least 15 days prior to the date on which the Franchise Tax Board files the modification. COST STATEMENT: The Franchise Tax Board has determined that no increased costs or savings to any state agency, or costs to any school district under Part 7 , commencing with Government Code Section 17500 of Division 4, or costs or savings in federal funding to the state will result from the proposed regulation. LOCAL MANDATE: The Commission on State Mandates has determined that the city business tax information as required to be submitted to the Franchise Tax Board by Section 19286. 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and by Regulation 19286 . 8 as originally filed comprise reimburseable state mandates. To date, the reimburseable costs have not been determined by the Commission nor has funding for such costs been approved by the Legislature. There are presently 423 cities which impose a business tax. In the event each city files a claim with the Commission averaging five thousand dollars ($5,000) , the cost of compliance could be as high as $2,115,000 . Since only one test claim has been considered by the Commission, the reliability of this estimate is questionable. Furthermore, reimbursement for those activites will only be paid if the Legislature approves funding . In this regard, the Legislature previously specified in Section 48 of AB 3230 that "no reimbursement is required by this Act . . . because the Legislature finds and declares that there are revenues as well as costs in this Act which, in the aggregate, do not result in additional net costs. " HOUSING COST IMPACT: The regulation will have no impact on housing costs. SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: The regulation will have no significant adverse economic impact on small businesses. COST IMPACT ON PRIVATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES: The regulation will have no potential cost impact on private persons or businesses directly affected. The hearing room is accessible to persons with physical disabilities . Any person planning to attend the hearing who is in need of a language interpreter , including sign language, should contact the officer named below at least two weeks prior to the hearing so that the services of an interpreter may be arranged. ALL INQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR THE HEARING SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO SUSAN HUGHES AT ( 916 ) 369-3367 OR BY MAIL TO THE LEGAL DIVISION, ATTN: SUSAN HUGHES, P. 0. BOX 1468, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95807-1468 . Dated: April 29, 1987 EXHIBIT C Section 19286.8 is amended to read: 19286.8. City business tax information. (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section: ( 1) Business tax. An amount imposed by a city as either a condition to, or in connection with transacting business in the city. The amount may be flat, or may be measured by gross receipts, gross income, number of employees or any other similar basis. A business tax does not include fees or charges for services furnished by the city, such as police, fire, sewers, building inspection, sanitation, etc. ( 2) Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) . The identifying number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service. ( 3 ) State Employer Identification Number (SEIN) . The identifying number assigned by the Employment Development Department of the State of California. ( 4) Board of Equalization Sales Tax Account Number (BEAN) . The identifying number assigned by the Board of Equalization of the State of California. ( 5 ) State Contractors ' License Number . The identifying number assigned by the State Contractors ' License Board of the State of California. ( 6 ) City Business Classification Code. The identifying code assigned by a city to each licensed business for classification purposes. ( 7 ) Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code. A standardized structural coding for identifying industries as developed by Internal Revenue Service..-, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget . (b) Information Reporting Requirements . This regulation applies only to cities which maintain or have access to a computerized recordkeeping or information system with respect to business taxes. Information described in this section is required to be furnished by Section 19286 . 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and must be used exclusively for state tax enforcement purposes . Information furnished does not become a public record and shall not be open to the public for inspection. (c) The information required to be reported includes the following: (1) Name of the business subject to the tax . ( 2) Mailing address of the business and street address if different from mailing address. ( 3) Owner (s) name. ( 4) Owner(s) address. ( 5) Federal employer identification number Employer Identification Number (FEIN) , if the business is a partnership or corporation, or owner ' s name and social security number for all others. State employer identification number (SEIN) may be used in lieu of the federal identification number (FEIN) if the federal identification number is not known. (6) Ownership type, e.g. , sole proprietorship, corporation or partnership. ( 7 ) Amount of annual business tax and, if applicable and available, amount of gross receipts. ( 8) Basis for tax determination, e.g. , gross receipts or flat rate. ( 9 ) Frequency of payment of business taxes or renewal of right to do business. ( 10) Date business commenced, if during current reporting period. ( 11) Date business ceased or ownership changed, if during current reporting period. ( 12) Type of business activity. City business classification code or Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code . (d) The following information is also to be furnished if available: ( 1 ) State sales tax number (BEAN) . ( 2) State contractor ' s license number . (e) The business tax information will be reported to the Franchise Tax Board an an annual basis in the form; manner and time established by the Franchise Tax Beard no later than March 31 of the year succeeding the immediate preceding calendar year on magnetic media or in other machine readable form. NOTE: Authority cited: Section 19253, Revenue and Taxation Code. Reference: Section 19286 .8, Revenue and Taxation Code. 1 REQUE* FOR CITY COUNCIPACTION Date August 22, 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator / '1 Robert J. Franz, Chief of Prepared by: —.---- � -t1 Subject: 1986/87 Tax Rate 9 � ?�_. CITYrGLLitK Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: The. City Charter states that the City Council shall. levy a .tax upon property prior to August 31, 1986. If this is not done by this date, the rate for the preceding fiscal year will automatically be adopted. Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution setting. the tax rate for voter approved indebtedness at .05529 per hundred dollars of assessed value. Analysis:. The City receives a prorata portion of the one dollar basic property tax rate and in addition is entitled to a tax levy for voter approved indebtedness. Last year's rate was .05563 which is decreased for 1986/87 due to the 1970 Park Bond issue decreasing slightly as it does every year the assessed valuation increases. The levy for approved employee retirement indebtedness remains the same. Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternative Actions: 1. Select a different rate other than the proposed. 2. Direct staff to provide optional rates prior to August 31, 1986. Attachments: City of Huntington Beach Property Tax Levy for Voter Approved Indebtedness 2721 j PIO 5/85 w RESOLUTION NO. 5706 .x - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1986/87 TAX -RATE IN SAID CITY WHEREAS, the Orange County Assessor ' s Office has not provided the 1986-87 assessed valuation in sufficient time to adopt a tax rate; and WHEREAS, City Charter mandates a tax rate be adopted by August 31; and- WHEREAS THE City Charter states that if the City Council fails to fix the rate and levy taxes on or before August 31 in any year , the rate for the next preceding fiscal year shall thereupon be automatically adopted and a tax at such rate shall be deemed to have been levied on all taxable property in the City for the current fiscal year . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said City for fiscal year 1986-87 be fixed at zero and . 05529/100ths dollars ($.05529 ) upon each one hundred dollars ($100 ) of assessed property value in said City. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1 . Employee Retirement $.04930 2 . 1970 Park G.O. Bond .00599 Total $.05529 _ - 1. s - PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the adjourned regular meeting held on the 25th day of August, 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI A E AND APPROVED: '01:41 r'ooc/)60� i Cit'q -Admi-nistratfor Chief of Ad ini rative Services 2. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC, PROPERTY TAX LEVY VOTER APPROVED INDEBTEDNESS Tax Levy 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 Park Bonds .00752 .00700 .00633 .00599 Retirement .04930 .04930 .04930 .04930 Total .05682 .05630 .05563 .05529 Tax Revenue 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 Park Bonds 470,887 489,209 472,000 472,000 Retirement 2,996,000 32299,000 31440,000 3,883,000 3,466,887 3,788,209 3,912,000 4,355,000 Note: The property tax levy for the Retirement portion of the voter approved indebtedness is limited by state law to the maximum of the amount levied in 1983/84 or the levy needed to cover 100% of the indebtedness cost, whichever is less. Since the City elected, prior to 1983/85, to levy less than 100% of the cost, the 1983/84 levy is the maximum levy for the City. It covers about 80% of retirement costs. 2714j Res. ,. 5706 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COURrY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF RM INGTON BEACH I, ALICIA M. WENTiiORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August 19 86 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey NOES: Councilmen: . None . ABSENT: Councilmen: , Green, Thomas City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ems.: REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL -ACT CITY COUNCIL VED BY Date M Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Member CITY CL Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Services r Subject: Gann Initiative Appropriation Limit Consistent with Council Policy? [�YYes [ ] New Policy or Exception 'Pei Qc *Sd6 / v Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue: On November 6, 1979, the voters of the State of California added Article XIIIB Gann Spending Limitation Initiative) to the State Constitution by constitutional amendment. This article establishes and defines annual appropriation limits on State and local governmental entities based on annual appropriations for Fiscal 1978-79, as adjusted for changes in cost of living, population, and other specified factors. It requires that revenues received in excess of appropriations permitted by this measure to be returned by revision of tax rates and/or fee schedules within two fiscal years following the year that the excess occurred. The appropriations subject to limitation under this article are "proceeds of taxes" generally defined as "all tax revenues and the proceeds. . .from; 1) regulatory licenses, user charges, and user fees to the extent that such proceeds exceed the costs reasonably borne. . .in providing the regulation, product, or service, and 2) the investment of tax revenues. With respect to local government, "proceeds of taxes" shall include subventions received from the State. . ." Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing an appropriations limit of $69,138,401 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987. Analysis: The recommended appropriation limit was computed based on the appropriations of "proceeds of taxes" for Fiscal Year 1978-79 adjusted by population increases and the lesser of the increase in the consumer price index or per capita income each subsequent year. It is computed that appropriations from proceeds of taxes from our adopted budget for Fiscal Year 1986-87 is $59,571,202 which is well below the appropriation limitation. Alternative Action: Recalculate the appropriation limit using different interpretations of the Gann Initiative. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Computation of Appropriation Limitation 2530j 3 PIO 4/84 REQUES . FOR CITY COUNCIL-ACTION Date April 14, 1986 t G°U submitted to: Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles Thompson - City Administ'at' y v' Prepared by: Warren Hall - City Treasurerrl V Subject: ISSUANCE OF TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES FOR F/Y 1986/8 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [X] New Policy or Exc Ion I:bS Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE Huntington Beach, in common with most other cities, runs a negative General Fund Balance until Real Property Tax Revenues are disbursed by the County in November and April. We have always covered this problem by "borrowing" from available money in other funds to make payroll and other General Fund Expenses until Real Property Tax monies are available RECOMMENDATION � The City Council is requested to approve Resolution Jr 4 �,5 This is a Resolution of intent to issue one year Tax Exempt Tax Anticipation Notes at the maximum value allowable based upon our projected. Negative Cash Flow for 1986/87 & = prior years experiences. This is estimated to be in the 7 to 8 million dollar range. This Resolution is only one of intent and does not obligate the City until a market offer is received, at which time final approval will be required. ANALYSIS The growth of our City and frugal budgeting has always overcome the "Natural" Cash Flow problems caused by the timing of Property Taxes. Prop 13 has. also contributed as it caused us to rely and build on the many other sources of revenue that flow on a monthly or quarterly basis. The attached. "Schedule A" shows the growth of the "Cash Gap". The effect has been to cause an everincreasing reliance on Short Termt investment with the resultant loss of interest earnings, as normally, the longer the term, the higher the rate of interest. Now that Huntington Beach has reached a sufficient size to make a substantial Tax Anticipation Issuance it will result in my being able to invest regular. revenues and restricted funds for a longer term resulting in increased interest revenues and the proceeds of the issuance will be used for shorter range cash problems. There will also be some earnings contribution between the Tax Exempt Issue Rate and the "Market Rate". The Notes will be issued late in June '86 and payable in June of 1987. FUNDING SOURCE All costs' which are estimated at $45 to $55,000 will be taken as a reduction of proceeds and charged to Interest Earnings. I estimate an increase in Interest Earn- ings of approximately $180 to $200,000 for Fiscal Year over and above the issuance costs. 00 PIO 4/84 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Issue.1ess than the full amount allowable 2. Not issue Tax Anticipation Notes and lose the anticipated earnings. ATTACHMENTS Schedule"A"past 5 year and current year Cash Flow for all Funds Resolution5li$5 F RESOLUTION NO. 5655 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OF INTENT TO ISSUE AND SELL SHORT-TERM TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-1987 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach wishes to provide for effective cash management of the city' s budget for fiscal year 1986/87, and to provide cash for the city' s General Fund prior to the receipt of property tax revenues ; and Based upon budget estimates furnished by the City Treasurer' s office, short-term financing in the form of Tax and Revenue Anti- cipation Notes will benefit the city in fiscal year 1986/87; and Pursuant to California Government Code § 53850 et seq. , the City of Huntington Beach desires the issuance of such Notes on or about July 1 , 1986, so that the city' s General Fund will have suf- ficient funds on a timely basis to meet the city' s obligations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby directs staff to prepare the neces- sary documentation for issuance of such revenue anticipation notes for fiscal year 1986/87, and to make preparations to employ bond counsel and underwriters, and , further, directs that staff furnish information relating to the sale of such notes to the City Council for approval thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: • ate%/ ' �� �-„ City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED ND APPROVED: INITIATED V D: City Administration ity Tre rarer Schedule "A" City of Huntington Beach Past Five Years and Current Year Cash Flow for All Funds $ in Millions July 1 Nov April June High/Low Begin F/Y Begin Bal Low Bal High Bal End Bal Gross Diff Bal 1985/86 36,000 29,900 N/A 1984/85 31,900 24,400 39,500 36,600 15,100 47% 1983/84 29,100 21,300 32,100 31,900 10,800 37% 1982/83 28,400 23,000 29,900 29,100 6,900 24% 1981/82 26,100 22,300 30,100 28,400 7,800 20% 1980/81 25,100 21,100 *26,100 26,000 5,000 20% *May Res. No. 5655 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April 19 86 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Green, Thomas NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Bailey City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ItyT,of Huntington'Beach Person to Conti Annabelle -Richards 00 ,Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone # (714) 536-5238 ext .Attn: City Clerk Lessee / Tenant 12 Month Total rent (as of 3/l/86) period paid during Please include mailing address ending period ALDER TREE SNACK SHOP 12/31/85 4,561 Mr. & Mrs. Gene Bass 16706 Maple Fountain Valley, CA 92708 AMERICAN GOLF 12/31/85 216,796 Mr. Robert Williams 641 N. Sepulveda Los Angeles, CA 90049 BEACH HUT 12/31/85 13,797 Mr. & Mrs. Roy McClymonds 8262 Niland Way Garden Grove, CA 92644 BRADBERRY, R. J. 12/31/85 4,200 1537 E. Adams Los Angeles, CA 90011 BREAKFAST IN THE PARK 12/31/85 30,815 Mr. & Mrs. John Gustafson P. 0. Box 111 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CATHOLIC COMMUNITY AGENCIES 12/31/85 2,400 1612 Spurgeon Santa Ana, CA 92705 CAPTAIN'S GALLEY 12/31/85 8,047 Mrs. Ella Christensen 633 Hartford Huntington Beach, CA 92648 and Mr. Roger Cowdrey 27621 Agrado Mission Viejo, CA DWIGHT'S 12/31/85 20,345 Mr. & Mrs. Jack Clapp 1210 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 END CAFE 9/85-12/85 18,036 Mr. John Gustafson P. 0. Box 111 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 FANDEY, EDITH (Terminating as of 4/1/86) 4,200 601 Tenth Street 12/31/85 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Person to Conti Annabelle Richards Phone # (714) 536-5238 ext Lessee / Tenant 12 Month Total rent (as of 3/l/86) period paid during Please include mailing address ending period FEEDBACK FOUNDATION, INC. Food Dist at 12/31/85 0 P. 0. Box 3098 City Club House Santa Ana, CA 92703 FIRST. INTERSTATE BANK 12/31/85 4,200 P. 0. Box 3666 Los Angeles, CA 90051 GARISEK, ANTHONY 12/31/85 7,200 520 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, CA 92648 GOLDENWEST COPIER New 1986 ----- Mr. Stan Martz 15060 Goldenwest Street Westminster, CA 92683 HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSN. 12/31/85 1 P. 0. Box 896 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY CLINIC 12/31/85 1 Ms Martha Earlabaugh 322 Fifth Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK EQUESTRIAN CENTER 12/31/85 21,782 Mr. Ed Milligan 18381 Goldenwest Huntington Beach, CA JACK'S 12/31/85 19,420 Mr. & Mrs. Jack Clapp 1210 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA_ 92648 LEGAL AID SOCIETY 12/31/85 2,400 2700 N. Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 MAXWELL'S 12/31/85 306,177 WPL Industries Mr. Paul Wimmer 317 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NEPTUNE'S LOCKER 12/31/85 32,275 Mrs. Ella Christensen and Joy Smith 633 Hartford Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Voter Approved Debt Tax Rate Adopted Proposed Alternative Alternative 1982-83 1983-84 Rate A Rate B Components Col . 1 Col . 2 Col . 3 Col . 4 1970 General Obligation Bonds .00826 .00752 .00752 .00752 Employee Retirement .04930 .04930 .05004 .06880 Total .05756 .05682 .05756 .07632 Col . 2 = Rate needed to meet 100% of the fiscal year's 1970 Park Bond requirement plus an employee retirement rate equal to last year's which would provide for approxi- mately 72% of the retirement costs. . This rate would comply with AB377 using the most conservative interpretation. Col . 3 = Rate needed to meet 100% of the fiscal year's 1970 Park Bond requirement plus a retirement rate which would make the "total" tax rate equal to last year' s total tax rate. This would increase the retirement tax revenue by approximately $50,000. This rate would comply with AB377 if it is assumed that the City cannot increase its "total" voter-approved indebtedness rate levied in Fiscal Year 1982-83. Col . 4 = Rate needed to meet 100% of Park Bond and retirement requirements for Fiscal Year 1983-84. This is the maximum allowable rate and assumes legal opinion that Section 97.6 of AB377 is unconstitutional . RESOLUTION NO. 5303 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF r--- HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-1984 TAX RATE IN SAID CITY WHEREAS, full cash value of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equal- ization of the County of Orange, California, for fiscal year 1983-1984 is $6,292,926,314; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the one dollar ($1.00) Basic Property Tax Rate levied by the County Board of Supervisors as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities; and WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation upon the taxable property within the City of Huntington Beach as revenue to pay a portion of the voter approved indebtedness for said city for the 1983-1984 fiscal year is the sum of $3,575,641; and WHEREAS, the tax rate herein is levied pursuant to Section 93 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purpose of paying voter approved indebtedness of the City of Hu nt- ington Beach; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1983-1984 be fixed at zero and .05682/100ths dollars ($.05682) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1. Employee Retirement $.04930 2. 1970 Park G.O. Bond .00752 Total $.05682 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular adjourned meeting held on the 22nd day of August, 1983. (F. .e Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk INITIATED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: i' `City Administrator ✓ fo.City Attorney 1� t p x Res. No. 5303 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: 1 d. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of August 19 83 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley, Bailey, Mandic City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California � w� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 25, 1982 , V. A. Heim - Orange County Auditor/Controller P. 0. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA. 92702 Attn: Charles Krueger The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular adjourned meeting held Monday, August 23, 1982, adopted Resolution No. 5152 fixing the Fiscal Year 1982-83 Tax Rate in the City of Huntington. Beach. Enclosed are two certified copies of Resolution No. 5152 for your information. _----- --------------Al-i-ci-a _M—Wentworth------ — ------------ - - -- - - --- - City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosures CC: .Frank Arguello, Director of Administrative Services Telephone:714-536-5227) i 0;4; RESOLUTION NO. 5152 A RESOLUTION OF THE ' CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1982-1983 TAX RATE IN SAID CITY WHEREAS, full cash.value of the taxable property of the city of Huntington Beach, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, for fiscal year 1982-1983 is $5, 672 ,213, 998; and The City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the one dollar, ($1) basic property tax rate levied by the county Board of Supervisors as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments , offices and activities; and The amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation upon the taxable property in the city- of Huntington Beach as revenue to pay the voter-approved indebtedness for said city for the 1982-1983 fiscal year is the sum of $3 ,265, 000; and The tax rate herein is levied pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 93. for the purpose of paying voter- approved indebtedness of the' City of Huntington Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1982-1983 be fixed at zero and . 05756/100ths dollars ($0.05756) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed _ property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows : 1. Employee Retirement $ 0. 04930 2 . 1970 Park G. 0. Bond_ 0 .00826 TOTAL $ 0 .05756 PASSED .AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of 'rH:ahb ;/24/82 1. �i an adjourned Huntington, Beach at /regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August , 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk CitT Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: C ty Admini rator Rom_ No. 5152 STATE .OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF'_ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF 'HUNT.INGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of ;he 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„more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular sadjo urnPd meeting thereof held on the 2'�rd day of August , 19 82 . , by the following vote: AYES: . ._Councilmen: MacAllister- MMandle _ Finley RaiTay� Kally NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: .'...Councilmen: Patti song Thomas 7;, _ City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California �F .. irk. c - G JUG 1°s Fin=;ce Dc�: ` OFFICE Oh' T1H_-; CITY ATTORNEY OPINION NO. 78-10 July 11, 1978 SUBJEC'i' : Gost of Retirement System REQUESTED BY: Frank B: Arguello, Director of Finance PREPARED B1: Gail Mutton, City Attorney James Georges , Deputy City Attorney . QUESTION-: Does Section 404 of the nevily revised City C.harter relating to retirement system con- stitute a voter-approved indebtedness? Ai,ISWER: Yes . BACKGROUND: It has been the cu.stom and practice of thi; Cit , to pay for t ,e pension funds Out of property taxes . 16 .68 cents of tine 31 . 55 levied is earmarked for. and used for payment tor:ards the r,enslon w. fund. The rate of 16 .68 cents has been frozen at the 1 72-1973 rates because of Senate Bill 90 , enac.ted in 1972 . 7'ne 1,ea.1_ question is : is the City obligated tO )ay the oen,5ioi, 'funds out of property taxes , or is the City oblif;a.ted to pa.- tC. pension funds out of the gener'a,l fund .ihich der Ives its f ndz from many sources? In .enforcing, Proposition 13 , the Count,; pays to the cities a certain percentage of the property ccl- lected. The City is obligated to pay for certain ite1: o:ni•% with property taxes . The question arlses , is tine pension fu:.d to be paid for only out of property taxes? DISCUSSIO:%I : In California, the liability for a pension 1.3 not 'CO ti» pe .sion fund, but the obligation to pay, once it ves'Lls , becomes a general obligation of the City . Bellus v. Eureka, 69 C. 71 CR 135, 44 P . 2d 711 . Goodwin v. Board of `J_'rustee•s_off, t},- Firemen ' s Relief and Pension Fund , 72 CA2d 45 , 17�4 P.2d�5 22 SOliie pension funds are maintained by l-iunicina' it:!_?S b;;l tale levy— ing of taxes . Pr1cAllppine v. Baumo.,artn_er, 10 C . 2d )4109 , 74 P .2d 75- . In the C_�_ty . of Huntington Beach i.t has been the cur_,te: anti r, ac- Lice to maintain the pension fund out of property ta,:c� : -Since the pension fund has vested in ttnis City, it beco,3e5 a. F;eineral obligation of the City and, tFierefo.re., constiti •es a --------------------- "vo �nroved indebtedness" . The voters have` ap_prov�u Charter Section 1100 and Sectio�04 of the ne:; ChL.rter . ,n OFFICE OF 7.HE CITY ATTORNEY July 11 , 1978 0PIIII01 IIO. 73-10 Page Two CONCLU S1014 : It .has been_ tho custom and practice of this City to maintain pension funds. out of property taxes . The pension system is a voter-approved indebtedness . Once the pension fund vests , it becomes a- general obligation of the City. Section 607(4) (1) of the new Charter provides that property taxes , in addition to the $1. 00 annually for each $100 of the approved value of taxable property , -,hould be levied to meet all' obligations for the retirement system. GAIT.., H TTOIN City Attorney r� J ;iES GORGES Deputy City Attorney GH:JG :ps ___-- -I_✓�-O �. f_ �_/��7!/. _ - ACCOUNTANT y - 13 > DATE y� /���%r _------ i I !I -------------- � I I o3 7 7-7 i I :air 1Z, j , ,p L I , I 1 o ' I : f i ,y ej� _f l o- -Z I � � '' !� it � �i �I ; 1 � ? I _• i -- - - - - it i3. o� ; i i s _9. z- Iz F Ji I 1-^--`- - 1-01 LiiIONAL F':)R> :c -- 1I.A—% W. P. No. ---- — — -- ACCOUNTANT DATE em mi 7 -oq ti • � I it 74 ......... it i it l I;t i , I PJ it , c : : i , t I , jt; ! V itit it Ii i ! II II rr;,... r; i " RESOLUTION NO. 5031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1981-1982 TAX RATE IN SAID CITY WHEREAS , full cash value of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for fiscal year 198.1-1982 is $5 , 219 , 684, 140 ; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the one dollar ($1. 00) Basic . Property Tax Rate levied by the County Board of Supervisors as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of .the various city departments, offices and activities; and WHEREAS , the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation upon the taxable property within the City of Huntington Beach as revenue to pay the voter approved indebtedness for said city for the 1981-1982 fiscal year is the sum of $2 , 404 , 866 ; and WHEREAS , the tax rate herein is levied pursuant to Section 93 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purpose of paying voter approved indebtedness of the City of Huntington- Beach, NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1981-1982 be fixed at zero and 04635/100ths dollars ($0 . 04635) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) . of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows :. 1. Employee Retirement $ 0 . 03729 2 . 1970 Park G.O. Bond 0 . 00906 Total $ 0 . 04635 GH:pls 8/17/81 -1- .,�• PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of August, 1981. G • • Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk INITIATED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrate' City At orney -2- Res. No.. 5031 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH[]JI ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members -of said City Council .at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of August 19 81 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: -Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California �. P�; { REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AC ION- Date June 13, 1984 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administ 4r % Ap Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Se vicce ITY COUNCIL Subject: Gann Initiative Appropriation Limit - 4 Q+ J 395 CITY CL Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On November 6, 1979, the voters of the State of California added Article XIIIB (Gann Spending Limitation Initiative) to the State Constitution by constitutional amendment. This article establishes and defines annual appropriation limits on State and local governmental entities based on annual appropriations for Fiscal 1978-79, as adjusted for changes in cost of living, population, and other specified factors. It requires that revenues received in excess of appropriations permitted by this measure to be returned by revision of tax rates and/or fee schedules within two fiscal years following the year that the excess occurred. The appropriations subject to limitation under this article are "proceeds of taxes" generally defined as "all tax revenues and the proceeds . . . from (i) regulatory licenses, user charges, and user fees to the extent that such proceeds exceed the costs reasonably borne . . . in providing the regulation, product, or service, and (ii) the investment of tax revenues. With respect to local government, "proceeds of taxes" shall include subventions received from the State ." RECOMMENDED ACTION: That e City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing an appropriations limit of $63,774,864 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985. ANALYSIS: The recommended appropriation limit was computed based on the appropriations of "Proceeds of Taxes" for Fiscal Year 1978-79 adjusted by population increases and the lesser of the increase in the consumer price index or per capita income each subsequent year. It is computed that appropriations from proceeds of taxes from our adopted budget for Fiscal Year 1984-85 is well below the appropriation limitation. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Recompute the appropriation limit using different interpretations of the Gann Initiative. Do not adopt a limit at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Computation of Appropriation Limitation 0536 j "Z �eN PIO 4/81 f� is RESOLUTION NO. 5395 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-1985 WHEREAS, Article 13B of the Constitution of the State of California imposes upon units of state and local government the obligation to limit each fiscal year 's appropriations of the proceeds from taxes to the amount of such appropriations in fiscal year 1978-1979 as adjusted for changes in. cost of living or per capita income, whichever is less, and population, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that in compliance with the provisions of Article 13B of the California Constitution and the formula specified therein, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach establishes the appropriation limit for the city for fiscal year 1984-1985 to be $63,774,864. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appropriations limit herein established may be changed as deemed necessary by resolution of the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of June , 1984. A 1�4 ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM: CityClerk Cit Attorney 6`�3'�Y Y Y 1. 'J r REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITI APPR Ds iAinistator Chief,_ dmiisttive S vic 7sC 4 2. 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Computation of Appropriation Limitation Fiscal Year 1984-85 Appropriation Limitation 1983-84 $ 60,441 ,471 Population Factor X 1 .0074 Cost of Living Factor X 1.0474 Appropriation Limitation 1984-85 $ 63,774,864 r No. 5395 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at .a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of June , 19 84 by the following vote: AYES:. Councilmen: Pattinson, MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Councilmen: None NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California A »� I{u Z!Co �erso ` L~ .~.. -_- ^, .' zuIJO Maio , ^ Buotiog"Loo Beach, OF 92648 .�tto; City Clerk Phone � ex� ' ------ Lessee / "Ieuaot 12 Month Dotal rent (as of 3/l/84) period. Please ioolude mailing address � � � ������ --- -----T'-------- — -'-- - - ---'—' --------- | ' ' Catholic Community Agency 12/31/83 2,400,00 7701 Taylor Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Edith Fand ey 12/31/83 4,200.00 200.00 5Z5 Main Street Huntington Beach, [O. 92-648 First Interstate Bank ' 12/31/83 4,200,08 P O Box 3665 Los Angeles, Ca. 90051 / George Armstrong 12/31/83 l l50 O0 / , . , 9780 Emmons Circle Fountain Valley, Ca- 92708 Greg 80St0n 12/31/83 1 900 0D ' ~ ` 425l 3Oth Street ° Newport Beach, Ca. 92563 / Harold Butler Ent. 12/31/8J l 26O OO , P O Box 3708 La Mirada, Cu. 90637 Harold Pugh 12/31/83 2 ,400,00 19071 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 � Huntington Beach Credit Union 12/31/83 2, 160.00 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Cd, 92548 Huntington Beach Inn 12/31/83 95,000.00 21112 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Co. 92048 / Huntington Harbour Yacht Club 12/31. 83 /,07C'00 -p O Box 30t Sunset Beach, Ca. 90742 Puy N Play 12/31/83 2,000.00 \/ l47Jl Goldenwest 411`0'4�` ' HEstmjnster, Ca. � Fier Realty 12/31/83 7, 200.00 220 Main Street Huntington Beach, C8. g2§48 ' � / R. J. Bradberr 12/31/83 4,550.00 537 East Adams Los Angeles,, Ca. 90011 Sully Miller 12/31/83 1 ,500.00 3000 E- South Street - Long Beach, Ca. 90805 Tony Garisek 12/31/83 3,600.00 520 Pacific. Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 JWind N Sea Surfboards 12/31/83 7,800.00 . 520 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Maxwell ' s 12/31/83 210,195.00 Paul Wimmer 317 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Zack' s/Zack' s Too 12/31/83 f5,998.00 `(11-ack' s) J Cecil Wheat 14,918.00 (7-ack ' s 239 Lake Street Tooj Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dwight' s/Jack' s '12/31/83 '�i6,399.00(D�;icht' jock Clapp I 16,200.00(J:ck ' s) 1210 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 The Beach Hut 12/31/83 14,827.00 / Roy McClymonds J 8262 Niland Way Garden Grove, Ca. 92644 Breakfast In The Park 12/31/83 15,912.00 7746 Sea Breeze Huntington Beach, Ca. , Captain' s Galley 12/31/83 9,076.00(Capt Gal JN eptune' s Locker 28,695.00(rieptune' J Tackle Box 10,909.00(Tackle Ella Christensen Huntington Beach Pier Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 �'- X ._ '+�'�' --_tti - �.y_ 1 j. ,< _1 .t _ _r , _ y -4'�JL a_ r�. t �-t y�4.h, ; t..n<'� r..{r �r .'b>_vv s?p2 �vc—•t*!ws{7' h �tp h rx z r Y. .�•' r'i e''}': 1 r i.y.7- -' p . ;_,N_. ,4-.�Slti lY .�X'L��-F_.�n,�r`p": r S-••.-��L:Xh. -; 5{"c� �-..-•.7xij.,�'rk,-'"rgr.. � -.att` ..•r •t��[£:•7�.!t t �.,; Vic' s 12/31/83 13,57. .00 . U Kenneth Nitzkowski 7041 Seal Circle. Huntington_ Beach, Ca. 92648 American Golf Corp. 12/31/83 174,751 .00 641 N. Sepulveda Los Angeles, Ca. 90049 Legal Aid Society 12/31/83 2,400.00 2700 N. Main Street Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 Seaview Little League 12/31/83 1 .00 P 0 Box 7200 Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Sandblast Metal 12/31/83 3,600.00 8671 Edison Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Dr. Brooks 12/31/83 144.00 7291 Talbert Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Eddie Milligan 1.2/31/83 7,096.00 HCP Eque°stri an- Center 18381 Goldenwest Huntington Beach, Ca. Earlaba.ugh 12/31/83 1 .00 Huntington Beach Community Clinic 322 Fifth Street Huntington. Beach, Ca. f 4 _ � /OG TgG y { REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION RCA #80-44 Submitted by Floyd G. Belsito Department Administration Date Prepared February 21 , 19 H Backup Material Attached Xa Yes No Subject Tax Rate Ordinance City Administrator's Comments Approve as Recommended •7A '��vLT`v~' /�r``' � Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: p` Z\ / Statement of Issue Present ordinances are silent as to the levy of taxes on property and need to be amended to establish an acceptable means for levying taxes on property. Recommendation Adopt the attached ordinance establishing the procedure to fix the annual tax rate by resolution at any regular, adjourned regular or special meeting prior to August 31 . Analysis Existing language in the City Charter and City ordinances have led to confusion as to whether the tax rate may be set by resolution or ordinance. Past experience has shown that there is insufficient time to set '.the tax rate by ordinance and still meet the August 31 deadline because the Assessor' s Office has not been able to predict the exact day assessed value information will be available and the information has not been made available until mid August. Setting the tax rate by resolution would permit the flexibility needed to deal with this problem. Funding Source Not applicable. .YL) P10 3l78 1 , E w Ip C�r C� E E Ffl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ` EB 0 7 1980 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To Tom Moseley From City Attorney Administrative Assistant Subject Tax Rate Ordinance Date January 31, 1980 We are returning herewith the proposed ordinance relating to determination of the city tax rate . In our opinion, this proposed ordinance is still valid. Charter Section 606 states that , "The City Council shall prescribe by ordinance for the assessment , levy and the collection of taxes upon property . . . " The second sentence of that section requires the Council to fix the rate and levy taxes on or before August 31, otherwise the rate for the prior year continues . We have previously opined that this section merely requires the procedure to be established by ordinance . The section does not specifically require that fixing the rate be accom- plished by ordinance. All that is required is that the assessment , levy and collection of taxes be prescribed by ordinance . Current ordinances do provide for assessment , collection, enforcement , and equalization of taxes by the county. H.B.M.C . §3 . 16. 010. The existing ordinances do not appear to provide for the levy of taxes, and that pro- cedure is set forth in the attached ordinance as Section 3. 16. 020. The assessment provisions of the existing code are restated as Section 3 . 16. 030 . It is interesting to note that the obtuse language of §606 is essentially a restate- ment of the equally obtuse language of §1208 of the former charter. _It .has apparently always been the custom and practice to interpret this provision as merely requiring that the procedure be established by ordinance , and that the annual rate may be set by resolution. There are various state code provisions that deal with procedures for counties (Revenue and Taxation Code §2151) and general law cities (Government Code §§43000 and: 43092) , but they do not appear to require that charter cities set rates by ordinance . Memorandum to Tom Moseley re January 31, 1980 Tax Rate Ordinance Page two It may be noted that the constitutional amendment enacted by Proposition 13 and implementing legislation have pre- empted the allocation of property tax revenues. (1979 Stats. ,: Chapter 282, Section 59, Chapter 225) : Therefore, the Council no longer sets these rates. The ordinance will apply to such tax rates as we still set , if any. (Such as assessments for bonds, Government -Code §5403. ) It is therefore still our opinion that Charter §606 may reasonably be interpreted to allow for setting the tax rate by resolution, once a procedure therefor is established by ordinance. The proposed ordinance accomplishes that objective . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GH:RCS : lm Attachment H. B. INDEPENDENT Publish Date 6126/80 LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE NO. 2437 "AN ORDIWANCL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE 1111NTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING CHAPTER 3.16 AND ADDING THERETO `IEW CHAPTER 3.16 ENTITLED, "DETERMINATION OF CITY TAX RATE" ." (Copy on file in the City Clerk's Office) NOPSIS: Ordinance No. 2437 establishes the procedure to fix the annu 1 tax rate by reso' ution at any regular, adjourned regular or special meeting. )OPTED by the City Council of the. City of Huntington Beach at aM ?gular .meeting held Monday, June 16 , 17 80 by the allowing roll. call vote: rE.S: Councilmen:. Patti nson, Thomas, Finley, Bailey, Kelly )ES: Councilmen: Mandic 3SENT: Councilmen: MacAllister CITY OF .HUNTINGTON BEACH Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk IV V. AA HEIM AU DITQR-CONTROLLER a OUNTY OF FINANCE BUILDING 2N} - 630 NORTH BROADWAY - P. O. BOX 567 - - SAN TA AN A, CALIFO RNIA 92702 RAN G E 5 7 3 / _ - TELEPHONE: 834-2450 AREA CODE 714 OFFICE OF AUDITOR-CONTROLLER June 18, 1980 Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach . P: 0. Box 711 Huntington Beach, Ca.. 92648 SUBJECT: 1980-81 Special Assessments Dear Ms. Wentworth: This is to inform you that we will use the same procedure for adding special assessments to the 1980-81 Secured Tax Roll that we used last year. We thought it might be beneficial at this time to reiterate this pro- cedure. 1. On or before July 3rd the Assessor will provide each city and district a listing of all parcels in each city and district for use in validating Assessor parcel numbers. 2. This listing will reflect the status of property ownership as of the preceding lien date, March 1, .1980. 3. These listings will not-include public utility parcel numbers. If you have special assessments to be added to public utility parcels, it will be necessary that the following information be submitted. (a) Tax Rate Area (b) Name of Public Utility (c) Amount of Assessment The above information is necessary in order that we may properly process your request for adding special assessments to the Secured Roll. 4. The Assessor's office will notify cities and districts when listings are available. r ' A 1 r •7are 18, 1980 Page 2 5. Cities and districts will compare field -maps with listings ,i.n order to determine obsolete parcel numbers and maps. 6. Cities and districts which are in need of maps to validate property splits, which will be reflected on the 1980-81 roll, may obtain them from Santa Ana Blue Print Co. , 924 W. Santa Ana Blvd. , 92703 or by calling 547-8461. 7. If a city has Fall and Spring Weed Abatement Programs, the two lists should be combined and where weeds were removed from the same parcel twice, the amount should be combined. 8. 'Cities and districts which do not use magnetic tape or punched card media for submitting special assessments should use copies of the attached form to transmit their special assessments. When preparing your input, please use all the digits of the Assessor's parcel minter. See examples of correct input and incorrect input on the attached sample input form. 9. Special assessment lists must be submitted to the Auditor- Controller's office no later than August 1st for assessments added per Water Code Section 31701 and August llth for all other special assessments. These lists must be accompanied by a .resolution of your governing body directing the Auditor to . add the assessments to the Tax Roll. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. Yours very truly, C. H. Krueger Supervisor Tax Section CHK:eg Attachment r •♦ Na_ of Organization on this line_ e of Special Assessment on this line. Date on this line. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. AMOUNT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. AMOUNT CC 10-17 CC 1$-25 CC 10-17 CC 18-: 1. (correct Input method below) 2. 3. 007-023-01 $25.00 �. 5. 6. 7, (Incorrect Input method below) $, 9. 7-023-1 $25 10. 13. _ 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2-, . 22. 23. .24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 31 . 32. 33.' 34. 35. 36. 3%. 38. 39. 40. 42. 43. 44. _ . j � 4 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. AMOUNT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. AMOUNT CC 10-17 CC 18-25 CC 10-17 CC 18-25 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 . 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 . 32.�-- 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43. 44. Wpeciai Hssessmenr aampie input r•ormi Nam.- of Organization on this line. pe. of Special Assessment on•this-line. Date on this line. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. AMOUNT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. AMOUNT CC 10-17 CC 1,$-25 CC 10-17 CC 18-2 1. (Correct Ynvut method below) 2. 3. 007-023-01 $25.00 4. 5. 6. 7. (Incorrect Input method below) $. _ 9. .7-023-1 $25 10. 14. -- t5. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. _ 2 22. l .23. .24. -- 25. 26.27. 28. 29,'.. 30. 31 . 32. 33.' 34. 35. 36. _.. 37. 38. 39. 40. ill : 42. - 43. 44. City of Huntington Beach y ng - x�7QTd: ,• � �, P.O. BOX 180 CALIFORNIA 82648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 9, 1986 Laurence Watson, Esq. Office of the County Counsel County of Orange 515 N. Sycamore Santa Ana, CA 92701 Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 4897 adopted by the City Council on July 8, 1980 which requests the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City in the matter of Safeway Stores, Inc., V. County of Orange, et al . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cb enc. cc: City. Attorney ' y% �-v ■®• League of California Cities ►10 IL carfolnla ores Sacramento, California Work Together March 21, 1980 TO: `altimmyomm =nw BEftS;.;aCITY ::MANAGERS,.-CITY-7ATTOR- 11 E Y s. �$1,PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSONS AND lawT-:t3 SUBJECT: SPECIAL BULLETINS: PROPOSITION 9, THE STATE INCOME TAX REDUCTION INITIATIVE At its February 15-16 meeting, the League Board of Directors voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 9, the State Income Tax Reduction Initiative, and directed the staff to provide as much information as possible to cities and other interested parties regarding the initiative and surrounding issues. Enclosed is the first in a series of Apecial bulletins on Proposition 9 which will discuss the impact of the initiative on state revenues and the subsequent impact on cities and other local governments. The bulletins will be published on an as-needed basis during the next few months. In these bulletins, we will attempt to answer your questions about .the impact of Proposition 9 with clear explanations and the latest information available. . Please keep us informed of your local actions including special reports prepared by your city or others so that we can continue to share the information statewide. Don Benninghoven Executive Director 1400 K STREET•SACRAMENTO 95814 HOTEL CLAREMONT•BERKELEY 94705 900 WILSHIRE BLVD.SUITE 702.LOS ANGELES 90017 (916)444-5790 (415)843-3083 (213)624-4934 League of, dor C .1 SPECIAL� L a y c or . Tin" yy Public r 9lrtn n os- Reduction of tivat � mac p ..F�l�"�t QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PROPOSITION 9 — THE INCOME TAX REDUCTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT - WARVLS 11) Y . Introduction Since PropositlohP.'V`qualified for the-. 3, 1980 ballot, members of the League staff have received i merous:inquiries about its provisions and its impact upon,state.revenues and the [inaneing,of state and local:services. The purpose of this document is to provide cities with a clear expXanatlon'of'the initiative and the basic information needed to analyze its impact. It is important-to,:.note Ahat.it-is' a.rar��rtt ae of potential impact.that will be discussed in the. next few months and not a speei.ffic prediction of .impact. Estimates can be no more .precise than to identify a range for two reasons. First, it is impossible to predict conclusively what:response will be made by the Administration, the Legislature and the courts to the lhiti4tive,.ihould. it pass. Second, a number of credible sources including the Department of_ Finance, the .Legislative Analyst, and Cal Tax, make very logical, thoughtful arguments for. conflicting estimates of certain critical figures. We do not expect the conflicts over these figures will be sorted out until after the election. This document'can'be useful in the following way: with the data presented here compute. the impact upon city revenues for.each-set of assumptions. Clearly identify the variable factors and then, watch legislation and, follow the debates on those variable estimates. The League will keep cities apprised of the latest information on those critical figures. As those figures change or become more precise, a city can then "plug in" the changes in the original computations.. . This is the first in a.series of special bulletins which the League will.publish on the subject of Proposition -9. . The special bulletins will include. a discussion of the Governor's Proposition 9 Budget (expected to be published in late March), the impact of that budget on the critical variables, and the effect of state agency, recommendations on program cutbacks. Other. bulletins will also discuss the most effective strategies. and arguments surrounding the ballot question. Cities are advised to compile these special bulletins, which we will.index for you in subsequent issues. In this memorandum we. have attempted to answer the most frequently asked questions .with the best information available to us in mid-March, 1980. We invite your additional inquiries. i. Question: Will Proposition 9 pass? Answer: Frankly, it is too early before the June 3 ballot to predict the passage or Zeereeat of Prop.. 9 with any certainty, but two public opinion .polls were recently published which help explain voters' current view of the initiative. A California Poll survey conducted in early February by Mervin D. Pield measured the extent of public awareness of Prop. 9 and attitudes toward the initiative. According to the poll, the public favors the income tax amendment by a 54% to 34% margin. However only 40 percent of those surveyed could cite any specific knowledge of the initiative. Of the remaining 60%, 35% were completely unaware of the measure and 25%,.who said they were aware of it, could not describe anything about it. In mid-January, Public Interest=response on Research (PIOR) conducted a.survey of voter attitude regarding. Prop.'.1-and to proponent and opponent arguments. When asked, without explanation, whether they would support a "measure that would cut state income tax rates in half," 48% said they would, 21% said they would not, and 30% were undecided.' However when presented with a variety of both pro- and con- arguments for Prop. 9, the margin of support for the initiative dropped dramatically to 42.7.% in favor, 37.096 against, and 20.3%.undecided. The conclusions drawn by,each of the polls were not inconsistent. According to.Mervin Field, " . ... the campaign.is still in its early stages. While public sentiment now. is decidedly-in favor of its-passage, the outcome will depend in large part on the extent, content and credibility .of the arguments that will be conveyed by proponents and opponents of .the measure." Vic Fingerhut, President of PIOR reports that the dramatic shift in voter attitudes measured by his poll "indicates that a clever and effective campaign could defeat Jarvis 11." 2. Question: What does Proposition 9 do? Answer: In written testimony prepared for a joint meeting of the.,Senate Health and WeTrare Committee and the Assembly Health and Welfare Committee on February 13, the Legislative-Analyst described Proposition 9 in the following terms: "The Proposition would make three significant changes in the State Constitution: (1) it would require that the Legislature reduce personal income tax rates by at le.ast .50.percent from .those in effect during 1978. 1 say "at least" because this measure does not automatically cut tax rates by 50 percent. It simply places a ceiling on income tax rates and leaves it to the Legislature to specify what the new rates are. For estimating purposes, we have assumed that the Legislature will establish tax rates which are 50 percent of those.in effect in 1978. The measure, by itself, does not change existing law defining the income levels at which the new rates would apply (that is, the tax brackets). Unless the Legislature changes,existing law, the tax rates will apply to those brackets established by AB 276 of the 1979 session. - 2 - Nor would the measure change income tax deductions, exemptions, or credits. At the same time, it would not prohibit the Legislature from changing these items in the future, as the Legislature has in the past.. Because the initiative would not reduce the various 'tax credits by 50 percent, most taxpayers would have their final tax liability reduced by more than 50 percent." (in this regard, the Franchise Tax.Board's.Research and Statistics Bureau has estimated that for the 1981.income year (January to December), the average personal income tax liability, after the renter's credit is taken into account, will decline from $622 under current law to $269 under Proposition 9, a reduction of $353 or 56.7%.) 11(2) It .would require the Legislature to provide a system of income "tax. indexing whereby tax brackets are ,adjusted to reflect annual changes in the California consumer, price index. Current statutory law (AB 276 of the 1979 session) provides . .for. full "indexing!! of incom—e-Tax brackets during the 1980 and 1981:tax years. Thereafter, under existing law, indexing would apply only to the extent that increases in. consumer prices exceed 3 percent annually. Thus, the "indexing" provision of Proposition 9 would have no impact on the amount of taxes paid by individuals or revenues received by the state in fiscal year 1980-81. It would, however, ensure that full indexing continues in 1982 and thereafter, and thus would add to the revenue loss resulting from the reduced tax rates 'beginning in fiscal year 1981-82. (3) It would exempt business inventories from local property taxes. Current,statutory law (AB 66 of the 1979 session) exempts the full value of businessnventories from property taxes. During 1980-81, the state will provide $467 million to. local governments to reimburse them for-the resulting property tax losses.The Legislative Counsel advises that Proposition 9 would, as of.March 1,-1981, completely replace this statutory exemption. The measure.does not require the state to continue reimbursing local governments for their revenue loss, nor does it halt the current .reimbursement program. Therefore, adoption of this measure will have no direct effect on these state payments." - 3 - 3. .Question: What is- the impact of Proposition 9 on taxpayers? Are all taxpayers benefited similarly? Answer: No. Because the current state income tax is highly "progressive", higher income s are taxed at higher rates than are average incomes. Accordipgly, when such a tax is reduced across-the-board by a constant percentage (in this case 50%), the greatest tax savings are realized by very high income tax payers. For example, the following table illustrates the change in tax burden by income groups if Proposition 9 were adopted: DISTRIBUTION OF TAX BURDEN TAX AFTER RENTERS CREDIT 1981 INCOME YEAR*(1): Number Current Adjusted Gross of Law Jarvis Income Class Returns Tax Initiative Not Over $5;000 1,820,665 $ -61,489 $ -63,271 - 5,001- 10,000 1,751,282 -3,532 58,990 10,001- 20,O1)0 290919688 503,009 1169658 20,001- 30,000 1,883,625. 1,007,136 401,465 30,001- 40,000 1,1351105 19084.337 4859452 40,001- 50,000 543,776 818,018 383,343 50,001-1000000 475:514 19508,304 751,357 100,001- and over 110.88t016 1,621,628 802 876 All Returns 10,409,671 $6,477,411 $2, 9 * based on a. stratified random sample of 1977 personal income tax returns aged to simulate 1981 data. Analysis of this data for the 1981 income year also indicates that: 1) 60% of all taxpayers (those under $20,000 per year, including joint returns) will receive only 11.9% of the savings. 2) 5. % of all taxpayers (those over $50,000 per year) will receive 43% of the savings. Note (1) (Source: p. 12, Estimated California Tax Burdens That Would Result From the Jarvis Initiative and the California Tax Reform Association Tax Simplicity Act, by the Research and Statistics Bureau, California Franchise Tax Board, January 21, 1980). - 4 - 4. Question: What is the state revenue loss resulting from Proposition 9? Answer: The Legislative Analyst answered this question in his February 13 testimony wit t is response-. "If Proposition 9 is approved by the voters, it would reduce personal income tax revenues by $4.9 billion in 1980-81 and by $4.2 billion in 1981-82, relative to what these revenues would otherwise have been,under'.existing law. The following table shows projected revenires� #torn the personal income tax in 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 under,current law as well,as under Proposition 9. The .:revenue-.1oss . resulting. from the tax rate and indexing provisions'`would W. ongoing, `and would increase from the $4.2 billion level shown for,1981-82 by unknown amounts. COMPARISON OF INCOME TAX,REVENUES .,UNDER EXISTING LAW AND PROPOSITION 9 (IN MILLIONS) 1919-80 1980-81 1981-82 Existing Law Revenues $6,275a $6,8000 $7,800b Reductions-from Proposition 9 -4;900 -4,200 Remainder '. $60 275 $1,960 $3,600 a: Estimates epntaine 'inGovernor's 1980- 1 Budget. b. Legislative Analyst's Estimate. The estimated revenue loss in 1980-81 'is larger than the reduction .for the following year because the 1980-81 estimate reflects the impact of lower tax rates for an .18-month period (January 11 1980=June 30, 1981). This is because, under existing state law (Section 17034, Revenue and Taxation Co e , finaltax iaT-6i ies for any-income year are determined by the_ tax law in effect when the taxes are due. Because this initiative would become effective in June 1980, it would apply to income earned :during all of calendar 1980—even income earned during the five- month period preceding the June 3 election. As a result, tax collections during the 1980-81 fiscal year would be reduced by: . The amount of tax savings for all of calendar year 1980 ($3.5 billion); plus The amount of reduced income tax withholding and quarterly estimated tax payments during the first six months of calendar year 1981 ($1.4 billion)." - 5 - 5. Question: Could the first year revenue loss in 1980-81 be reduced by, in effect, changing the effective date from January 1, 1980 to June 4, Answer: Possibly yes, and perhaps as much as $1.4 billion in the first year only. The Legislative Analyst has also commented on this question: " Under the State Constitution, as amended by Proposition 9. the Legislature could change existing law so that the reduced income tax rates_applied only to the period after the June 3rd election, rather-than to the entire 1980 income year. Some have suggested that this should be done to reduce the first year revenue loss that would:result=jf -Proposition t =is approved. Such a. change might be made_in None of two ways. (1) Require two separate returns for the 1980 income ear. Under ernat v%,the.exist ng'.rax rates would applied to taxable iiieo e`earned b6fore June 4; and the Proposition 9 rates would-be:applied only to taxable income earned after June 4, using the, existing.,Jncome brackets. .This -would. require taxpayers to prepare two tax returnsJor 1980. Our calculations (which assume .that taxpayers would only receive one set of personal exemptions and.,dependent.;�redits_;for..the.year as a.whole) indicate that this would `not ,reduce the revenue..loss in 1980-81, and in fact would cause it7o be rester.than $4.9 billion. This is,because less taxable income :would the higher tax brackets, and as a result taxable.income would be'subjeet•to lower tax rates than it would be if ttie,Proposition 9 rates were in effect for th—e TO year. (2) Rate Averaging Under this alternative, pre- and post- Proposition 9 rates would be averaged, based on the- portion of the year in :which. each was.in effect, and the_resulting rates would be applied-to.taxable .income earned for the year as-a whole. This method would be far. simpler to administer than the first alternative, And. would reduce- the revenue loss in 1%80-81. However,' this alternative might be subject to a legal .challenge because the composite tax rates--0.7 percent to 7.8 percent=would exceed the maximums specified in Proposition 9. It is very-possible -that-4;taxpayer:who earned a larger portion of.his total income in the second-half of the year (as most taxpayers do), would challenge the constitutionality of these composite tax rates. We are not able 'to predict how the courts would rule.on such.a suit." Our best information►, 9'from,.the Franchise Tax Board staff is that the state's revenue loss would be reduced"from 44 'billion in the .first year, to $3.5 billion, a savings of $1.4 billion, if the effective date were established as June 4 rather than January 1 and an average of pre- and post-Proposition 9 rates were employed. Senate Republican Leader William Campbell has introduced SB 1464 which proposes just What the Legislative Analyst's comments discuss—a June 4 e ecttve date and composite ,tax'.rates.. According_to Campbell, the initiative's author, Howard Jarvis, always intended that the Prop.' 9 tax savings-be provided from June 4, 1980.forward, though that intent is not addressed in either the text.of the initiative or the ballot arguments. The averaged or composite rates in the Campbell bill (71.3% of the 1978 rates) exceed the.maximum rates specified in the initiative (50% of the 1918 rates) and therefore some analysts question the constitutionality of 3B 1464.` On March 7. 'Legislative Counsel published an opinion upholding the constitutionality of. the Campbell bill on the basis that in the absence of any clear indication of intent in the - 6 - text.of. the initiative and the proponent's ballot arguments, SB:1464 would be a reasonable implementation of Proposition 9. While Legislative.Counse a so suggests that the court will make similar findings and on the same grounds, it is actually questionable how the courts'would judge the constitutionality of SB 1464. The published opinion itself alludes to that uncertainty in the following.language7_11Mfile an opinion cannot be stated with any degree of certainty, due to the facts and circumstances surrounding the language of the initiative and to the nature of the ballot arguments, we think (emphasis added) that the Legislature has some latitude in interpreting the effect orffie measure upon the taxation of income earned during calendar year 1980. Thus, if SB 1464 is enacted, it is our opinion that it would be upheld by the courts as a reasonable consTruction of the provisions of Proposition 9:" 6. Question: Could the. first Year loss in income tax revenue .be further reduced b applying thelower- ro srt on 9 tax rates to income brackets in a ect in 19 8 rather an those.Income brackets In effect in 1 Answer.: Apparently yes, if the Legislature acted to repeal AB 276. (In AB 276 fffergeson)' of 1979, the Legislature indexed (or actually broadened) the income brackets.through the. end of .the 1981 tax year so that each year a taxpayer's income could grow by the same percentage as the Consumer Price Index without the taxpayer being advanced into a higher percentage tax rate. Proposition 9 simply removes the 1981 sunset and continues the indexed brackets in 1982 and thereafter indefinitely). AB 276 provides more than $665 million in 1979-80 tax relief and $1.4 billion in 1980- $1 eeIief. Unquestionably, the Legislature does have the legal ability to cancel this relief in order to . reduce the tax savings and, the state's revenue loss from Proposition 9. .The reduction in revenue logs resulting from a repeal of AB 276 amounts to approximately $600 million in the first fiscal year. Unlike the issue retroactivity, which has a first year and one-time effect only, the repeal of AB 276 would result in an annual and continuing reduction of revenue loss. 7. Question: Under the most optimal circumstances therefore what would the Proposition 9 direct state revenue loss be in FY 1980-81 and thereafter? Answer: Approximately $3.0 billion in 1980-81. The following table illustrates the 75 possibilities: - 7 - e RANGz OF POTENTIAL STATE REVENUE .,jSS 1980-81 Legislative Analyst's estimate - 50% rates, applied to 1980 $4.9 billion brackets, effective from January 1, 1980 through June 36, 1981 50% rates :applied to 1978 brackets, effective from January 1, $4.3 billion 1980 through June 30, 1981 S8 1464 (Campbell) - 50% rates, applied to 1980 brackets $3.5 billion �7fective from June 4, 1980 through June 30, 1981 50% rates applied.,to.1978 brackets, effective from June 4, $3.0 billion 1980 through June-30, 1981 1981-82 Legislative Analyst's estimate - 50916 rates, applied to $4.2 billion current brackets 50% rates applied•.to 1978'.brackets indexed by Prop. 9 $3.6 billion and not AB 276 8. Question: `How tnueh:0f this revenue loss can be off-set b wth in state revenues or a'one-time:use o e,ex sting and accumUN—ted general fund surplus. Answer: The size of'.the surplus available on June 30, 1981 (end of the FY 1980-81) is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict because -of the volatile nature of the California economy and the absence.of consensus.of expert opinion over whether and when the often predicted national recession reaches California and reduces state tax revenue growth. . Nevertheless, we should report that on January 15, the Legislative.Analyst commented to the Legislature's fiscal committees on the size of the surplus in these terms: "The most significant trend reflected in the Administration's 1980-81 budget involves, not the level of expenditures or revenues, but the relationship between them. Chart I (next page) shows this relationship for the period 1977-78 through 1980-81. As you can see: In.1977-78 (the last year before Proposition 13 took effect) revenues exceeded expenditures by $1.9 billion, an amount that brought the accumulated surplus to $3.7 billion. In the years since 1977-78, expenditures have exceeded (or are proposed to exceed) revenues by large amounts, resulting in general fund operating deficits for those years. These operating deficits can only be .covered by drawing down the Accumulated surplus. The cumulative effect of the operating deficits for 1978-79, 1979-80, and 198041 is that the general fund surplus is projected to fall to $674 million by June 30, 1081. Of special importance is the size of the operating deficit proposed;by the Governor for the 1980-81. budget year. At $1.322 billion, the proposed operating deficit is more than 50 percent larger than the deficit estimated for the current year.. Thus, as the general fund surplus is being used up, the imbalance between revenues and expenditures would be increased, if the Governor's budget is approved as submitted." - 8 - . .. _ .`. .... - ,. .. -ny-, [..,- roc^; - _, ,. ..-. .., .. - :.. ... - .. .. .. - .... - •_.r.^'i_ t I'� t•i,.frr•� ul I ii I tegI IatIve AfijIyt.t •f,fnuar•y B. 19HO CIIAIt I t UN1AM, FUND REVENOLS AND EXPENDITURES 1977-78 to 1980-81 (in billions) Billions of DU11dr-S $22 1 $20.7 `LI Expend Lures 19 b18.7 $19.3 18 Revenues 17.8 17 516.3 . 16 . 15 15.2 14 $13. 13 12 $10 11 10 0 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980.-tit (Estimated) (Proµused) - - -.- ter-' � : -...- •w..�:k.......... ?fiT!'D,"��.'..�•-^.rs.'•r'P'• •" -'.��Ms�:i`R'fN f j.Nu.`!a+rw'?'!'+e•n •�Ma•� ..,.Iw ;w "The Administration's 1980-81 budget leaves only $674 million in available fund uncommitted during the budget year—far less than in any year since 1974-75. The following table shows the derivation of this amount." ' BALANCES"AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE DURING 1980-81 (in millions) .(from Governor's Proposed Budget,-January 15, 1980) Uncommitted general fund surplus, start of year $1,835 Revenues and transfers $19,362 Expenditures $20,684 Dif(erence: :_. -1,322 Uncommitted.general fund-surplus, end of year 513 A 835-1,322) Cash balance in federal revenue sharing trust fund 161 Total balances.available, end of year $ 674 The two key figures to watch throughout this spring are the estimates for: a) Uncommitted.d F.' surplus.- 6/30/80 - $1.835 billion b) Revenues and transfers for t980-81 $19.362,billion. • The general fund revenue estimate of $19.3 billion reflects a middle-road prediction based on three forecasts called, "very optimistic" (high), "no California recession" (mid), and "mild-California recession" (low). Specifically, the revenue estimates for these alternatives are: - low: $18.4 billion - mid: $19.3 billion - high: $19.7 billion. Since the Governor submitted the budget on January 15, the Department of Finance has continued to review its estimates and seems about to revise upward both the uncommitted year-end surplus (6-30-80) of $1.835 billion and the $19.3 billion 1980-81 general fund revenue estimate. On February 14, a Department of Finance official told the Los Angeles Times, for example, that the year-end uncommitted surplus (6-30-80) could rise by approximately $600 million from $1.835 billion to $2.435 billion and the.1980-81 revenue estimate may be---revised upwards from $19.3 billion to $19.4 billion, making these changes: - 10 - POTENTIAL ADJUSTED BALANCES AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE DURING 1980-81 (millions) Uncommitted G.P. surplus, start of year $2,435 Revenue and Transfers $19,400. Expenditures $20,684 .Difference. -1,284 Uneorinmitted".0 F. surplus, end'of year $1,151. (2,435-1,284) Cash Ba#anQe, Revenue 3ttaeing 161 Total.balanoes aYl ilable; end of:year $1,312 In sum, in the,coming weeks, it is possible that the Department of Finance will revise its end of year.1980-81- balance from $674 million to..$1.312 billion, reducing the first year Proposition 9 Revenue ar�d,�lfpenditurq gap accordingly. Thus,.if the 1980-81 surplus does amount to $1.312 billion, and if the first year revenue loss of Proposition 9 is: - $4.9 billion, after.a surplus off-set of $1.312 billion, the State will have to reduce expenditures by $3.588 billion; or, - 1 $3.0 billion; 'after.a surplus off-set .of. $1.312-billion, the State will have to reduce expen_ i .ures.by,$i.688 billion. OF COURSE IN THE SECOND ..YEAR (FY 1981-82), THERE MAY BE VJRTUALLY NO SURPLUS TO OFF-SET THE $4.2 BILLION COST. _ 9. Questions .What is the impact of Proposition 9 on state assistance to schools and local government?- Answer: Obviously, the impact of Proposition 9 on local agencies depends upon the. net revenue-expenditure gap caused by Proposition 9; in other words, the extent to which the initiative's.revenue loss can be off-set by available surplus. As.we we have pointed out, in responding to a previous question, there are at .least four plausible,first year revenue reduction possibilities: $4.9 billion, $4.3, .$15 and $3.0 billion; .and_ two possible second year revenue reduction possibilities: $4.2 and $3.6 billion. Moreover, yearend 1980-81 available surplus estimates now vary from $674 million to $1.312 billion. In an effort to estimate the range of impact, we will draw upon the two extremes of previously presented assumptions and a middle-ground assumption. - net revenue-expenditure gap is $4.226:billion- ($4.9.billion revenue reduction minus en ire 674 million surplus) - - 11 - 9 - net revenue-expenditure.gap is $2.5 billion: (hypothetical middle-ground) , net revenue-expenditure gap is $1.688 billion ($3.0 billion revenue reduction minus entire 1.312 billion surplus) If Proposition 9 passes, the Legislature will have.at its disposal any number of alternatives to pass on at least a portion of.the state revenue loss to cities. Those alternatives include (but are not limited to) reductions in property tax, business inventory reimbursement, motor vehicle in-lieu,fees, cigarette tax, liquor license fees, gas tax, and AB 66 Financial Aid to Local Agencies Fund. At this point in time, the particular alternative chosen is` less important than the amount of the loss which is passed on to cities. That amount will Vary with. two obvious factors: .the apportionment of the loss among cities, counties, and schools and the.level of the cutback h6cessary to balance the state budget. . Popular opinion suggests that`thb state revenue loss will be shared by the state, cities, counties, schools and special districts equally if the revenue loss is on the lesser end of the range. if the revenue loss is.on;the greater. side, it is possible that cities will be forced to shoulder,a disproportionately.greater share'of the burden than schools. Asa very general,.guideline, cities may',be asked to share a general fund revenue loss within the range shown below: Range of Possible Range of Total First Year Cut-backs State-Local Cut-backs as % of�C*tt G.F. Unrestricted . Required to General und Revenues - 198o=81 Balance State Budget TunrestrietecT revenues) � a (a) - (b) (c) $31.679 b. $4.226 b. 13.3% $31.679 b. $2.5 b. 7.9% $31.619 b. $1.688 b. 5.3% - 12 - REQUEST FO CITY COUNCIL ACTION RCA 83-2 Date April 21, 1983 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members LR D BY:; YOUNCIL Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator1963Prepared by: Jeri Chenelle, Administrative AssistantSubject: COUNTY-WIDE SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATIO LERg Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Aqio ments: Statement of Issue: SB 693, a bill currently in the State Legislature, would authorize the Orange County Transportation Commission to place a County-wide sales tax of up to one percent for transportation purposes on the ballot for voter consideration. Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution which oses SB 693 unless a master plan for financing transportation measures within the County includes certain benefits to Huntington Beach. Analysis: Recent experience has demonstrated that very little, if any, of the funds generated by an additional sales tax would benefit Huntington Beach. There- fore,::-.:the resolution requests a commitment to the following improvements: Extension of the 57 Freeway to the 405 Freeway; Beach Boulevard fixed-rail system extended south to Edinger; Upgrading of the following arterial streets to six lanes: Adams, Warner, Edinger, Bolsa and Gothard-connection to Hoover Street; Construction of left-turn :-flyovers at; Beach Boulevard/Edinger Avenue Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue Beach Boulevard/Ellis Avenue Beach Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway Full signal coordination for the following arterials : Warner-B61.;a GbYi�a. to Main Street (Sant4 Aria) B61sa-Balsa Chica to Main 'Stfbbt-' (Santa Ana)' Bolsa Chica-Warner Avenue to Imperial Highway Goldenwest-Pacific Coast Highway to Santa Ana Freeway Beach Boulevard-Pacific Coast Highway to Whittier Boulevard _ Brookhurst-Warner Avenue to La Palma Avenue PIO 4/81 RCA #83-2 -2- April 21, 1983 The resolution gives another option in that it states we may approve the tax increase proposal if all localities are guaranteed at least 75% of the funds generated within their corporate limits will be returned for use in the respective jurisdictions. This would give us control over the designation of. projects and ensure that -.a portion of the tax generated in Huntington Beach would be spent in Huntington Beach. Alternatives : 1. Oppose the bill entirely.. 2. Support the tax increase and attempt to convince the OCTC at a later date to include Huntington Beach projects in the expenditure of funds. 3. Take no position. Funding Source: None necessary. CWT/JC / O !o E CITY OF I-1lJN'i"11\IGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Vincent G. Moorhouse,Director (714) 536-5486 April 18, 1983 Bradley L. Jacobs Office of the Assessor Post Box 149 Santa Ana, California 92702 Attention: Mr. Jack Vaughn, Appraiser III Gentlemen: Subject: Possessory Interest. , Sometime ago I spoke to Mr. Steve Lamond of your office, pertaining to the assessment for taxation of certain real estate owned by a tax exempt agency and used by private parties under a lease, operating agreement or sirnKar arrangement. In accordance with Mr. Lamond's instructions, please find a list of agreements that are managed by the Community Services Department. The list includes the business name, lessee's name and address, and the total rent paid for the most recent twelve-month-period. For information on other agreements throughout the city, please contact Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk, 536-5226. If copies of any of the leases are required or if I can be of any further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, VINCENT G. MOORHOUSE Director Community Services MELVIN M. BOWMAN Deputy Director VGM:MMB:VM cc: ✓Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk 1 BUSE'JESS LESSEE RENT - 12 MONTHS ALDER TREE SNACK SHOP Lucy Van Oeffelen Alder Tree has been (Huntington Central Park 1520 Walnut Avenue renting this facility Concession) Huntington Beach 92648 6 months = $3,544.21 BEACH HUT Ray C. McClymonds $14,947.53 (Beach Concession) 8262 Niland Way Garden Grove 92644 CAPTAIN'S GALLEY Ella Christensen $13,100.5.0 (Pier Concession) 633 E. Hartford Huntington Beach 92648 DWIGHT'S Jack Clapp $14,916.98 (Beach Concession) 1210 Main Street Huntington Beach 92648 Jl CK'S Jack Clapp (David Clapp) $13,514.14 (Beach Concession) 5125 Crystal Lane Santa Ana 92704 MAXWELL"S W.P.L. Industries $147,271.40 (Restaurant) 317 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach 92648 NEPTUNE'S LOCKER Ella Christensen $24,594.48 (Pier Concession) 633 E. Hartford Huntington Beach 92648 TACKLE BOX Ella Christensen $8,049.33 (Pier Concession) 633 E. Hartford Huntington Beach 92648 VIC'S Monte Nitzkowski $13,510.54 (Beach Concession) 7041 Seal Circle . Huntington Beach 92648 END CAFE John Gustafson $20,268.33 (Pier Concession) Post Box 111 Huntington Beach 92648 Terminated Lease 3/1/83) . HUNTINGTON BEACH INN Huntington Beach Inn $96,000.00 (Restaurant/Motel) 20112 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach 92648 YACHT CLUB Huntington Harbour Yacht Club $4,884.00 3821 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach 92647 LEGAL AID Legal Aid Society $2,400.00/year 2700 North Main Street ($200.00/month) Huntington Beach 92648 PUBLIC FIRING RANGE Huntington Beach Police Assn $1.00/year Post Box 896 Huntington Beach 92648 BUSINESS LESSI_E RENT - 12 iv1ONTHS MARINA PARK Robinwood Little League $1,140.00/year Post Box 1384 Huntington Beach 92648 GOLF COURSE California Golf & Tennis $168,450.64 641 North Sepulveda Boulevard Los Angeles 90049 Z_ACK'S Cecil Wheat $14,406.75 (Beach Concession) 239 Lake Street Huntington Beach 92648 ZACK'S TOO Cecil Wheat $15,181.86 (Beach Concession) 239 Lake Street Huntington Beach 92648 PIER REALTY Pier Realty Pier Realty has.been (Real Estate Office) 220 Main Street renting this property Huntington Beach 92648 for past 5 months $600/pr month = $3,000.00 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK First Interstate Bank $4;200.00/year (Parking Lot) 600 South Spring Street ($350.00/month) Los Angeles 90014 WIND N' SEA Guy P. Guzzardo $7,200.00/year (Surfboard Shop) 520 Pacific Coast Highway _ ($600.00/month) Huntington Beach 92648 TERRY PARK CLUBHOUSE Catholic Community Agencies $2,400.00/year 1612 Spurgeon ($200.00/month) Santa Ana 92705 LEBARD CLUBHOUSE Seaview Little League $1.00/year Post Box 7200 Costa Mesa 92626 BREAKFAST IN THE PARK John Gustafson $14,322.42 (Park Concession) Post Box 111 Huntington Beach 92648 BETTER BUILT Ed Milligan Agreement Commenced ENTERPRISES, INC. 701 West Cienega November 25, 1982. San.Dimas 91773 $2,000.00 rent in four months. l i BRADLEY L.JACOBS O U N- Y O F COUNTY ASSESSOR TELEPHONE: (714) 834-2727 2 1 630 NORTH BROADWAY 'S 3 / RAN G E CIVIC COXN149R PLAZA ENTRANCE SANTA ANA, CA 92702 V ' OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A ttn: City Clerk Subject: Possessory Interest Gentlemen: Annually we are required to assess for taxation a class of property known as Possessory Interests. Typically, a possessory interest exists when real estate owned by a tax-exempt agency is used by private parties under a lease, operating agreement or similar arrangement. To properly value those possessory interests within your jurisdiction, we need the following information: 1 . The correct name and address of every user (lessee/tenant) as of March 1 , 1983. 2. The total rent paid for the most recent 12-month period. If rent represents more/less than 12 months, please note time period. 3. Copies of any leases or agreements not previously sub- mitted. Legal authority for this assessment is contained, in part, in Section 107, following, of the Revenue and Taxation Code. You may call 834-6619 or 834-3448 with any questions. Sincerely, BRADLEY L. JACOBS County Assessor B ack Vaught V Appraiser III JV:ks Enclosure - �8�� t-CoolF pPtd t,S1f�•A/kl RE U FOR CITY COUNCIL AC Q TION 1��'•g- �Date January 25, 1983. Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council- APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL .i Submitted by: C. W.. Thompson, City Administrato ---- �,•. i , Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works �: �• r CIT*ck L K Subject: Resolution Authorizing Special Assessmen s Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: ' ✓ STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 'J The Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange has requested a resolution of the City Council authorizing a designee of Council to make corrections in the tax roll for special assessments. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works. to act for the City in correcting or cancelling . special assessments on the County tax roll for weed abatement and underground utilities. ANALYSIS: On .December 15, 1982, . the Auditor-Controller of the County- of Orange notified the City that beginning February 1, 1983 , his office would no longer process- corrections and/or cancellation of special tax assessments unless he had on file a resolution of the City Council delegating responsi- bility for approving said corrections/cancellations to- a specified city official. The attached resolution meets the requirements established by the Auditor-Controller for the weed abatement and underground utility district assessments made by the City. FUNDING SOURCE: None. No funds involved. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Designate another_-:City. officialto perform the. task. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from the Auditor-Controller 2. , Proposed Resolution CWT:PEC:JS: jy 1 2 PIO 4/81 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I February 8, 1983 i V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller Finance Building 630 North Broadway P. 0. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92702 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, February 7, 1983 adopted Resolution No. 5228 authorizing the Director of Public Works to act for the city in correcting or can- celling special assessments on the county tax roll for weed abatement and underground utilities. Enclosed is a duly executed copy for your records. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:js Enclosure cc: Paul Cook - Director of Public Works j Jim Sankey - DPW I II I (Telephone: 714-536-5227) {' P 71 — C! V. A. HEIM AUDITOR-CONTROLLER FINANCE BUILDING 21 - 630 NGRTH BROADWAY P. P;;BOX 567 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 5 3 RANGE - TELEPHONE: 834-2450 G�'ON �'E�'=1'/• r-�l_ir AREA CODE 714 OFFICE OF AUDITOR-CONTROLLER December 15, 1982 TO: Cities And Districts Of Orange County. SUBJECT: Authorization To Correct Tax Roll For Special Assessments In reviewing our. internal controls and procedures for processing correc- tions and/or cancellations of special assessments which your governing body, by resolution, has requested the Auditor-Controller to add to the tax roll,' we find that we have .no resolution of your city/district govern- ing body which delegates a city/district officer to authorize the correc- tions of the tax roll for special assessments. Beginning February 1, 1983, corrections and/or cancellations of special assessments will be processed by this office only when either of the fol- lowing conditions exists: r 1) We receive a copy of the minutes or resolution of the city/ district governing body whirl approves the correction and/or cancellation; or 2) We have on file a resolution of the city/district governing body which delegates the responsibility for approving special assessment corrections and/or cancellations to specified city/ district officers or their designated representatives. If it is your governing boats's desire to delegate this responsibility, a resolution should be passed naming the designee(s) for each type of special assessment the City or District normally adds to the assessment roll. Suggested language for such a resolution of delegation is shown on Attachment A. This office will only process requests for corrections and cancellations of special assessments for your city/district when such requests are signed by the officer designated.in the resolution of dele- gation. AUDITOR-CONTROLLER VAH:JAff�Ic:MZ Attachment J RESOLUTION NO. 5228 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ACT FOR ,THE CITY IN COR- RECTING OR CANCELLING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR WEED ABATEMENT AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by resolution has authorized the addition of certain special assessments, and directed the Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange to add same to the tax roll; and f It is periodically necessary to request the Auditor to make certain corrections or cancellations of same; and The Auditor has determined that henceforth no correction or cancellation of special assessments may be made to the tax roll without the authorization of this City Council, or its designee, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it hereby authorizes and desig- nates the Director of Public Works to correct or cancel special assessments for weed abatement and underground utilities , and any other special assessment which normally falls within the purview of such director' s responsibilities . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of Fehruary , 1983 MAYOR i ATTEST: APPROVED AS 0 FORM: i City Clerk 7 Ci Att otndy j ahb 1/21/83 i 40 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administra or Director of Public Works 1 s 2. Res. No, 5228 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA N. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of F_ebruary , 19__al_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister, Mandic, Finley. Bailey, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None if-14� City Clerk and. ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 22, 1982 Bradley L. Jacobs, County Assessor County of Orange P. 0. Box 149 Santa Ana, CA. 91702 Attn: Jack R. Walker, Deputy Assessor In response to your request for the evaluation of possessory interests within Huntington Beach's jurisdiction, we are attaching all available information. We will continue to forward copies of all possessory interest property leases following approval by the City Council . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure Mlephon.:714-636-6227) BRADLEY L.JACOBS COUNTY ASSESSOR U NTY O F TELEPHONE: (714)834-2727 O ? 630 NORTH BROADWAY CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ENTRANCE © ( ) ANGE P. o. BOX la9 �./ SANTA ANA,CA 92702 OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk - Subject: Possessory Interest Gentlemen: Annually we are required to assess for taxation a class of property known as Possessory Interests. Typically, a possessory interest exists when real estate owned by a tax-exempt agency such as yours is used by private parties under a lease, operating agreement or similar arrangement. To properly value those possessory interests within your jurisdiction, we need the following information: 1 . The correct name and address of every user (lessee/tenant) as of March 1 , 1982.1 2. The total annual rent paid/due for the most recent 12-month period. 3: Gross revenues and/or sales reported by each user. 4. Copies of any leases or agreements not previously submitted- Legal authority for this assessment is,containedI in part, in Section 107, following, of the Revenue and Taxation Code. You may call 834-6347 with any questions. The most recently known 'assessees' names are attached. Sincerely, BRADLEY L. JACOBS p Co ty Asse r By rck Walker ssessor JRW:rma Enclosure i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE CH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATI fy/ . HUNTINGTON BEACH To Frank B. Arguello, Chief From Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director Administrative Services Community Services Subject POSSESSORY INTEREST Date March 10, 1982 Attached is a letter from the County Assessor ' s office in 'reference to possessory interest tax . Alicia Wentworth asked this department to answer the questions applicable to the Community Services Depart- ment. This -has been completed . We are unable to provide the gross income and total rent paid for the year . Would you please provide the information as requested by the County and forward to Alicia ' s office . If you have any questions , please contact Max Bowman , who has been assigned to follow through on this matter . VGM : MMB : 1b cc : Alicia Wentworth , City Clerk ��. `�F R�c��vED VAR 1 b 1982 � finance Dept. 1.9 r : a 1981 r LESSEE/TENS 12 MONTHS RENT GROSS Huntington Beach City A;5r,0 ENDING PAID INCOME Old City Hall Unknown �Zitt ei st edt,- FG Painted Pony, Virginia Sileski $ 600.00 $600 pr Mo. Unknown Lease Expired 220 Main (New Lease) Huntington Beach *Gustafson (The End Cafe) 7746 Seabreeze Dr. , Huntington Beach 92648 *Christensen (Neptune Locker Tackle Box-Capt. Galley) 633 E. Hartford, Huntington Beach 92648 Gu zzardo (Wind N' Sea) $7,200.00 $7,200.00 Unknown 520 Pacific Coast Highway, H.B. 92648 *RIM Properties Huntington Beach Inn *tRC -Corparatian- 317 Associates (Maxwell 's) Paul Wimmer, President 317 Pacific Coast Hi hway, H.B. 92648 *cheat, Cecil (2� (Zack's & Zack's Too 239 Lake St. , Huntington Beach 92648 *T4cClymond s, Roy (Beach Hut) 8262 Niland Way, Garden Grove 92644 *Nitzkowski, Kenneth (Vic's) 7041 Seal Circle, Huntington Beach 92648 *Clapp, Jack(2) (Dwi ght'S & Jacks) 1210 Main St. , Huntington Beach 92648 EG- 13ngi-neers- Lease Expired *Huntington Cent Park(2) (Breakfast in the Park and Mary Beth's) John Gustafson 7746 Seabreeze Dr. , H.B. 92648 Huntington Beach Police Val Birkett, President $1 .00 pr $1 .00 pr P.O. Box 896, H.B. 92648 year year Curzio, Frederick Current lease expired. New lease approved by Curzio. Will send copy when approved by City Council. *Golf of Southern California 641 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90049 Saftkoha; -Roy- Lease Expired Marald -Butler Unknown Huntington Harbor Yacht Club Unknown L14on-Bagstead Lease Expired r LESSEE/TENA _ GROSS INCOME 12 MONTHS RENT Cents ENDING PAID Omitted John-D Vending & Inv. 2642 .Falcon Cr. 12/31/81 Approx. Corona, Ca. 91720 5 mo.s $ 1 ,250.00 $ 5,000 Painted Pony 220 Main H-13 9 YG 4'8 2/1/82 600 Unknown Virginia Sileski Church By The Sea 715 Lake St. 12/31/81 HB, Ca. 92648 7 mo.s 4,200.00 Gustafson The End Cafe 12/31/81 18,701 .44 114,3M 7746 Seabreeze Dr. HB, Ca. 92648 Christensen A. Neptune Locker 12/31/81 19,866.33 161 ,243 B. Tackle Box 12/31/81 14,831 . 30 98,752 C. Capt. Galley 12/31/81 7,389.32 28,615 Guzzardo Wind N' Sea 12/31/81 7,200.00 Unknown 520 Pacific Cst Hwy HB, Ca. 92648 RLM Properties Huntington beach Inn 12/31/81 96,000.00 Unknown 21112 Pacific Cst Hwy HB, Ca. 92648 LRC Corporation Maxwell 's 12/31/81 166, 162 .74 2,577,217 Paul Wimmer, President 317 Pacific Cst Hwy HB, Ca. 92648 Wheat, Cecil Zack's 12/31/81 17,581 . 15 147,689 Zack's Too 12/31/81 19,083.02 161 ,076 239 Lake St. HB, Ca. 92648 McClymonds, Roy Beach Hut 12/31/81 15,206.23 122, 196 8262 Niland Way Garden Grove, Ca. 92644 Nitzkowski , Kenneth Vic's 12/31/81 14,796.45 128,810 7041 Seal Circle HB, Ca. 92648 Clapp, Jack Dwight 's 12/31/81 16,568. 32 142 ,844 Jack's 12/31/81 16,416.69 147,973 1210 Main St . HB, Ca. 92648 Harold Pugh 19071 Huntington St. 12/31/81 600.00 Unknown HB, Ca. 92648 Legal Aid Society 525 Mai-n St. 12/31/81 2,447. 76 Unknown HB, Ca. 92648 ' GROSS LESSEE/TENA,. - INCOME 12 MONTHS RENT Cents ENDING PAID Omitted Huntington Central Park Breakfast In The Park 12/31/81 1 ,303.52 79, 194 John Gustafson Mary Beth' s 12/31/81 6,977.55 46,582 7746 Seabreeze Dr. HB, Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach Police Val Birkett, President 1 .00/year Unknown P 0 Box 896 HB, Ca. 92648 Catholic Community Agency 7801 Taylor Dr. 12/31/81 1 ,700. 34 Unknown HB, Ca. 92648 Curzio, Frederick Sandblast/Metalizing 12/31/81 1 ,500.00 Unknown P 0 Box 441 HB, Ca. 92647 Huntington Beach Credit Union 2000 Main St. 12/31/81 2, 160.00 Unknown HB, Ca. 92648 Golf of So. Calif. 641 N. Sepulveda Blvd. 12/31/81 155,940.22 1 ,670,623 Los Angeles , Ca. 90049 Golf of So. Calif. (residence) Same Address 12/31/81 1 ,200.00 - D. R. Brooks 7291 Talbert Ave. 12/31/81 144.00/i2 Unknown HB, Ca. 92647 Harold Butler Enterprises Box 3708 12/31/81 1 ,200.00 Unknown La Mirada, Ca. 90637 Tony- Ga-r-i-sek- 520-Pac-i-f-i-c-Cs-t-Hwy -12/31/81 —3,600.00—Unkno��r.�__ H B-,-Ca..-9-264 8 Hunt. Harbor Yacht Club 12/31/81 4,200.00 Unknown 1st. Interstate Bank Box 3666 12/31/81 4,200.00 Unknown LA, Ca. 90051 Reynolds Stable G6oi. jslyLoe 4 270.00/mo. UNK,vat. f/-/3 CA. 9yGV7 Sandblast 6 Met. thru 5/10/80 j RCA 81-6 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUbmitted,by Mayor Ruth Bailey Department City Council Date Prepared March 9 . , 19 81 Backup Material Attached ® Yes a No Subject Repeal of Federal Estate Tax City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL �j 7 f F«pprove as rec mmended. CITY CLE $ Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue : The City of Garden Grove has requested our support .for eliminating the federal estate tax. Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution. Analysis : Inflation has subjected many families who were previously exempt to the federal estate tax, forcing them to borrow money to pay the tax at the very time when their ability to pay is often severely restricted. Councilman MacAllister and I recommend_ approval of the attached resolution. Funding Source : No funds are necessary. Alternatives : Take no position. r10 3ne s RESOLUTION NO. 4977 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE REPEAL OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX WHEREAS, the Federal Estate Tax imposes an unfair burden on middle income taxpayers while at the same time exempts lower income . taxpayers , and various legal processes enable the upper level income taxpayers to avoid such tax; and Government should not profit from any law which cannot be administered fairly and equitably; and The monies derived from the Federal Estate Tax do not off- set the expense of collecting such tax, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it urges repeal of the Federal Estate tax, and to this end solicits the support of the League of California Cities, the Southern California Association of Governments , the National League of. Cities, the United States Congress , and President Reagan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of . Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March , 1981. d Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �t.Ge� k City Clerk C AUdrney INITIATED AND APPROVED: ".)AA 4 a � Acting City Ad inistrator W';A : 3hf� t 'a.'f11 f s. No. 4977 S'rNFE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ee: CITY _OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I. -ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day Of March 19 81 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: MacAllister � 1 City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California :GNRDgN CITY OF GARDEN GROVE , CALIFORNIA 11391 ACACIA PARKWAY, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFL& 92640 U17` :J x�11 =7<lPUR�; GARDEN GROVE FEB 9 99�1 CITY OF MUNTINOTON Ue1CI1 February 5, 1981 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CITY'S CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES ALL ORANGE COUNTY CITIES Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 6049-81 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE SUPPORTING THE ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, which was adopted by the Garden Grove City Council on February 3, 1981 . We urge your support in adopting this position and repealing of this tax. Sincerely, TERI LOUISE STATELY, CMC City Clerk By Caro n Morris Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 6049-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE SUPPORTING THE ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX WHEREAS, the federal Government should not profit by the death of its people; and WHEREAS, the State of California did enact legislation prohibiting inheritance tax on a surviving spouse; and WHEREAS, there is an initiative being circulated in the State of California to prohibit all state inheritance tax; and WHEREAS, the Federal Estate tax falls heavily on widows and orphans during grievous times; and WHEREAS, the poor are exempted from the tax and the rich can avoid the tax through legal processes not practical for middle-class families; and WHEREAS, inflation has subjected many families to the Federal Estate tax that were previously exempted, forcing such families to borrow money to pay the tax at the very instant when their ability to pay such money is severely restricted; and WHEREAS, the monies raised by the Federal Estate Tax do not cover the cost of the Federal Government in collecting the said tax; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Garden Grove does hereby resolve that the Federal Estate Tax be immediately eliminated and urges the League of California Cities, the National League of Cities, the Southern California Association of Governments, Congress and the President of these United States to adopt this position and repeal the same forthwith. ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 1981 . /s/ J. TILMAN WILLIAMS VICE MAYOR Attest: /s/ CAROLYN MORRIS DEPUTY CITY CLERK 'RESOLUTION NO. 6049-81 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS: CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ) I, CAROLYN MORRIS, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Garden Grove, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Council of the City of Garden Grove, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of February, 1981 , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: (4) DINSEN, HOLT-AND, KRIEGER, WILLIAMS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: (0) NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: (1) CANNON /s/ CAROLYN MORRIS DEPUTY CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 19, 1981 The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer The House of Representatives 1206 Longworth House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 The City Council of the City of. Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held March 16, 1981 adopted Resolution No. 4977 urging the repeal of the Federal Estate Tax. We have enclosed a certified copy for your information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:js Enclosure cc: President Ronald Reagan Dan Lungren, Congressman Robert E. Badham, Congressman Jerry H. Patterson, Congressman Southern California Association of Governments League of California Cities Na t i nna 1 League of Cities (Telephone:714-536.5227) _ RCA 81- 2 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by _Ben Arguello Department Administration Date Prepared. February 2 , , 1g 81 Backup Material Attached Yes No Subject " AB 151 (Deddeh) . Property Taxation City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Approve as Recommended �"'—"`""' 19$�• CITY CLER Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue : AB 151 Dedde will have a negative impact on the City. Recommendation: Oppose AB 151 (Deddeh) and authorize the Mayor to send letters to the proper legislators . Analysis : This t would require each local agency to annually report to the State Controller specified information concerning the portion of the ad valorem property tax rate levied by, or on behalf of, the agency which is in excess of the tax rate limitation prescribed by subdivision (a) of Section 1 of Article X111 A of the State Constitution. The Acting Finance Director , Dan Villella, has recommended opposition to this bill as it would have no benefit to the City. It would only create additional paperwork and expense. The Council Legislative Committee (Mayor .Bailey and Councilman Pattinson) is in agreement . Alternatives : Take no position, or support . the bill . Funding Source : No funds are necessary. NO 3178 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 106 T�1�` Submitted by William S_ Am sha ry Department C 1 ty Attorney s Date Prepared November 17 , 19__10 Backup Material Attached X�yes No Subject Resolution Requesting County of Orange to Assume Defense of City in the Matter of Xerox .Corporation, Diablo Systems, Inc. and Versatec, Inc . v. .County of Orange, et al. City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COU CI Approve as Recommended CITY C Itg Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:. / STATEMENT: Xerox. Corporation; Diablo Systems , Inc. and Versatec, Inc. have brought suit against the county, the City of Huntington Beach and other cities in the county for property taxes collected during fiscal year 1978-1979. Section 5138 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code provides that, upon appli- cation to the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel may be directed to undertake the defense of any individual city. RECOMMENDATION: .The attached resolution be adopted and ,the City Clerk directed to forward copy to the Office of the County Counsel. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: O The City Attorney will defend this lawsuit. /ahb Attachment Plo V7B w , ., .. • ,_�c — ' tea :u City of Huntington Beach a, P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 2, 1980 Laurence .Watson, Esq. Office of the County Counsel County of Orange . 515 N. Sycamore Santa Ana, CA 92701 On December 1 , 1980, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach requested the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of Xerox Corporation; Diablo Systems, Inc. , and Versatec, Inc. , vs County of Orange, et al . We have enclosed a certified copy of Resolution No. 4939 pertaining to this matter. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cd Enclosure cc: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 17) Jam.-P/.7 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTT fad Submitted by Frank B. Arguello Department Administration Date Prepared September .26 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached Yes X� No Subject SELECTION OF INVESTMENT BANKING FIRM TO UNDERWRITE TAX EXEMPT MORT GA GE RFVFNIIF RONns City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Approve as recommended. CITY CIA Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On August 4, 1980, the City Council authorized the distribution of a Request for Proposal soliciting the qualifications of an investment banking firm for the purpose of acting as underwriter of a City-sponsored tax exempt mortgage revenue bond issue. The four proposals received have been reviewed and, if a bond issue is, to be pursued, an underwriter must now be selected: .RECOMMENDATION: Select the joint proposal sponsored by the firms of Lehman, Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb, Inc. and Birr, Wilson & Co., Inc., and authorize the negotiation of a contract between the City and these firms to act as underwriters of a tax exempt mortgage bond issue. ANALYSIS: In response to the request for proposal , four firms submitted proposals. These proposals were reviewed by staff and the City Attorney's Office and are ranked as follows: 1) Lehman, Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb, Inc. and Birr, Wilson & Co. , Inc. 2) Goldman, Sachs & Co. 3) E. F. Hutton 4) Blyth, Eastman, Paine, Webber, Inc. ,3 � Although each proposee is a highly reputable, nationally known firm, the combined proposal of Lehman, Brothers & Birr, Wilson offers the size of an international firm (Lehman, Brothers) and the skills of a smaller firm specializing in west coast financings (Birr, Wilson) . The Lehman, Brothers and Birr, Wilson firms also offer personalized service and have taken a leading role in identifying the opportunities presented to the City by a tax exempt financing. Since the cost to sell a bond issue is largely dictated by the bond market conditions at the time the issue is sold, it is not possible to determine the cost at this time. However, the Request for Proposal did ask each proposee to discuss expenses incurred and to present a likely spread of costs. These spreads are: Cost/$1,000 Lehman, Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb $21.00 - $25.00 Goldman, Sachs & Co. $22.00 - $32.00* E. F. Hutton $23.00 - $27.00 Blyth, Eastman, Paine, Webber No estimate *Determined by survey of recent similar issues. Therefore, the Lehman, Brothers/Birr, Wilson proposal is competitive on this basis as well . With the selection of an investment banking team, detailed investigation of the amount and form of a tax exempt bond issue can begin. It should be emphasized that the services of the investment banker are paid from the proceeds of the issue. No City revenue need be committed. . Also, the mortgages that will result from the proceeds of the issue must be committed to specific, new housing units before the issue is rated and sold. The City will select those projects to which bond-funded mortgages will be assigned and state law requires that the buyers of these units not earn more than 120 percent of the median household income (approximately $27,000 per year). If it is determined that an insufficient number of units affordable to these households is available in Huntington Beach, then the bond issue will be infeasible and immediately curtailed. If no issue is sold, no fees are charged. Therefore, the pursuit of a tax exempt mortgage revenue bond issue would assist in meeting the needs of moderate income households, would require no commitment of City funds, and could be curtailed if proven to be infeasible. ALTERNATIVES: Determine that the City is not interested in pursuing a tax exempt mortgage bond issue. FUNDING: Costs paid from proceeds of bond issue. Respectfully submitted, e7,teo•N.�� , Frank B. Argu�110 Acting City Administrator FBA:SVK:de NOTE: The length of the proposals prohibits reproduction for attachment here. However, copies are available for review in the HCD office. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION - /b6 Submitted by intent G . Moorhouse Department Cnmm>>n;tg sPr�TI rat Date Prepared August 11 , 1980 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS TO HBMC RE EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN SERVICE USERS FROM . CITY'S UTILITIES TAX . City Administrator's Comments Approve as Recommended Q�� Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: ( STATEMENT OF ISSUE The City Council approved the waiver of utility tax payments for individuals sixty-two years of age and older whose income is less than $83,000 yearly.. In order to implement this plan, it is necessary to -amend .the Huntington Beach Municipal Code sections regarding the- utilities tax RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Ordinance amending the HBMC by adding Sections 3 .36 . 260 through 3 .86 . 320 which exempt . certain service users from the'-City's utilities tax . ANALYSIS': In order to assist some of the city's low-income elderly, a program will be implemented to exempt those who meet the criteria from paying the city ' s utility tax . Staff is meeting with representatives from the utility companies and will utilize many volunteers to assist seniors in filling out forms . Approximately three months lead time is required by the service providers in order to implement this program . FUNDING SOURCE General Fund ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Do riot adopt Ordinance. VGM:VB: cs REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION RCA #80-51 Submitted by Floyd G . Belsito Department Administration Date Prepared June 30 , 1980 Backup Material Attached 0 Yes 0 No Subject Senior Citizen Utility User Tax Exemption City Administrator's Comments Discretionary with Council . APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PI cL - CITY CLE Statemen Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue Deter in whether to establish utility tax credit for senior citizens . e mmendation 1 . Direct staff to prepare appropriate code amendments and develop implementation plan for utilit user tax credit for er�io.r citizens- in Huntington Beach , � 6Z -��. it DODO - 34V b"a-) 2 . Do not establish utility .user tax exemption for senior citizens . Analysis City revenue reduction from such a program is estimated to be from $25 ,000 to $79 ,000 . per year depending on the number of qualified participants . Between 800 and 2 ,600 households would be eligible depending on criteria for qualification established by Council , (refer to Attachment A) . Implementation of a program of this nature , advertisin printing , and administration , would cost between $2 ,143 and $5 ,294 , ?(Attachments B , C , and .D) . Maintenance of this program , once implemented , would appear to be negligible . The City Attorney ' s opinion on a utility tax exemption for low .income senior citizens is that it is legal (Attachment E) . This program .will not conflict in any manner., with the ECAP (Energy Crisis Assistance Program) currently providing help to approximately 110 low income seniors in Huntington Beach . Funding Source CETA/General Fund . Alternative Action Same as Recommendation . If Council elects to adopt a utility tax credit program for , ow income senior citizens , direction is requested as to the age of a senior citizen , (62 or 65 years ) , and what constitutes a low income household , ($5 ,000 , $8 ,000 or $12 ,000 adjusted gross per year) . ; 4, Pio ana SENIOR CITIZEN UTILITY USER TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM ._`y' I . Seal Beach Utility User Tax Exemption Program: A. Background - Enacted as an ordinance revision in 1975 by the Seal Beach City Council to provide assistance to lower income senior citizens . B. To Qualify - Age 65 or older and reside at a service address where combined adjusted gross income of all household members is less than $5 ,000 per year . C . Mechanics - Qualified persons submit to Finance Director exemption certificate , with attached Federal Income Tax Return and/or California Senior Citizen Property Tax Assistance Claim Form. Finance Director approves claim forms and forwards copies to respective utility companies . The city tax portion of the utility bill is "keyed out" by the utility company and is no longer charged to the recipient address . Utility User Tax Exemption begins at next billing cycle . II . Impact on Huntington Beach of a Similar Program: A. Assuming total annual utility tax per household is $30 . 80 - Eligible Est . Loss Participants of Age Income (Approximate) Revenue 62 or older Less than $ 5 ,000 1 ,074 x 30.80 = $ 33 ,079 62 or older Less than $ 8 ,000 1 ,845 x 30 .80 = $ � 56 ,826 62 or older Less than $ . 12 ,000 2 ,559 x 30. 80 = $ 78 ,817 65 or older Less than $ 5 ,000 827 x 30 . 80 = $ 25 ,471 65 or older Less than $ 8 ,000 1 ,421 x 30 . 80 = $ 43 ,767 65 or older Less than $ 12 ,000 1 ,970 x 30 . 80 = $ 60 ,676 III . Additional Information : A. Most federal and state programs , (.such as State Department of Housing and Community Development) , currently regard senior citizens as those persons 62 years of age and older . B. Maximum income from Social Security is 6 ,960 per year. C . Maximum income for those receiving State Supplementary Income with Social Security is 5 ,.280 per year . D . The $5 ,000 maximum gross income per household used by Seal Beach was established in 1975 . Since then the C . P . I . has increased about 51 % . 1� i' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Tom Moseley From Dan T. Villella Administrative Assistant Assistant Director of Finance Subject Utility Tax Exemption Date June 26, 1980 As requested by Jim Lewis, this is a rough estimate of Finance Department time that would be needed to implement and maintain a Senior Citizen Utility Tax Exemption program. These estimates could vary greatly depending upon the type of program and procedures - implemented. These estimates are assuming a very cursory review of the income tax returns and corresponding forms with listings being prepared and mailed to each utility company. Per 100 Forms: D. Villella 8 hours C. Gibbons 4 hours 4! �� / • Dan T. Villella Assistant Director of Finance DTV/cg 8.27 hundred x 181 .80 = 1 ,503.48 25.60 hundred x 181 .80 = 4,654.08 o SCE. WE ,;�i11 2 1990 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH , To Tom Moseley From Vivian Borns, Superintendent Administration Recreation & Human Services Subject COSTS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING Date June 26, 1980 SENIOR CITIZENS UTILITY TAX EXEMPTION It is anticipated that the staff at the Seniors ' Center will handle the screening of the applications for the senior citizens utility tax exemption. With the exception of the Coordinator, these staff members are funded by CETA and Senior Aides. If the initial demand is as great as that experienced by Seal Beach, I would recommend increasing the Coordinator's hours from 20 hours to 321-, hours per week for four weeks. This will be an additional 50 hours at $5.18 per hour for a total of $259.00. We would plan to schedule group meetings and make appointments whenever possible to avert total chaos. We also intend to utilize volunteers. Concerning the Energy Crisis Assistance Program, the latest information from the Orange County Community Development Council , which administers funding for the program, estimates that the funds will run out in July. The program was intended to run for one year ending September 30, 1980. In actuality, it did not begin locally until February and the funds will be depleted after six months of operation. VB:cgs cc: Vincent G. Moorhouse D 1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Tom Moseley From Bill Reed Administrative Assistant Public fo)Faitioli Officer Subject UTILITY TAX ADVERTISING Date June 26, 1980 Costs for advertising exemption from the utility tax for certain senior citizens would be about $350 consisting of $275.00 in newspaper advertising and $75.00 for fliers telling about the program. PRINTING COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTING FORMS. Material Cost. . . . . . . . . . . $ 17 . 00 Labor ( 12 hours labor @ $9 . 10) 13 . 65 Total . $ 30 . 65 BR:lw LimCITY OF 1-Id�N TINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNHNG1 N BEACH To City Administrator From City Attorney Subject Utility Users ' Tax Exemption Date 25 June 1980 for Low-income Senior Citizens MEMORANDUM OPINION QUESTION: Whether the city can legally exempt low-income senior citizens from payment of the utility users' tax. A14SWER: Yes . DISCUSSION: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ." When faced with an equal protection challenge, the courts must look to the proposed ordinance to determine whether the classification created by the ordinance is a rational one, and whether the classification furthers a legitimate governmental purpose (Schwalbe v. Jones (1926 ) 16 Cal. 3d 514, 128 Cal .Rptr. 323 ; San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973 ) 411 U .S . 40 , 36 L.Ed .2d 16) . I RATIONALITY OF CLASSIFICATION "The legislature may make a reasonable classification of persons and businesses and other activities and pass special legislation ap- plying to certain classes ." Witkin, Summary of California Law, "Constitutional Law, " §341 . The classification must be based upon some difference in the classes having a substantial relationship to a legis- lative object to be accomplished . Here, the proposed legislation is aimed at low-income senior citizens , a group which is traditionally relegated to subsisting on fixed incomes , and whose ability to continue to contribute to society by participating in the work force is limited by compulsory retirement regulations . In Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976 ) 427 U.S . 307, 49 L.Ed .2d 520, the United States Supreme Court considered a Memorandum Opinion 25 June 1980 Utility Users' Tax Exemption--Senior Citizens Page 2 mandatory retirement age of 50 years as violative of the constitution' s equal protection guarantees . There the Court concluded that "the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one . Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary. Such an action by the legislature is presumed to be valid." The Court went on to hold that Massachusetts ' compulsory retirement scheme was not violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it rationally furthered the purpose identified by the legislation. Further, local governments have a relatively unrestricted power to select subjects to be taxed and to grant exemptions (Witkin, Summary of California Law, "Taxation," §36 ) . II VALID LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE The protection of senior citizens from inflationary tax increases is a proper legislative concern so long as the scheme proposed is ef- fected uniformly throughout the class . The case of Harvey v. Morgan ( 1966) 30 Wis .2d 1 , 139 N.W.2d 585 , held that a limitation of tax exemptions on property belonging to per- . sons over 65 constituted a rational classification under the Fourteenth Amendment. The statute providing for the relief of persons 65 or over through a complex system of income tax credits and refunds was sustained. CONCLUSION: So long as the special classification bears a rational relationship to the desired end which is sought, the proposed ordinance will with- stand an equal protection challenge . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GH: RS : ahb Y, Research assistance provided by Legal Intern Mel Pearson. REQUEST F%,.A REDEVELOPMENT iENCY ACTION 9k Submittedby Alicia M. Wentworth Department City Clerk Date Prepared March 6 , 1980 Backup Material Attached Yes® No Subject Sales Tax Advisory Proposition - 6/3/80 Executive Director's Comments Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Souce,Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE The City Attorney may directed by the City Council to submit an impartial analysis to be published in the voter pamphlet preceding the proposition. (S.5011 , Elections Code). RECOMMENDATION Direct the City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis by April 21 , 1980. ANALYSIS The purpose of the impartial analysis is to show the effect of the measure on the existing law and and the operation of the measure. ALTERNATIVE Determine that no impartial analysis be prepared. FUNDING SOURCE Elections Account Plo 417a OPS t, Advisory Vote Only 'ADVISORY PROPOSITION: ' That the Governor and 'Legle la turs, appor tlon the ' YES ' 'existing slx. con% sales and 'use to •o that two cents ' ' ra the r than the one cent 'pre��ntii •llooated,. �ay -ber ' be used. Cy_ local_ agencles ' for .priority local services ' NO ' ' rather than state distribu- ' ' tion or state reserves . i i t ELECTION PROCEDURES REGARDING LOCAL ADVISORY BALLOT PROPOSITION The Elections Code (Section 5353) provides a mechanism for the public. to voice their opinion on substantive issues or to indicate to the local legislative body approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal. The "advisory vote" means an indication of general voter opinion and the results in no way are controlling on the legislative body Procedures for placing an advisory measure on the ballot are briefly summarized below. Suggested- Actual Elect. Code Date Date Citatiga 3/10/80 2/19/80 84017, 4018 Council to place measure on ballot 5010-16 6 22807 3/10/80 2/28/80 Determine b announce deadline for submission of arguments - Publish 3/28/80 DEADLINE 4/2� l/80 65011 City Attorney to prepare synopses and may be requested to prepare impartial-analyals 4/24/80 S 22833-22835 Public notice of measure and argument *While not apparently required by law, ordering submission of the advisory measure to the .electors of the .city at the.Special Municipal Election should probably be published to be cautious and avoid any allegations of lack of notice. *Since there apprears to be no deadline for submission of. advisory ballot measures, the controlling factor is the time required locally to prepare the necessary sample. ballot materials.. *City Clerks usually prefer to publish any notice of deadlines for submittal of ballot arguments at the Same time as the Notice of Election (by 3/10/80) in order to give notice- of measures that will be on the ballot *Regarding an im . partial aualysia .of- the measure, under Elections.Code Section 5011 the governing body asy-.r at- the -Ctty Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure.' 5010. ELECTIONS CODE ELECTIONS CODE 5015. " Article d.Arguments Concernlng:City Measures - illa. "City measure'definition. 5014. . Argument not accepted without names A ballot argument shall not be accepted under this article unless accompanied As used in this article,"city measure"includes.any proposed city charter,any by the name or names of the person or persons submitting it,or.if submitted on proposed amendment to a city charter,any proposition for the-Issuance of.bonds behalf of an organization,the name of the organization and the name of at least by the city.any advisory question,or any other question or proposition submitted one of its principal officers, to the voters of a city. No more than live signatures shall appear with any argument submitted under (Amended by Sk& 1076. t 016 11) this article. In case.any argument Is signed by mom than five persons the signatures of Me BM five shall be printed. sill. LY4 rse�►1R rts!h►de, (Added by Aft 19M a 24,11) Wkenewagg.dty measure quef>fies.for a place on the ballot the governing, body may direct.the city dot-to transmit a copy of the nwasure to the-city $fU.L Argonee sat aeeeptsd whist frso penan included in attorney:nol=the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney are teri affecta the city attorney shall-pupate an impartial.analysis-of the measure showing the effect of the MOM on the e>ristipg-taw-and the operation of the A bald or;it -a rebuttal argument:whlcb Includes in Its f test.the name of a ptasan;other than the author of the argument, who 1s mcasttre.U the ate�ure afixb.the.organization or salaries of the of8oe of the represented ted.as-hqft for or aping A manwre,shall ad be accepted unless the _f city attorney, Me governing board may dims the city clerk to.prepam:mearpme! is accompstfiea:by a steed eonsW of-suet 9090.The eonrseat of a itupartlnl attatyst.The analyst shall be printed preceding the argameints for and person, other than an individual.shall be signed by an officer or other duly ago the meawre The>analy9s dial not:esoeed sw words to insit (Added by Sit J9?B�a' 2 .¢1) authorfned remove."PtersW as used in this aectlom»any individual. } partnership, corporallm association. comtmittee labor organi>stloo. and any SOIL if art atietwre prevM4 voters may Submit-arguments t other organizedw or.gi a up of-I If there Is no other method provided by.general law; or. In the case of a (Addedby Raft 19M C. 17?.¢1) cha tered'dly.by the charter or by city ordinance.arguments for and against any. Sli<S► l rrthi azpseass. dQi metanre atop be s Otherwise t ro ided by g qualified-voters general the city Pursuant to this (a)If any p�submits an an a city and an argument oracle: d a'Method by- a otherwise provided e. general taw. .a m the.cas .014 has been filed,m favor of.the city measure the deft shall immediately send Particular kW by crafter u � ordinance. for sttbmitttng:argnm�.es to a � copies of.tW to the.Pm��6 the t in favor of the city p kind of.city :that method shall control. sure. The persons fling the argnMOat in favor oaf we city measure MIT . lAa'dled by S 1976�c 2M 61) mea prepare and subm a mbuttel argument ad eaoeeding 250 words The curt dial Slit written aepiments send copies of the argument in favor of the mwMe to tie persona Mft 00 Tate•IegLsietive body. or any member or.members of the legislative body Inc We d Iy meana M who may pepw aid anbmlt a r bWW to the aaiborired by that body.or any individual voter or bona tide asaocation of citizens; 'm favor of the dly measam ad estoeedtng 250 words The rebuttal or my combination of voters and associations,may file a written.argufinent for or arguments shah be filed with the dot-not more than 10 days after rite final date - WIM any city measure.No �The city for Ming-direct argues: RewW arm shall be printed in the flame asp shall a=coed 300 wur+da m clerk-shall an argument for.aad an argwvjW the tyre to be as .dared nth' r+ebnttal wall lanrmediatety pied along wlth.the folio follow the direct-atprmeat which it sedot to rebut wing statement on the front cover.or If none.on the heading of ttre f t Doge,of the printed (b)The provisions of subdivision.(a)shall only apply arguments it nd later facia fife do "Argltments 1n support-or opposition of the proposed laws are me ophdm of on which the le stive boo calls an e1et21o4 the legislative body.by a malaztty the authors." vote,adopts its pt+avtol R I IC to which case,the provisions of subdlvhton (a)wall The city clerk shall enclose a printed copy of bath arguments with each sample apply at me DW earning municipal din aid at each municipal election ballot:provide,that only those arguments Sled Pursuant to this section AM be thereafter, unleat later repealed-by the bg0datfve body inith accord w the printed and enclosed with the snmple ballot The printed arguments an"official Procedures of this subdivision. matter'' within themeaning.of those words used in Section 10010. (Added bySfttt-19M.a 701.#1) Punted arguttsat submitted W voters in accordance with this section wall be i ails. qty.deer is Pet date ter tiq -?f 3f�e titles e�tner'-Argument In Favor Of Measure "or"Argument Against 1 Neal_re accordingly,the blank Based on-the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments letter or number.if any;which d ��hued m only with the i and sample ballots for that particular election. the city cleft shall fltc and cleric.'rt word' � the measure.At the discretion of the determine a reasonable date prior to the election after which no arguments for WICK �r �oposition"may be substituted for the word"Measure"in such 1sed in the title shall not be counted when determining or against any city measure May be submitted for printing and distribution to the of a-, ,rz-,mem ng the length st voters as provided in this article:•Arguments may be changed or withdrawn by C. - ?.. Stats. .a-' 197. .5. their proponents until and including:the date-fit<ed by the city dert (Added by-Stat5 1976. c. 248. §3.) %Olt ELECTIONS CODE Salo. Cleric to select It more than one argument. if more than one argument for or more than one.argument against any city measure is submitted to the city clerk within the time prescribed,the city clerk y shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the voters.In selecting the argument the city cleric shell give preference and priority in the order named to the arguments of the following (a) The tegtsMa body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body. (b)The individual voter or bona fide association of citizens,or combination of voters and aseodatloaa, who.are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure. (c)Bona ride assoctations of citizens. (d) Individual votyem (Added by Slefat 1074 a 24A#I) Article L lllailinp ii L Oae espy of sinew materiel per havabold. Whenever the clerk is required to mail official matter,as provided in Sections 4015.40ILS.4018.5011.5012.5013.and 5014.5.only one dopy of each such official matter shall be malted to a poll address when two or more registered voters have the same surname and the same postal address. The provisions of this section shall only apply if the legislative body of the city eaoptr the provisions of this section and the election official conducting the election approves of the procedure. (Added by Slats till$ a IM,¢2) Chapter 4.Dlstrlet Electlm Article L laidattve SOL saps of amels. in addition to any other method provided by law.ordinances may be enacted by any dM t pursuant to this article.emept that the provisions of this article shall not apply to irrigation dletrld&to a district formed udder a law which"does not provide a procedure for elecdorm to a distrid formed under a law which does not provide for action by ordlaanm to a district governed by an election procedure which permits votem in electing the district's directors or trustees,to cost more than one vote per voter. or to a district In which the directors are empowered to cast more Om one vote per director when acting on any matter. (Added by S M& 1974%G 249#1) 5151. 'District"dettaides. For-the purposes of Initiative and referendum under this chapter. "district" includes,any regional agency which has the power to taut,to regulate land use.or to condemn and purchase land. . Added by Stals. 1976, c. 248. §3) .1 t",ak REQUEIT FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION l D 6 Submitted by James W. Palin, Director Department Development Services Date Prepared July 25 , 19 8 0 Backup Material Attached aX Yes No Subject TAX EXEMPT MORTGAGE BONDS; APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR UNDERWRITERS PROPOSALS City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL -19Av. Approve as Recommended , CITY CLF K Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: C►(f— STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On June 28, 1980, the City Council adopted a resolution expressing interest in tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds in response to an apparent federal deadline. Further consideration of the tax exempt bond issue by Congress has resulted in the passage of a resolution granting local jurisdictions until December 31, 1980 to organize and sell a bond issue. The first step in this process is the selection of a Bond Underwriter. RECOMMENDATION• Approve and authorize the distribution of the attached Request for Proposal Soliciting the qualifications of Bond Underwriters. ANALYSIS- The outcome of recent Congressional consideration of the tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds issue has resulted in the extension of the opportunity for local jurisdictions to participate. Specifically, Congress has stated that it will consider no further action to curtail the sale of tax exempt bonds by local government until January 1, 1981, and that any local government wishing to sell such a bond issue must do so before December 31, 1980. This may represent the City' s last opportunity of this kind. The first step in initiating a bond issue is the selection of a bond underwriter. Municipal Code Chapter 3.03, "Professional Ser- vices" ; requires that the selection of such a firm be accomplished through the use of a Request for Proposal (RFP - Attachment A) . Pursuant to this requirement the attached RFP was prepared. aio 3178 Page 2 The bond underwriter' s tasks include: - overall coordination of all participants in the bond issue; - providing advise to the City on the dollar amount and content of the offering;. - writing and advertising the bond offering; - marketing the bonds to the ultimate buyers. Therefore, the RFP requests information regarding the firms finan- cial condition, experience with similar bond issues, recent clients, and the details of its approach to a bond issue for Huntington Beach. The City' s participation in a bond issue will: allow the City to offer mortgages on new housing at a reduced interest rate for households earning 120% of the City' s median income or less; not be a general obligation of the City, but such bonds would be secured solely by the mortgage resultant; - be administered by bond underwriter/investment banker with a minimum of City staff involvement; - help meet the City' s goals for. assistance to homeowners established in the Housing Element of the General Plan; and - require the selection of a specific development upon which tax exempt financing may be offered. ALTERNATIVES• Because of the limited time available to organize and sell a tax exempt mortgage bond issue, approval of the RFP for an underwriter is essential at this time if the City wishes to participate. FUNDING SOURCE: Although an underwriting firm works as a contractor to the City, the City need not commit general funds to pay the underwriter. The underwriter, as the other participants, collect fees from the proceeds of the bond issue itself. Therefore, the only City' s direct finan- cial commitment is the devotion of some staff time. Respectfully submitted, ames W. Palin, Director Development Services JWP:SVK:jb Attachment: Attachment A: Request for Proposals Attachment B: List of Participants ATTACHMENT A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TAX EXEMPT MORTGAGE BOND ISSUE REQUEST FOR UNDERWRITERS PROPOSALS FINANCIAL CONDITION 1. Supply financial reports for the previous three years for each firm in your group. EXPERIENCE AND SERVICE 1. Briefly describe the characteristics that qualify your firm as manager or co-manager. 2. For your firm (and each firm in your proposed mana- ging group) indicate your experience in negotiated housing mortgage revenue bond financing by supplying a list of such financings in which your firm partici- pated and indicate whether your firm acted as senior manager, co-manager or as a member of a selling group. Of particular interest would be- your experience with: (a) State Housing Finance Agencies; (b) Local Government and Non-Profit Housing Corpora- tions; and (c) Single Family, Multi-Family or any innovative programs. Additionally, please list issuers which you have previously served and those you..currently represent. In the case of issuers currently represented by you, please indicate the type of major housing program(s) . 3 . As reported by the Public Securities Association, what are your rankings by dollar and by number of negotiated issues with regard to underwriting tax-exempt revenue bonds? HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPOSAL 1. Describe your marketing plan for the distribution of the City' s securities, your ability to achieve the lowest interest rate and your ability to maintain strong secondary markets. 2. Name the professionals that would participate with you in the preparation and sale of a bond issue for Huntington Beach. State their experience and where they are located. Can you suggest a Bond Counsel, mortgage banker, or trustee with whom your firm has successfully worked? 3. If your group is selected as managing underwriter,• which firm would act as senior manager? Name the person with primary responsibility in this capacity. with whom City representatives would directly deal. Where could this person be contacted? 4. What maximum underwriter' s discount do you anticipate will be required to achieve the best interest rate on the City' s securities? (In this matter the City realizes that the spread is subject to market condi- tions at the actual time of sale) . 5. Indicate your firms (group! s) management fee and account participation arrangement (in- general terms) . 6. What expenses would your firm (group) plan to incur which would be paid out of bond proceeds? 7. Who do you intend to -use as Underwriter' s Counsel? 8. Describe, if any, capital commitments undertaken by your firm/group in support of any housing finance issuers and their program. ATTACHMENT B TAX EXEMPT MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS List of Participants 1. City of Huntington Beach The City' s role is to initiate the preparation of a bond sale, select an underwriter and take the mandatory actions to authorize the sale. 2. Investment Banker/Underwriter This team of professionals has the primary responsibility for the smooth and timely operation of the bond process. They offer the City advise on the steps the City must. take, coordinate the activities of all other participants, help formulate the specific. offering, prepare and advertise the offering and administer the sale of the offering. 3. Bond Counsel An attorney specialized in this field that assures all steps in the process are performed legally and ultimately writes an opinion certifying the issue ' s legality. 4. Underwriters Counsel The underwriter also enlists the assistance of an attorney to assure that all necessary legal steps are performed. 5. Mortgage Banker This is a lending institution selected by the City, under- writer and developer. The mortgage banker screens and qualifies buyers and services the mortgage loans. 6. Trustee The lending institution that retains the proceeds of the issue on deposit until escrows on housing units purchased close. REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin, Director Department Development Services Date Prepared June 26 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached X� Yes No Subject RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ISSUE TAX EXEMPT MORTGAGE BONDS City Administrator's Comments a� Approve as Recommended e s y903 Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Federal legislation passed this week requires that any public entity wishing to issue tax exempt mortgage bonds must take "official action" before July 2, 1980. The adoption of the attached resolution of intent would qualify as such action. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to Issue Tax Exempt Mortgage Bonds. ANALYSIS : For sometime the federal government has been attempting to pass legislation to limit the authority of local governments to issue tax exempt mortgage bonds. Such bonds have become popular across the country as a means for local government to reduce the cost of housing and have provided an opportunity for private capital in- vestment upon which no income tax is paid. This lost federal revenue has created the concern for limiting the issurance of mortgage bonds. This week federal legislation was passed that makes it necessary for any local government that may be interested in participating in tax exempt mortgage bonds to take some official action prior to July 2, 1980. The adoption of the attached Resolution of Intent would satisfy this requirement. It should be emphasized that the adoption of this Resolution does not bind the City to pursue the , issuance of mortgage bonds. It simply assures the City' s option P10 W7e Page 2 to participate for the remainder of this calendar year and will permit the staff to complete its investigation of the applica- bility of mortgage bonds in Huntington Beach and report further to the Council. Although this staff investigation is incomplete at this time, it is known that a tax exempt mortgage bonds issue would : 'r quire the City to hire a bond counsel (fees are paid f om the bond proceeds) 'all w the City to issue the bonds on the open market with a to exempt status (by virtue. of the City' s public agency statu ) 'allow t e City to offer mortgages on new or existing housing ' at a red ced interest rate for housholds earning 120% of the City' s me 'an income or less 'not be a gene al obligation of the City but such bonds would be secured sol y by the mortgages resultant be administered b bond counsel (investment firm with a minimum of City sta f involvement after the issue is sold ' the $15 million amoun would provide approximately 100 mortgage loans. The City' s participation in a t exempt mortgage bond issue would provide another tool by which the City could assist in the reduction of housing costs. The details of ch participation are not known at this time; however, due to the se ere time constraints created by the federal government, the matter ' s brought to thc! Council 's attention at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Failure to adopt the Resolution of Intent wou permanently fore- close the City' s option to participate in tax empt mortgage bonds. FUNDING SOURCE: Tax exempt mortgage bonds are self sustaining and re ire no com- mitment of City funds beyond the staff time to assist nd counsel in the formulation of the issuance. Respectfully submitted, at Jares Development Services JWP:SVK:jb Attachment: Resolution of Intent i RESOLUTION NO. 4903 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF HOUSING MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has, indicated , per Congressman Ullman, that it is the interest of Congress to prohibit the issuance of local housing bonds, bearing tax-exempt interest unless such bonds have been authorized by July 1 , .1980; and Without acknowledging the power of the .Cong ress of the United States to diminish the power of the City of Huntington Beach to issue bonds, the interest on which is exempt from tax pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, this City Council wishes to take all possible steps to assure that it has power to issue such bonds, should it be in the interest of, and in accordance with , the wishes of the citizens of Huntington Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it hereby determines. to issue , not to exceed Fifteen Million Dollars ($15 ,000 ,000) principal amount of housing mortgage revenue bonds , said bonds to be issued by the city or by such other lawful entity as may be in existence at the time the bonds a-re to be used. Said bonds .shall be issued under legislation of the State of California, then authorizing such is- suance , which at the date of this resolution includes legislation commonly referred to as Assembly Bill i355 and Marks-Foran. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held 1. on the 28th day of June , 1980. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, CITY CLERK Deputy City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Cit Ad in strator Di ecto of Development Servic s 2. Rr _ No. 4903 SPATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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. foregeing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adiourned meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June , 19 80 , by the following vote: . AYES: Councilmen: Finley, Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: MarAI l i cter_ Thomas Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City I f Huntington Beach, California By:ZLffx� Deputy 011 r 01 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by _City Attorney Department Legal Date Prepared 2 April _ , 1980 0 Backup Material Attached 7X Yes 7 No Subject Resolution Requesting County Counsel to Undertake Defense of City in the Matter of Carter Hawley Hale Stores , Inc . v. County of Orange , et al . , Case No . 326925 City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended L \ CITY�CLEK Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: �V Carter Hawley Hale Stores dba Broadway Department Stores has brought suit against the county, the City of Huntington Beach and other cities in the county for property taxes collected during fiscal year 1978-1979. Sec- tion 5138 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code provides that , upon application to the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel may be di- rected to undertake the defense of any individual city. RECOMMENDATION: The attached resolution be adopted and the City Clerk directed to forward copy to the office of the County Counsel . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Attorney will defend this lawsuit . /ahb Attachment (10000 Plo V78 City of Huntington Beach + • ^� P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 62646 a,,•;, OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 23, 1980 Laurence Watson, Esq. Office of the County Counsel County of Orange 515 N. Sycamore Santa Ana, CA 92701 On April 21 , 1980, the City Council. of the City of Huntington Beach requested the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. , V. County of Orange, et al . , Case No. 326925. We have enclosed a certified copy of Resolution No. 4866 per- tairiing to this matter. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cb enc. cc: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach r; REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by City Attorney Department Legal Date Prepared June 19 , 1980 Backup Material Attached Q Yes 0 No Subject Resolution Requesting County Counsel to Undertake Defense of City in the Matter of Safeway Stores , Inc . , v. County of Orange , City of Huntington Beach, et al. , Case No. 31-69-89 it Administrator's Comments SY CITY COUkJCIL Approve as Recommend d L...S__ — �S , CITY CLE Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT: Safeway Stores, Inc . has brought suit against the county, the City of Huntington Beach and other cities in the county for property taxes collected during fiscal year 1978-1979 . Section 5138 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code provides that , upon---application to the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel may be directed to undertake the defense of any individual city. RECOMMENDATION: The attached resolution be adopted and the City Clerk directed to forward copy to the Office of the County Counsel. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Instruct the City Attorney to defend this lawsuit . /b c Attachment Pio ana �`v City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 1+ F OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 9, 1980 Laurence Watson, Esq. Office of the County Counsel County of Orange 515 N. Sycamore Santa Ana, CA 92701 Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 4897 adopted by the City Council on July 8, 1980 which requests the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City in the matter of Safeway Stores, Inc. , V. County of Orange, et al . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk .AMW:cb enc. cc: City Attorney i RESOLUTION NO. 4897 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO UNDERTAKE THE DEFENSE OF THE CITY IN THE MATTER OF SAFEWAY STORES, INC. V. COUNTY OF ORANGE, ET AL. WHEREAS , Safeway Stores , Inc. has brought suit against the County of Orange , the City of Huntington Beach , and other cities in the county for property taxes collected by the county on behalf of such cities; and Section 5138 of the California. Revenue and Taxation Code provides that when such a suit is filed , a city may call upon the county to undertake the defense of the action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that :the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby requests the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of Safeway Stores , Inc. v. County of Orange , et al. , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 31-69-89• PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at anirdogoOdY meeting thereof held on the 8th day of July 1980. 40 Mayor ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney By IZ72. City Clerk Acting City Attorwey REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Cirf m s ra or k No. 4897 s'rAPE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 8th day of duly_ 1$0,_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Finley,. Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson (Thomas absent from room) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CTION Submitted by City Attorney Department Legal Date Prepared 15 April , 19 80 Backup Material Attached ID yes F1 No Subject Resolution Requesting County Counsel to Defend City in the Matter of SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY , ET AL. V. BOARD OF EQUALI- ZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. City Administrator's Comments APYR( TED BY CITY COUNCIL > Approve as recommend d CITY Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: --STATEMENT: Southern Pacific Transportation Company and other railroads has brought suit_ against the state Board of Equalization, Orange County, the City of Huntington Beach, as well as other cities and counties in the state , for property taxes collected during fiscal years 1914 through 1977 . Sec- tion 5138 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code provides that , upon application to the Board of Supervisors , the County Counsel may be di- rected to undertake the defense of any individual city . RECOMMENDATION: The attached resolution be adopted and the City Clerk directed to forward copy to the office of the County Counsel . /FUNDING SOURCE : Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Attorney will defend this lawsuit . /ahb Attachment 11101 Pio 3ne •sue �, City of Huntington Beach L' P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 7, 1980 Laurence Watson, Esq. Office of the County Counsel County of Orange 515 N. Sycamore Santa Ana, CA 92701 Enclosed is- a certified copy of Resolution No-. 4870 adopted by the City Council of the City of. Hun.tington Beach at its regular meeting held May 5, 1980, requesting the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City in the matter of Southern Pacific - Transportation Company, et al vs. -Board of Equalization of the State of California, et al . Sincerely, A l i_ci.a M. Wentworth. City Clerk AMW:cb enc. e 1 RESOLUTION NO . 4870 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO UNDERTAKE THE DEFENSE OF THE CITY IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTA- TION COMPANY, ET AL. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA , ET AL. WHEREAS , Southern Pacific Transportation Company, together with other railroads, has brought suit against the state Board of Equalization, the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach and other cities and counties in the state for property taxes collected by such counties on behalf of such cities; and Section 5138 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. provides that when such a suit is filed, a city may call upon the county to undertake the defense of the action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby requests the County of = Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach ' in the matter of Southern Pacific Transportation Company, et al . v . Board of Equalization of the State of California , et al . , Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 282416. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of May 1980. Mayor 7 ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROIfED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: --aOF CiP Administrator /ahb 4/15/80 •-- i i 'Res. No. 4870 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) . I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of May 19 g0 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, MacAllister, Kelly, Mandic NOES: Councilmen: None e ABSENT: Councilmen: Thomas (out of room) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I , REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL ,RCTION Subrt'iitted by City Attorney Department Legal . Date ' E:pared I 1 Fehrua ry 19 Backup Material Attached Yes No Subject Resolution Requesting Orange County to Undertake the Defense of the .-City of Huntington Beach in the Matter of International Business Machines Corporation v. County of Orange, et al . City Administrator's Comments D BY CITY C UN GIL APPROVE 3 19-�� Approve as recommend GIT GL K Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: 0,�✓ STATEMENT: International Business Machines Corporation has brought suit against the county, the City of Huntington Beach and other cities in .the county for property taxes collected during fiscal year 1978-1979 . Section 5138 of the California Revenue and Taxation .Code provides that, upon application to the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel may be directed to undertake the defense of any individual city. RECOMMENDATION: The attached resolution be adopted and the City Clerk. directed to forward copy to the office of the .County Counsel. FUNDING SOURCES: Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Attorney will defend this lawsuit. /ahb Attachment Pio sns (� ri r ' City of Huntington Beach P.O. 60X 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 4, 1980 Laurence Watson, Esq. Office of the County Counsel County of Orange 515 N. Sycamore. Santa Ana, CA. 92701 Dear Sir: Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution 4852 which was approved by the City Council at their regular meeting held March 3, 1980, requesting the County of Orange to undertake the defense of the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of International Business Machine Corporation v. County of Orange, et al. Sincerely, Alicia M.. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure J' City of. Huntington Beach IP y g X . . . :.�x�. P.O. BOX 180 CALIFORNIA 82648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 0 March 4, 1980 Orange County Board of Supervisors .10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA. 92701 - Gentlemen: Enclosed is .a certified copy of Resolution 4852 which was approved by the City Council at their regular meeting held March 3, 1980, requesting the County of Orange to undertake the defense of.the City of Huntington Beach in the matter of International Business Machine Corporation v. County of Orange, et al. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure