HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 99-55 - Adopting F/Y 1999/2000 Tax Rate ($.04930 16 August 1999
Honorable Mayor Peter Green
and Members of the City Council
2000 Main Street 6 � .
Huntington Beach, California 92648
J"
Subject: Agenda Item E-14 -Adoption of Tax Rate for 1999/2000 �=
�a
Dear Mayor Green:
When I first read this Agenda Item I did not even bother looking at the backup
material, since it appeared to be the simple routine adoption of a tax rate which
had been in effect for many years. Later, almost by accident, I read the backup in
detail. The RCA and Resolution 99-55 so torture the truth that I cannot conceive
that you or any other Council Member could rationally vote in favor of Agenda
Item E-14.
For the first time Staff has considered the City's Supplemental Retirement Plan
as being covered by the City Charter provisions relative to retirement, but that is
clearly a false interpretation. The- Charter certainly talks about "... ...the
retirement system in which the City participates....." By no stretch of the
imagination, however, is the Supplemental Retirement Plan part of such a
system. Who are the other participants? There are none! The retirement system
talked about in the Charter is the California Public Employee Retirement System,
commonly abbreviated as PERS. It is not PERS plus whatever other employee
retirement benefit the city may come up with from time to time.
In fact, the City Attorney, in a memo from 1994 (when an initiative to get rid of
this particular property tax was being discussed) says as much — "First, this
measure would revoke the city's duty and authority to levy an indebtedness to
pay the city's obligations under its contract with PERS."
Clearly, the proposed tax rate now takes more money from the Citizens than is
required to fund PERS. Staff is simply trying to find a way of keeping the tax rate
as it is, rather than reducing it to the level required to fund the need. Yes, I do
understand that if we reduce the rate we can then never again raise it. But that
does not justify improperly sticking it into the Citizens. Does it, Mr. Mayor?
--w
Resolution 99-55 is replete with tortured interpretations of the City Charter,
omissions of pertinent City Charter provisions and what amounts to being
downright lies. It discusses how the City Charter allows levying of a property tax
"... ...to meet the obligations of the City to pay for employee retirement benefits."
The Charter talks about ".....the retirement system in which the City participates."
The Resolution never mentions that the tax is levied only ".....if no other provision
for payment thereof is made:" I guess that is because the Resolution goes on to
say that the City has had to pay a significant part of the cost. Presumably the
levy should cover everything if Staff had its way. Indeed, the argument is made
that the City, over the years, has paid over $41.5M out of the General Fund for
employee retirement. With nominal interest of 6% this raises the total to $69.2M.
This is now considered to be money that is owed by the Citizens to the General
Fund! Hello! The Citizens contributed the General Fund money in the first place,
and the City could have budgeted all retirement costs including PIERS obligations
from the General Fund.
There was never any requirement to separately tax the Citizens for any of this.
What was originally planned as a "safety net" to assure employees PIERS
coverage in the event of major financial difficulties, has been turned into a
requirement that the Citizens through a property tax levy pay the total PIERS
amount plus any other retirement benefit the City dreams up. And, in addition,
the Citizens have to pay back another $69.2M
Am I misreading the RCA and Resolution 99-5. 1 think not. You need only read
the last line of the Resolution:
"The purpose of the tax levy is not only to pay for current retirement
benefits, but also to pay for retiring the accumulated general fund debt for
retirement benefits with interest."
I suggest, Mr. Mayor, that you and all other Councilmembers must vote against
adopting Resolution 99-5, as written. Personally, while I dislike any tax levy for
this purpose, and believe it should be a General Fund expense, I can accept a
rate which allows covering our PIERS obligation, but certainly not the
Supplemental Retirement Plan. I cannot accept a resolution which in any way
suggests that the Citizens are obligated to pay all of the costs through a tax levy,
or that we owe the General Fund $69.2M. Nor could I support anyone in the
future who would.
Sincerely yours,
Chuck S,QO Wid cc: City Administrator
City Attorney
K�rcS//iv
Council/Agency Meeting HF- �� l 9 i 8 �9q 3-1d• 90
;Def rred/Continued to: 9 9
Ap roved ❑ on itio II Approved ❑ Den'ed _ I Clerk's Signature
-man, -
Council Meeting Date: August 2, 1999 Department ID Number: AS 99-018
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ry C:)
CC) 'z
CUor"
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratororA! M-nm
`5�k S - -
PREPARED BY: John Reekstin Director of Administrative Services 'je r,
SUBJECT: Adoption of Tax Rate for 1999/2000
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Should the City adopt a tax rate consistent with the City Charter
which states that "There shall be levied..., if no other provision for payment thereof is
made,... a tax sufficient to meet all obligations of the City for the retirement system in which
the City participates, due to be paid, or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year."
The 1999/2000 proposed budget includes estimated property tax revenue of $7,550,000 to
fund the majority of the City's employee pension obligations for the fiscal year. The
remaining costs will be paid from other available City revenues.
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action: Adopt resolution 9 9-SS fixing the tax rate for the City of
Huntington Beach at $.04930 per $100 of assessed valuation.
Alternative Action(s):
1. Do not adopt a tax rate in which case the City Council will have to make General
Fund budget reductions
2. Adopt a lower tax rate in which case the City Council will have to make General
Fund budget reductions equal to the amount of the reduced revenue
To be consistent with Charter requirements, alternative 1 or 2 can be selected only if the
City makes "... other provisions for payment ..." of the retirement obligations. The proposed
budget for 1999/2000 makes no provision for payments of these obligations other than the
use of the $7,550,000 in estimated revenue from a continuation of this levy. Therefore, if
either of the above alternatives is selected, action needs to be taken to determine how to
make provision to pay the City's estimated retirement costs in 1999/2000 and in future
years.
� I .
RtQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTON
MEETING DATE: August 2, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 99-018
Analysis: The City receives a pro-rata portion of the one-percent basic levy of all real
property (15.6% of the basic levy). In addition, the California Constitution allows cities to
levy additional taxes for voter-approved indebtedness. The City has, since voter approval
in 1966, levied an additional tax which pays for a portion of City retirement costs, which
include payments to the California Public Employee Retirement System (CALPERS) as
well as the City's Supplemental Retirement Plan. Under State law, the levy is limited to the
lower of the amount needed to pay the retirement costs or the amount levied in 1984/85. In
our case, the lower amount is the 1984/85 levy of $.04930 per $100 of assessed valuation.
The levy currently covers an estimated 98% of the City's retirement costs for 1999/2000.
During the past seven years, the City's share of the basic levy for property taxes has been
reduced by the State of California from 19.5% to 15.6%. General Fund property tax
revenue from the basic levy has therefore been reduced by approximately $5.5 million per
year.
Below is a summary of the City's 1999/2000 retirement costs and estimated revenue from
the tax levy:
Estimated 1999/2000 Retirement Costs (PERS) $ 6,100,000
Estimated 1999/2000 Retirement Supplement Costs 1,600,000
Total Retirement Costs 7,700,000
Estimated Revenue from a Continuation of Levy $ 7,550,000
The levy currently covers approximately 98% of the City's retirement costs for 1999/2000.
The General Fund and other city revenues will pay remaining retirement costs.
Environmental Status: Not applicable
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
- . . - NumberDescription
• Resolution to Adopt 1998/99 Tax Rate. Re-S. No. 99 —SS
RCA Author: Robert Sedlak
035535.01 -2- 07/20/99 8:00 AM
A TTA CHMENT 1
r
RESOLUTION NO. 99-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 TAX RATE
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 various city departments, offices and
activities; and
In 1978, the electorate of the City of Huntington Beach approved a City Charter revision
authorizing the City to provide retirement benefits to its employees, and further providing for the
levy of a property tax in excess of 1% of the full cash value of property in order to meet the
obligations of the City to pay for employee retirement benefits; and
In Carman v. Alvord(1982) 31 Cal.3d 318, the California Supreme Court held that a tax
to fund a city's employee retirement obligations is exempt from Proposition 13 (Article XIIIA of
the California Constitution) as voter-approved prior indebtedness; and
Since 1983-84, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 96.31(b) has limited the City to
levying a maximum rate of property taxation at Zero and .04930/100th Dollars ($0.4930) per
$100 of assessed value in the City to pay for employees retirement cost, notwithstanding the fact
that this rate has only generated between 48% and 70% of retirement benefits. Consequently,
each year since 1983-84, the general fund has had to pay for a substantial portion of retirement
benefits, although the City Charter authorizes it to be paid for with a property tax levy; and
The City provides two employee retirement programs: a contract with the Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS) and a Supplemental Retirement Program (SRP) offering
survivor's benefits in addition to PERS. The estimated cost of PERS to the City is $6,100,000
for 1999/2000 and the estimated cost of the SRP is $1,600,000 for 1999/2000. The estimated
total cost of the two programs is $7,700,000.00. The estimated revenue to be generated from the
property tax levy for 1999/2000 is $7,550,000.00; and
, In addition, the cumulative total of PERS retirement costs since 1983/84 through 1997/98
paid for with general funds and not by the property tax levy is $41,534,888.00. Imposing a
reasonable interest rate to this amount of 6%, which represents the City's cost of funds, raises the
total to $69,229,190. The purpose of the tax levy is not only to pay for current retirement
benefits,but also to pay for retiring the accumulated general fund debt for retirement benefits
with interest; and
1
SF-99 Resol ut:Tax99-20
RLS 99-433
07/27/99-#9
Said tax does not constitute an extension of an existing tax requiring voter approval under
Proposition 218 (Articles XIIIC-D of the California Constitution)because Section 3(a)(1) of
Proposition 218 exempts from the voter-approval requirement any tax already valid under
Proposition XIIIA; and
The tax rate herein is levied pursuant to Section 96.31(a)(4) of the Revenue and Taxation
Code for the purpose of paying voter approved prior indebtedness of the City of Huntington
Beach;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for fiscal year 1999/2000 be fixed at zero and
.04930/100ths dollars ($.04930) per$100 of assessed property value in said city. The said rate
shall be applied as employee retirement costs.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of August , 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk ity Attorney r y
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Adm�iistrator 11rector of Administrative Services
2
SF-99 Resolut-.Tax99-20
RLS 99-433
07/27/99-#9
Res. No. 99-55
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 16th day of August, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green,Dettloff
NOES: Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Adoption of Tax Rate for 1999/2000
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 2, 1999
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement Unbud et, over $5,000 Not Applicable
Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
......... ....
EXPLANATION FOR M_LSSING ATTACHMENTS=
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED.
Administrative Staff )
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator Initial
City Clerk )
. ......
EXPLANATION FOR'RETURN OFITEW-
(Below SpaceFor Only)
RCA Author: Robert Sedlak