Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTaxes: General 1965 - 1979 From the desk of: ' CONNIE BROCKWAY City Clerk's office 536-5226 o� 1g171 op 4yze we T)e ,Sala /jeN SowveSJ S^• �CCGt,H,'16/ti''7� TX r LO;TT.(c e n ��'J/�� R No. 4512 STA'PE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY- OF ORANGE ) s s 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 29th day of August 19 77 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder. Coen. Gibbs. Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: Siebert, Shenkman ABSENT: Councilmen: None 15k- I oe—,, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original.on file in this office. Attest -----------------------------19-------- ----- City Clerk and . Ex-Officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Cal. 1/06 City of Huntin ton Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 5, 1977 The Honorable Chet Wray 12062 Valley View Suite 237 Garden Grove, CA 92645 .Dear Mr. Wray: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 4, 1977, adopted Resolution No. 4439 opposing the redistribution of sales tax revenues on the basis of population, and further adopted Resolution No. 4445, Urging the State Legislature to return from 16-2/3 percent to 20 percent of the share of state sales and use tax revenues distributed to cities. Certified copies of said resolutions are enclosed for your information. Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMw/sh Enclosure H�� ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 77-46 0 COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito City Council Members City Administrator Subject CITY' S SHARE OF SALES TAX Date March 24 , 1977 ' Attached is a resolution urging the State Legislature to return 20 percent of state sales and use tax revenues to cities . When the sales and use tax increased from 5 cents to 6 cents , the City' s share was reduced from 20 percent to 16-2/3 percent . The City Council directed that this resolution be prepared at its meeting of March 21 , 1977 . RECOMMENDATION ` Approve the resolution. Respectfully submitted, Floyd Belsito City Administrator FGB:JC:bb Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 961 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA SUPPORTING THE REDISTRIBUTION OF 2 SALES TAX REVENUES ON THE BASIS OF POPULATION J WHEREAS, statutory authority to levy a sales tax was authorized to the cities of California in 1948 to provide said cities with new revenues and to•relieve the property owner of greater tax burdens; and WHEREAS, said authority was revised in 1955 under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law solely to provide state wide uniformity in administration of the tax; and WHEREAS, new trends of citizen mobility in marketing concepts have resulted in a conversion to large regional commercial facilities to serve several communities from a central location from smaller facilities serving each community; and WHEREAS, said trends have made the present method of sales tax distribution obsolete, benefiting only those property owners living in communities with regional facilities; and WHEREAS, the resulting intensity of competition between cities to attract new commercial and economic development has made it difficult to institute much needed concepts of regional planning and cooperative .govern- ment among local agencies; and WHEREAS, the City of Yorba Linda did not incorporate until the general patterns of commercial development in the surrounding communities were already established;. and WHEREAS, the state legislature is being asked to burden residents with new taxes while existing practices are clearly inequitable. NOW,- THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda does hereby support a change zn' a Local Sales and Use Tax Law which would redistribute sales tax revenues solely on the basis of population. BE IT PURTIInR 1tESOLVUD, that copier of this Resolution bo sent to the finance committees of the state legis]acure, to all Orange County cities, the League of Californir ^iti.Ps Pn4 tither key offi.cia7_s and government organizations. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of .Yorba Linda at an adjuurned regular meeting held on the 4th day of January, 1977. /s/ Henry W. Wedaa HENRY WEDAA Mayor of the City of Yorba Linda ATTEST: /s/ Dorothy J. Jones DOROTHY J. JONES City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda RESOLUTION NO.. 4485 _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE OPPOSING THE REDISTRIBUTION OF SALES .TAX :'`•; REVENUES ON THE BASIS OF POPULATION . WHEREAS , statutory authority to levy 'a sales tax. was :''' " .. authorized to the cities of California in 1948 to. provide ' :'' said cities with new revenues and to relieve the property owner of greater tax burden; and - WHEREAS , said authority was revised in 1955 to_ provide statewide uniformity in administration -!of the tax; -and- WHEREAS , some cities in California have by their own choice restricted their ability to collect sales tax revenue by concentrating their land development into esthetically desirable residential. uses ; and WHEREAS, other cities in the State have voluntarily . ,`: permitted the development of commercial land uses which generate sales tax revenue, but which create significant additional costs and problems to the city; and . WHEREAS, an effort is now being made to persuade the. ' ' State Legislature . to institute a .reform" iii' the distribution ` of sales tax revenue through a per capita formula; and WHEREAS, such a per capita distribution would - be grossly , , unfair 'to cities such as Orange which contains major commercial '!: facilities that serve not just the City 's own citizens but also those of nearby communities as well. NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED :that :the' City of- ;Orange , is opposed to any change in the Local Sales and Use Tax Law u :which would redistribute sales tax revenues on the basis of population.to BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution Shall be sent to all Orange County members of the State Legislature and to the League of California Cities . . ADOPTED this 18th day of January �, 197.7.' ROBERT D. HOYT MAYOR OF ";THE .CITY OF 'ORANGE . .•. •' ATTEST: ••'•. • '-� � . . .. :, r. CHARLOTTE M. JOHNSTON CITY CLERK. OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RESOLUTION NO. 5259-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO RETURN FROM 16-2/3 PERCENT TO 20 PERCENT THE SHARE OF STATE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES DISTRIBUTED TO CITIES . WHEREAS , the State of California in 1974 increased the State Sales and Use Tax from 5� to 6G ; and WHEREAS , cities ' share of the State Sales and Use Tax re- mained at 1�, thus reducing from 20% to 16-2/3% their relative share of sales tax revenues ; and WHEREAS , cities have increasingly found themselves with shortages of general fund revenues; and WHEREAS, the State has continued to impose mandated' costs upon cities, thus even further reducing available general fund revenues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City o:' Garden Grove urges the State Legislature to pass legis- lation providing that the share of State Sales and Use Tax revenues distributed to cities be returned from 16-2/3% to 20% ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be' forwarded . to Garden Grove 's State legislators , all Orange County cities, and the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities . /S/ J. TILMAN WILLIAMS MAYOR ATTEST: /S/ JERI LOUISE STATELY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: • CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ) I, JERI LOUISE STATELY, 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 14th day of February, 1977, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: (4) BARR, DONOVAN, ERICKSON, WILLIAMS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: (0) NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: (1) KRIEGER /S/ JERI LOUISE. STATELY CITY CLERK r� UTILITIES Most of the taxable property described above is locally assessed — that is, by the county. Public utilities are State-assessed, by the Board of Equalization, because a utility often spans more than one county. The Constitution states: "This property shall be subject to taxation to the same extent and in the some manner as other property." These State assessments include all property owned or used by railroads, gas, electric, telephone, and certain other public utilities. The Board also assesses privately-owned intercounty pipelines, flumes, canals, ditches, and aqueducts. After World War II, when rent and price controls were removed, values of most county-assessed prop- erties rose spectacularly, while existing properties of State-assessed utilities, whose prices were controlled by the Public Utilities Commission, actually lost value as depreciation took its toll. Because county assessors could not revalue existing properties and still keep abreast of California's burgeoning economy, a gap developed between county assessment levels and the levels at which the State Board of Equalization was assessing. Reporting to the Legislature in 1953, the Senate Com- mittee on State and Local Taxes said its "quantitative studies...tend to support the contention... that public utility enterprises are assessed at something close to 50 percent of:..market value...," while "all of the available evidence appears to point to the conclusion that the State-wide ratio of assessed value to market value (for county-assessed property) lies somewhere between 26 percent . and 30 percent." After this hotly disputed finding was confirmed by a joint Legislative Committee on Assessment Practices in 1959, the State Board began to phase out the gap, and by 1973 the gap had been closed. The decrease was made gradually to avoid major disruption of local government finances. The state gets no revenue from these utility assessments. The values are allocated for taxation by cities, counties, school districts, and other special districts. TIMBER—YIELD TAX AND TIMBERLAND PRESERVE ZONE The Z'berg-Warren-Keene-Collier Forest Taxation Reform Act, AB-1258, Chapter 176, Statutes of 1976, imposes a timber yield tax and a timber reserve fund tax on every timber owner who harvests his timber or causes it to be harvested on or after April 1, 1977, and on every timber owner of felled or downed timber who acquires title to such felled. or downed timber in this State from an exempt person or agency or entity exempt from State taxation under the Constitution or laws of the United States or under the Constitution or laws of the State of California. The Act changes the existing system of taxing both timber and land on which timber is growing. Beginning with the 1977-78 fiscal year, privately owned land and land acquired for state forest pur- poses which is primarily devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber will be zoned for a minimum 10 year period as timberland preseSve and will be valued for property taxation, in general, on the basis of its use for growing and harvesting timber. Timberland values are set forth in the Act I according to "site classes" and these are to be used for ad valorem purposes on March 1, 1977, to and including March 1, 1979. Timber will not be subject to an annual ad valorem tax, but will be taxed at the time of harvest based upon its value at the location of harvest. "Timber" means trees of any species maintained for eventual harvest for forest products purposes, whether planted or of natural growth,standing or down,on privately or publicly owned land, including Christmas trees, but does not mean nursery stock. Taxable operations include harvesting for fuel- wood,-poles and pilings, split products,as well as for logs. Taxable Christmas tree harvests include those grown on cultivated land and those taken from forests. Timber harvested on and after April 1, 1977, will be subject to a 6 percent timber yield tax and a Y2 I percent timber reserve fund tax. The tax rates are subject to review by the Board of Equalization each year beginning on or before December 31, 1978, for both the 6 percent tax and the %2 percent tax. Adjustments to the timber tax are to be made to keep the rate consistent with ad valorem taxes and the adjustment to the reserve fund tax is to be based upon need to provide adequate funding of the revenue program, as certified by the State Controller. - 4 - The Board has the responsibility for administering the tax program and has established a Timber Tax Division within the Property Tax Department to meet this need. The Division has two principal duties. The first is to obtain data and information needed to develop rules and value schedules for timber and timberland. These will provide the guidelines for timber owners to report yield taxes and for assessors in valuing timberland. The second duty is to administer the tax program by rbgis- tering taxpayers,providing tax return forms, receiving and allocating tax payments to the appropriate funds, auditing accounts, and ensuring compliance with the Act. EXEMPT PROPERTY The California Constitution provides that all real property in the State not exempt under the laws of the United States is taxable unless exempt by constitutional provision, and that all personal property is likewise taxable unless exempted by the Constitution or by the Legislature with the approval of two-thirds of the members of both its houses. Exemptions reduce taxes for those directly concemed and, except for exemptions that are subvented by the state, add equivalent amounts to the tax bills for those properties not exempt. Many property tax exemptions are justified on the basis that the exempt property is being used either to-provide a service that the government would otherwise be required to provide or to accom- plish some desired social objective. This is the basis for the welfare, college, church, public school, free library, and free museum exemptions. Other property is exempted for economic reasons —.for example, to provide a special economic in- .centive for new industries or trades, or to improve the competitive position of a California industry. In 1977-78 the homeowners' property tax exemption of $1,750 was accorded 'to about 3.9 million qualified owner-occupants of residences, with a total exempt assessed value of nearly $6.8 billion. The State reimburses local governments for this loss of tax base. Like the homeowners' exemption the business inventory exemption was also first enrolled in.1969. At first only 15 percent of an inventory was exempted, but the exempt portion was increased to 30 percent in 1970, 45 percent in 1973, and to 50 percent in 1974. 'With inventories now totaling about $29 billion in full value this exemption will reduce the annual property taxes of business and farming interests by close to $400 million in 1977-78. Again, this property tax reduction is reim- bursed to local governments by the State, which uses revenue gains from corporation tax rate increases for this purpose. In 1977.78, 20,803 California:veterans received an exemption of up to $1,000 of assessed value ($10,000 in the case of a disabled veteran) for their service to the Nation. The total exempt value in the 58 counties was $61 million. Eash year the number of veterans' exemptions is decreasing, for two reasons: 1. The homeowners' exemption reduces assessed value by $1,750, and the law forbids the application of both exemptions to.one property. 2. The assessed value of assessable items along with the full cash value of non-assessoble items exceeds $10,000 for married veterans or, $5,000 for single veterans, the asset limitation for receiving the exemption. Valid claims for "welfare exemptions" (property dedicated to religious, charitable, or nonprofit hospital purposes) totaled 7,185 as of November 8, 1977. These claims, which encompassed 11,624 separate properties, removed $1,526 million of assessed value excluding churches and colleges from county assessment rolls. SOME PROPERTIES EXEMPTED Commercial forest trees Free libraries and museums Large vessels and some Churches Young trees and vines small boats Veterans' property (partial) Growing crops Household furnishings and Colleges, private, nonprofit Welfare properties personal effects Other schools, private, nonprofit Burial plots . All_intangibles - 5 . WHERE PROPERTY IS TAXED Real property is taxable in the county where it is located, regardless of the residence of the owner. When.a parcel of real property is located in more than one taxing district, each district may tax only that portion which is within its boundaries. Tangible personal property also is taxed at its permanent location regardless of the owner's resi- dence. Private aircraft are taxed at the location of the airport or hangar where usually kept. Com- mercial, certificated aircraft are taxed on an apportioned basis in each county to which regular flights are made. . Ships and boats, generally, are assessed where habitually located. A small boat not habitually kept at a mooring but lifted from the water and trailered to the owner's residence or other location is taxed at the location where it is usually kept. THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Whoever owns taxable property on March 1 is liable for a tax at a certain rate per $100 of assessed value. Assessed values now are established at 25 percent of full value for almost all kinds of taxable property. Thus, a typical tax of $12 per $100 of assessed value would amount to $3 per $100 of a property's full value. The full value of taxable property is established by the assessor as of March 1. If the assessor's estimate of the full value of real property exceeds the figure on which he based the previous year's assessment,he will notify the property owner. Some assessors notify all property owners,whether their assessments have gone up or not. These notices usually go out around July 1, the date on which the new assessment roll is to be completed, but sometimes they are sent out in batches over a period of several weeks or months prior to July I. HOW TAX RATES ARE DETERMINED ' During the summer months the county boards of supervisors, school boards, city councils, and governing bodies of special districts furnishing fire protection, street lighting, recreation facilities,' etc., prepare their budgets. The county auditor computes the property tax rates necessary to produce the budgeted expenditures not otherwise financed, and the rates are approved by the county supervisors and city councils. Then the county auditor multiplies the assessed value of each property by the tax rates of all the local governments within whose boundaries the property lies. The results of this multiplication are entered on the assessment roll, and the roll is delivered to the county tax collector on or before October 1. By September 1 this work culminates in the establishment of tax rates for all units of local govern- ment. A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE: $70,000,000 (a local government's tax levy) (divided by) $1,000,000,000 (the total assessed value to be levied upon) (equals) 7% (or $7 per $100 of assessed value) (the governmental unit's tax rate) (plus) 2% 1% (the tax rates of other governmental units in the area) 2% (equals) 12% (or $12 per $100 of assessed value) (the total tax rate in the "code area") - 6 - J Applying this hypothetical $12 tax rate to a hypothetical house worth $30,000: $30,000 house (market value) x 25% (the assessment ratio) $ 7,500 (assessed value) $ 7,500 (assessed value) $ 1,750 (homeowner's exemption) $ 5,750 (taxable value) $ 5,750 (taxable value) + $ 100 (unit to which tax rate is applied) $ 57.5 x $ 12 (tax rate) $ 690 (amount to be paid to the tax collector) THE APPEAL PROCESS—Local Equalization As stated on page 6 (The Assessment Process), 25 percent of the assessor's estimate of the full value of property is entered on the assessment roll by July I. The property owner can contest the assessor's full value estimate of the ratio applied to that value if he thinks either is excessive. This must be done between the third Monday in July and September 15 in Los Angeles County,between July 2ond September 15 in other counties with large populations, and between July 2 and August 26 in counties of small populations. (See page 9.) The property owner may initiate an exchange of information with the assessor by supplying him the data on which the owner basis his opinion of value. The data should be supplied at the time the equalization application is filed or shortly thereafter. If a property owner does not receive a notice by July 1 or shortly thereafter and is interested in the assessed value of his property, he may obtain the information by visiting the assessor's or county auditor's office, where the roll is kept. Usually the assessor's office will supply the figures by phone or mail if the owner can identify his property accurately — preferably by parcel number. The first level.of appeal, but one which is optional, is to the assessor if he has not yet completed the roll. The protesting property owner should obtain information about sales in his neighborhood and should ask the assessor to explain his determination of the market value of the property. The next appeal is to the board of supervisors sitting as a county board of equalization, or to the assessment appeals board if the county has created one or more of these boards. Forms on which to file appeals can be obtained from the clerk of the county board of supervisors or from the asses- sor's office. Hearing officers ore used in some counties. The hearing before such a board is informal. The taxpayer need not have legal counsel. As a general rule the property owner has the burden of proving that the assessor has improperly valued the property. However, when the property is an owner-occupied single family dwelling the assessor has the burden of proving he has correctly valued the property. If an appeal is denied, recourse is to the courts, under certain circumstances. The court will hear the case only for the following reasons: lack of due process; actual or constructive fraud; abuse of discretion; erroneous method of evaluation. It will not receive new evidence of value; the court will only'review the record of the hearing before the county board. When the property owner feels his assessment is not correct and he thinks he may challenge it in court, he should pay the taxes and file a claim for refund. If suit is brought, it must be filed in the Superior Court within six months after the claim for refund is denied. _ 7 _ TIMBER YIELD TAX APPEALS The Timber Yield Tax, a local property tax on the harvesting of forest products, is totally adminis- tered by the State Board of Equalization. The audit review and appeals process is similar to the procedures used in other programs of self-declared taxes administered by the Business Taxes Divi- sion of the State Board of Equalization. Where a timber owner disagrees with any particular conclusion shown by an audit report he can pursue one or more of the following sequential steps: 1. Review of and discussion of the audit findings with the auditor. 2. Discussion with the auditor's supervisor. 3. Discussion with the Chief of the Timber Tax Division or an assistant as appointed. The above three steps would precede actual billing of the tax. The appeal may be continued after receipt of the Notice of Determination by filing a Petition for Redetermination within 30 days of the mailing of the Notice of Determination: Petitions for Redetermination are scheduled for oral hear- ings before a Board hearing officer and/or the Board of Equalization. One or more parts of an audit may be adjusted during any one of the discussions or hearings. The Board may grant the petition or instruct that the tax be redetermined. A redetermination is pay- able when received, and becomes final 30 days after issuance. The final step involves payment of the redetermination, filing a claim for refund and ask for relief from the courts. For a.more detailed analysis of the appeals procedure see State Board of Equalization Pamphlet Number 17. TAX COLLECTION The tax collector is responsible for preparation of property tax bills, which are mailed around November 1. One-half of the tax on real property is due on November 1 but can be paid w[fhout penalty as late as December 10. The other half is due on February 1 and may be paid without penalty by April 10. One kind of property, known as "unsecured," is taxed at last year's rate rather than the new rate. Unsecured property is mainly tenant-owned .personal property, such as business inventories and light machinery. The tax on this property is due in a single payment at a much earlier date. It may be billed any time after March 1 and may be;paid without penalty by August 31. DELINQUENCY Failure to pay a property tax usually has unpleasant consequences. A penalty of 6 percent attaches immediately. If the tax is "unsecured," the property owner will probably be sued by the county. When the tax is based in whole or in part on real property of sufficient value, in the assessor's opinion, to afford security, the property is assessed on the secured roll and the tax is a lien against the real estate. The real estate_�y�ject t� a tax li R •—�i� �-- aid to the State after five year�f the tax is not paid. - 8 - IMPORTANT PROPERTY TAX DATES March 1, 12:01 aim. Lien date. Tax liens on all real property attach at this time. Ownership and value are established as of this date. March 15 Legal deadline for filing most exemption claims except veterans', homeowners', and church. March 31 Legal deadline for filing church exemption claim. P April 15 Lego I deadline for filing veterans' and homeowners' exemption claims. See December 1 below. July 1 Assessment roll completed by the assessor and delivered to the auditor. July 2 — August 26 (All but nine largest counties) . File applications for change in assessed value, with clerk of county board of supervisors. July 2 — September 15 (San Diego, Alameda, San Francisco, Orange, Santa Clara, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and San Mateo Counties) File applications for change in assessed value with clerk of county board of supervisors. Third Monday in July — (Los Angeles County only) September. 15 File applications for change in assessed value with clerk of county board of supervisors. August 31 Last day to pay unsecured taxes without penalty. September 1 Last day for county supervisors and city councils to set tax rates. December 1 Last day to file for homeowners', veterans', and disabled veterans' exemption to receive 80 percent of the exemption. December 10 Last day to pay first installment of secured taxes without pens Ity. April 10 Last day to pay second installment of secured taxes without penalty. - 9 . GLOSSARY LIEN DATE — 12:01 on March 1 preceding the fiscal year for which taxes are collected; the time when the taxes become a lien on property and the time as of which property is valued for tax purposes. FULL CASH VALUE — The amount that a willing and knowledgeable seller of a property OR could obtain in cash or its equivalent from a willing and PAIR MARKET VALUE knowledgeable buyer. ASSESSED VALUE — A uniform percentage of market value unless a standard other than market value or a different percentage has been established by the Constitution in the case of real property or by the statutes in the case of personal property. The amount to which the tax rate is applied. ASSESSMENT ROLL — A countywide list of all property which identifies the property, the owner (if known), and the values used in assessment and collection of property taxes. SECURED ROLL — That part of the roll containing state-assessed property, locally assessed land, and other locally assessed property the taxes on which are adequately secured by a lien on the real property. UNSECURED ROLL — The remainder of the assessment roll, consisting-largely of business personal property owned by tenants. (See page 7.) S€CURED TAX RATE — the rate per $100 of assessed value at which property on the secured roll must be taxed in order to yield the budgeted receipts from taxes extended on this roll; the amount to be raised from this source divided by the number of hundred dollars of assessed value on the secured roll (less an allowance in the assessed vbl'ue for tax delinquency)• UNSECURED TAX RATE — Last year's !secured tax rate. CODE AREA — .A tax-rate area; the area within which a unique combination of tax rates apply (e.g., the tax rates of Podunk County, Adver City, and Hard Kr*cks School District). - 10 - CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION BOARD MEMBERS AREA TELEPHONE DISTRICT MEMBER OFFICE ADDRESS CODE NUMBER First George R. Reilly 350 McAllister Street, Room 2056, 415 557.1699 San Francisco 94102 Second Iris Sankey 604 Cedar Street, Suite 1, P.O.•Box 12188, 714 236-7844 San Diego 92112 Third William M. Bennett 1020 N Street, P.O. Box 1799, Sacramento 95808 916 445-4081 Fourth Richard Nevins 333 East Walnut Street, P.O. Bin 77, Pasadena 91109 213 681-3551 PROPERTY TAX OFFICES SACRAMENTO HEADQUARTERS a 1 Property Tax Administration 1020 N Street, Sacramento 95814 916 445-1517 Assessment Standards 1020 N Street, Sacramento 95814 916 445.4982 Intercounty Equalization 1020 N Street, Sacramento 95814 916 445.3332 Timber Tax 550 Bercut Drive, Sacramento 95814 916 445-6964 Valuation 1020 N Street, Sacramento 95814 916 322.2323 FIELD OFFICES Eureka (Timber Tax) 1656 Union Street, P.O. Box 4866, 95501 707 445-2031 Fresno (Intercounty Equalization) State Building, 2550 Moriposa Street, 93721 209 488-5305 Hayward (Intercounty Equalization) 795 Fletcher Lane, P.O. Box 300, 94543 415 881-3584 Redding (•Intercounty Equalization) 662 Azalea Avenue, 96001 916 246.6256 Redding (Timber Tax) 2400 Washington Avenue, Suite 210, 96001 916 246-6581 Sacramento (Intercounty Equalization) 2422 Arden Way, Building B, Suite 45, 95825 916 322-3820 Santa Ana (Intercounty Equalization) 28 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 12220, 92712 714 558-4014 Santa Ana (Valuation) 28 Civic Center Plaza, Room 131, 92701 714 558-4011 COUNTY ASSESSORS EQUALIZATION COUNTY AREA TELEPHONE COUNTY DISTRICT ASSESSOR ADDRESS CODE NUMBER I. Alameda Third Don J. Hutchinson 1221 Oak Street, Oakland 94612 415 874-5205 2. Alpine First Roger L. Olson P.O. Box 155, Ma►kleeville 96120 916 694-2281 3. Amador First Frank Yager 108 Court Street, Jackson 95642 209 223.0732 4. Butte Third Alvin E. Anderson 1855 Bird Street, Oroville 95965 916 534-4721 5. Coloveras First Charles G. Clark Government,Center, San Andreas 95249 209 754-3554 6. Coluso Third Emory McGrew 547 Market Street, Colusa 95932 916 458-2444 7. Contra Costa Third E. F. Wanako 834 Court Street, Martinez 94553 415 372-2257 8. Del Norte Third Gerald D. Cochran 450 H Street, Crescent City 95531 707 464-3115 9. EI Dorado First John H. Thorne 360 Fair Lane, Placerville 95667 916 626.2317 10. Fresno Second G. B. Gard 201 Hall of-Records, Tulare & M Streets, 209 488-3514 Fresno 93715 11. Glenn Third R. Mike McCulloch 526 W. Sycamore Street, Willows 95988 916 934-4789 12. Humboldt Third Raymond J. Flynn 825 — 5th Street, Eureka 95501 707 445-7276 13. Imperial Second Walter E. Lancaster 939 Main Street, El Centro 92243 714 352-3610 14. Inyo First Jack T. Clay Courthouse, North Edwards, 714 878-2411 Independence 93526 15. Kern Second Herbert E. Roberts Civic Center, 1415 Truxtun 805 861-2311 Bakersfield 93301 16. Kings Second Donald B. Drew 8th Street, Box C, Courthouse, 209 582-3211 Hanford 93230 17. Lake Third Verdon Strong Courthouse, Main Street, Lakeport 95453 707 263-2302 18. Lassen Third Henry Nave South Lassen Street, Susanville 96130 916 257-5331 • r COUNTY ASSESSORS (Continued) EQUALIZATION COUNTY AREA TELEPHONE COUNTY DISTRICT ASSESSOR ADDRESS CODE NUMBER 19. Los Angeles Fourth Alexander H. Pope 500 West Temple Street, 213 974.3101 First Los Angeles 90012 20. Madera First 209 West Yosemite Avenue, Madera 93637 209 674-4641 21. Morin Third Herschel W. Johnson Civic Center, Administration Building 415' 479-1100 San Rafael 94903 22. Mariposa First Stephen F. Dunbar Bullion Street, P.O. Box 35, 209 966.2332 Mariposa 95338 23. Mendocino Third Arthur Church State & Stanley, Courthouse, Room 117, 707 468-4311 P.O. Box 354, Ukiah 95482 24. Merced First David A. Gardella 2222 "M" Street, Merced 95340 209 726-7231 25. Modoc Third Franklin Lew 204 South Court, P.O. Box 1605, 916 233-4168 Alturas 96101 26. Mono First Daniel L. Bryant Courthouse, Main Street, Bridgeport 93517 714 932-7911 27. Monterey First Donald P. Stewart Alisal & Church Streets, P.O. Box 570, 408 422-4756 Salinas 93901 28. Napa Third George P. Abate 725 Coombs Street, Napa 94558 707 253-4466 29. Nevada Third Elton Tobiassen 201 Church Street, Nevada City 95959 916 265-2461 Ext. 232 30. Orange Second Bradley L. Jacobs 630 North Broadway, P.O. Box 149, 714 834-2727 Santa Ana 92702 31. Placer First Frank R. Chilton, Jr. Placer County Administration Center, 916 823-4671 145 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn 95603 32. Plumas Third Dow Bettis No. 1 Main Street, P.O. Box 1016, Quincy 95971 916 283-2380 33. Riverside Second Frank C. Seeley 4080 Lemon Street, P.O. Box 907, 714 787-6331 Riverside 92502 34. Sacramento Third William C. Lynch 827 - 7th Street, Sacramento 95814 916 440-5271 35. San Benito First Arnold R. Fontes Courthouse, Hollister 95023 408 637-5561 36. San Bernardino Second Robert J. Herbin 172 West 3rd Street,San Bernardino 92401 714 383.2717 37. San Diego Second E. C. Chuck Williams 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego 92101 714 236-3073 38. San Francisco First Joseph E. Tinney Room 101,City Hall, San Francisco 94102 415 558-4351 39. San Joaquin Third Robert Shellenberger Courthouse, 306 East Main St., Stockton 95202 209 946-0200 40. San Luis Obispo First Dick Frank Palm&Osos, San Luis Obispo 93401 805 543-1550 41. San Mateo First Jack H. Estes 2200 Broadway, Redwood City 94063 475 364-5600 42. Santa Barbara First William H. Cook 105 East Anopamu Street, Room 204, 805 966-1611 Santa Barbara 93101 43. Santa Clara Third Dwight Mathiesen 70 West Hedding Street, Son Jose 95110 408 299-4347 44. Santa Crux First John Seidlinger 701 Ocean Street, Courthouse, 408 425-2331 P.O. Box 552, Santa Cruz 95060 45. Shasta Third James T. Hull Courthouse, Room 115, Court 8. Yuba, 916 246-5501 Redding 96001 46. Sierra Third William G. Capron Courthouse, Downieville 95936 916 289-3552 47. Siskiyou Third L. D. Babe Taylor 4th and Lane Streets, Yreka 96097 916 842-3531 Ext. 56 48. Solana Third Gordon Goikovich Courthouse Annex, Fairfield 94533 707 429.6281 Ext. 243 49. Sonoma Third Ernest L. Comolli 2555 Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa 95401 707 527.2293 50. Stanislous First Karylton V. Broodwell 1100 H Street, County Courthouse, 209 526.6461 P.O. Box 1068, Modesto 95353 51. Sutter Third Gerald F. Allen 463 Second Street,Yuba City 95991 916 673.6000 52. Tehama Third Robert L. Risberg Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 769, 916 527.5931 Red Bluff 96080 53. Trinity Third M. L. Wells Main and Court Street,Weavervi Ile 96093 916 623.6109 54. Tulare Second Lawrence M. Nichols Room 102-E, County Civic Center, 209 733.6361 Visalia 93277 55. Tuolumne First Arthur Ronten 41 West Yaney Avenue, Sonora 95370 209 532.7119 56. Ventura First Jack Waterman 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura 93009 805 648-6131 57. Yolo. Third Marion F. Baker 725 Court St.,P.O. Box 1327,Woodland 95695 916 666-8245 58. Yuba Third Glen McDougal 215 - 5th Street, Marysville 95901 916 674-6221 - 12 - --^ from the desk�'ef.�-��� A�.- -- � --- •--- . _icia Wentworth City-Clerk Frorn',the: sk of: - , t COI�I - B1.00KWAY Clerk's office 536-5226 \\rn, 1 16 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7 7-12 6 ? M IL COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION- /p 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From Richard A. Harlow, City Council Members Acting City Administrator Subject UTILITY TAX EXEMPTION Date September 27 , 1977 Exemption Criteria In determining the effects of providing exemptions to the City' s 5% utility tax, the most important factors are the criteria to be used for qualification. At the September 5th City Council meeting, three criteria were mentioned: age only, income only, and a combination of age and income . In itself, age has no bearing on .ability to pay. However, age does impose conditions that make it more difficult to cope with and remedy poverty and also increases one ' s dependence on the telephone and other utilities . Thus age may justifiably contri- bute towards qualifying for an exemption. Low income , if used as the sole criteria for utility tax exemptions , would result in a greater number of exemptions , a greater loss of revenue to the City, and higher administrative costs than would result if the criteria were a combination of age and income . The im- pact on City revenues of an exemption plan depends on the number of exemptions and the amount of taxes that each would otherwise be subject to . No very reliable figures are available on the numbers of senior heads of household or low income households in the City. The Planning Department , based on 1973 census figures , however , has provided the following estimates : Number of households headed by a senior (person aged 65 or above) 3 , 290 Number of. households in which total annual income is less than $7 , 000 6 , 131 dumber of households with an annual income under $7 , 000 and headed by a senior 858 No figures are available for the number of households with an annual income of $5, 000 or less and there is no basis for inter- polation. Finance Director, Ben Arguello , estimates that the average annual amount of utility taxes paid per residence is $55 . Since seniors and low income residents probably use less utility service , Mr . CA 77-126 - 2- September 27 , 1977 Arguello has assumed a $30 annual tax paid by each such residence . Using these estimated population and tax bill figures , the City would lose the following revenues : Criteria Lost Annual Revenue Exempt all households with a total income under $7 , 000 $184 , 530 Exempt all households with a senior head of household 98 , 700 Exempt households with income under $7 , 000 headed by a senior 25 , 740 Using both age and income as exemption criteria, the City would minimize its loss of revenue . Furthermore , use of both criteria simplifies verification since younger low income persons would have to be re-qualified each year, a procedure that is unlikely to be necessary with seniors . . Also , the lower number of poten- tial applicants (858 vs . 3 , 290 or 6, 131) would help 1eep admin- istrative costs down. Implementation Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas , and General Telephone have all indicated that they can drop the utility tax from the bills of any customers designated by the City. Desig- nated customers of the water utility would also not be billed for the tax. It would be the responsibility of the City to provide the utilities with lists of account numbers to be exempted. In screening appli- cants, the City would --require a signed declaration under penalty of perjury that the applicant meets the criteria decided upon- -.age-, minimum income , and head of household. Further verification, es- pecially of income and head of household status, would .lead to high admirlistrat.iv.e costs ., Three cities which presently allow exemptions to the utility tax based on income or age and income were contacted regarding their procedures for verifying income. Seal Beach requires applicants to submit either copies of their tax forms or California Senior Citizens . Property Tax Assistance Claim forms . Santa Ana and San Bernardino require only that applicants sign statements under penalty of perjury that their income is below the minimum required by ordinance. Since the forms required by Seal Beach can be easily falsified, requiring their submission would appear to increase paperwork without adding protection against fraudulent claims . CA 77-126 -3- September 27 , 1977 Lead time for any exemption plan must be sufficient to allow for preparation of an ordinance, two readings of the ordinance, es- tablishment of procedures , printing of forms , publicity, and at least 60 days between delivering the list of exemptions to the utilities and the mailing of the first exempted bill. An ef- fective date of July 1, 1978, would provide sufficient time for the procedure to be well established. It would also allow the City to budget ahead of time for the loss of revenue. Legality Attached is a memorandum opinion indicating that a combination of age and income is a valid basis for exemption from the util- ity tax. RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance exempting from the utility tax all residences where the total annual income is $5 ,000 or less and the responsible party is aged 65 or over. The ordinance should take effect July 1 , 1978. Res ectfully subm' tte , chard A. Harlow Acting City Administrator RAH:DLC:p Attachment • HUNGTONBEACH j �� ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH�`H� � ' 79�� D INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION O/� 1 To City Administrator From John O'Connor ` Deputy City Attorney Subject Utility Tax Exemption for Date September 20, 1977 Senior Citizens This memorandum responds to your request for a legal opinion on whether the City may exempt senior citizens in a specified, low income bracket, i.e . , not to exceed $5000, from provisions of the city ' s utility tax. A review of the legal authorities indicates that such an exemption would be constitutionally valid. The class of persons which would be exempted from taxation would be uni- formly applied to all senior citizens (designating a specific age) and who had an income less than a designated amount ($5000? ) . Quoting from Cal Jur 2d, Taxation, §110 : "The discretion given to legislative bodies in the imposition of taxes and the right to classify for tax purposes is broad. If a classification of persons or occupations made for the purpose of imposing taxes is founded on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions that are -reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation, it will. be deemed to be valid and binding. A tax measure must lay its burdens uniformly on all those who come within the proper classification, and the classification must have some reasonable basis for its differenti- ation between those who are and those who are not to be taxed . - Although it is neces- sary that the law should affect all persons in the same class and under the same conditions , so long as it operates alike on all persons and property under the same conditions, it is = not subject to criticism on the grounds that it is not uniform. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be assumed that there are good grounds for the classification and the act will be upheld. " A provision in the utility tax ordinance which would exempt senior citizens below a certain, minimum income level would clearly appear to be a valid exercise of the City ' s taxing =2- power. It`.could be argued that this segment of the community is the least able to absorb the .impact of taxation, and the classification as exempt from the utility tax is reasonable . Further, there is an abundance of legal precedent-for similar classifications conferring a diminution or exemption from taxation. For example, federal income tax confers more favor- able tax treatment on senior citizens , frequently senior citizens are granted reductions or passes by public utility transportation companies, homeowner' s exemptions, the present tax relief measure for senior citizens which is pending before the legislature, etc . We,'-therefore, conclude that a provision exempting senior citizens below a specified income level from the City' s utility tax is valid and constitutional. G 0 N. 0 'CO 0 eputy City ttorney JOC:cs APPROVED: �D P. BONFA ity Attorney 64 UW •� of C 1 , L A" fe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 977 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF 11"TINGTON BEACI ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HUNTINGTON BEACH To Floyd G. Belsito From Darrel L. Cohoo City Administrator Assistant to Cit Administrato Subject UTILITY RATE REDUCTIONS Date December 1 , 1977 FOR SENIORS Councilwoman Wieder has requested this office to explore any possible means to provide utility rate reductions to senior citizens . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS : 1 . The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) controls all rate structures for gas , electric, and telephone utilities . The City has no means of directly affecting such rates . 2 . The rates set by the PUC on these utilities include a "Lifeline" rate which provides lower per unit costs for low volume users . The PUC also requires a Lifeline rate for water utilities which fall under PUC control. 3 . Rates for the City ' s water utility are determined solely by the City Council . The rate structure adopted by the Council in August , 1977 , provides a lower cost per unit base rate that is similar to the Lifeline rate used by water utilities controlled by the PUC. 4. Some reductions in seniors ' or low income residents ' utility bills can be effected by the City through exemptions to the utility tax. ANALYSIS : By State law the rates for all gas , electric, and telephone utilities are set by the PUC. By mandate of the Legislature., Lifeline rates have been instituted in such utilities . These rates. affect all users of utilities , not only senior citizens . Briefly, Lifeline rates provide an exemption to any rate increase, save fuel cost adjustments, put into effect after January 1 , 1976, on basic amounts of utility units used. The rate is designed to freeze the cost of providing , in the case' of electricity for example, sufficient energy for lights and a refrigerator and also for heating and water heating in homes so equipped. The Lifeline rate applies to all utility users , but provides the biggest percentage advantage to low volume users since the basic amount of utilities as defined by the PUC is all or a greater part of the low volume users ' consumption. Many water utilities, including the City' s, are not subject to PUC rate- setting. In those cases where the PUC does control water rates , Lifeline rates apply to the first 500 cubic feet . The rates adopted by the City . in August also provide a lower per unit charge for the first 500 cubic feet consumed. UTILITY RATE REDUCTIONS FOR. SENIORS December 1 , 1977 ` Reductions in all utility bills for seniors or low income residents would be possible by providing them with exemptions to the City' s five percent utility tax. A study done by this office in September indicated that if only senior citizens with household incomes of $7 , 000 or less were exempted, the annual loss to the City would be approximately $26, 000. Extending the exemptions to all seniors would increase the annual revenue loss to about $100 , 000. Exempting all households with incomes under $71000 would result in a $185 , 000 loss . DLC :bb t! 22 Part IV-Thurs.,Dec.1,1977 R *104 ZngeW tht� t • i�, ..,�.�."".` �s.°R"�,".}'..°e'M.►+^s+ f..+•r.+-y. •r..�.w�r�+ N r. .y ,r...r 7 � � R F `� 'i'f t s'a Y '9at� z,sL3 TN I + r. s n 4a 32, o 4. 4 lj S'• t r�qq� a-_� �s�yc 9Y�,r �',,,f'.; ff Y�}�,►�,.,.t` "Ildf9""r. a t a s t f• �-_, t t ��,eT,�yjj . �� � •, f�f � ' � ' i <FF r4 �° � �;� C •� r N F ry/ F; � a� t c�i d..! : r kr• y -yr S jt /b �Y ���i'� of n� b F Y� f #yy';;.�_ o / _•'/st n-a � �.�� -�� � �';s,r�Fr re -/-fy,, r � pI•s�.-If-r x. i s(--b /�- �y; hxw x � f -.�. l' � �,s,y - 1, �� y „y% 4 _ � -.�j. rY x 3��3.,,�3�6 0 F .ss.��N•'� �� �.._�'''°eY�'`�A.�` l r t�`r sy"' N� t 6 J' ��4 y�o s�,4' r'°`� k�'' q��k,�4"'F. n ''. �+� i •� .r 4 ifs -'tta_ K � '�SosYJ 7 !nA a [6�/�5M� 4'i s ? r $a 3wZc �r s i i ti -� b '�✓f � -x `� s-- �'� T4 { rgal /77°if t�f� y '� Y rf• F }f�Y - 4 --"+W Y e ea 1! SJ Tt��:�� .. a.......... ... f. .<�-.' >ef•.ar---,a«....,.��- a - .. ., ..., .+f I�.i+�r J,..nt4i�.. F: o. 'N�i THE WINNER--Margaret Inez Owings beams in bronze at California State University, Long �r with delight at her untitled sculpture of a Beach, where she is n mnater of find orts woman. It won her $3,000 from the city of candidate. Finished work will be on permanent Huntington Beach in its first sculpture compe disrlay at the Huntington Beach Library and ? :tition. Ms. Owings will cast the figure life size . Cultural Resource Center at 7111 Talbert Ave.. T Times photo by Deris Jeannette J-A CITY QF HUNTING 1. BIE=H CA 7 7. 1129 ­ ' COUNCIL-ADM INIST:RATOR� COMMUNICATION S� ►annaaeTow�e�cY+ � � -P I To Honorable Mayor and From. Floyd G. Belsito City Council.-Members City Administrator_ Subject CABLE TELEVISION- UTILITY TAX Date August 23, 1977 STATEMENT: The City currently has a..�provision in. the Municipal Code requiring payment of a 5% Utility Tax fee. 'on Cable TV :The attached City Attorney Memorandum Opinion states that the City Utility Tax may not be applied to cable televis�ion',because it is not.. a. public utility. RECOMMENDATION: Directathe City Attorney to prepare an ;ordinance. repealing Huntington 'Beach Municipal Code . Section 3.36.110, 'Cable Television Utility Tax o ANALYSIS: The section of the Ordinance Code requiring payment of a utility tax has been in effect since 1970.; however, -at! a .recent CATV meeting the question was raised regarding the validity of such a fe.e. There were differing opinions , therefoie, ' a City Attorney Memorandum 'Opinion was requested. This Opinion stated that Cable .Television is not a utility and, therefore may not be taxed as such. The question was also .asked . if this fee would result : in double taxation because Cable Television was already paying a franchise fee. It is the opinion of the City Attorney' s Office that they are treated similar to Public Utilities who also pay a franchise fee. ALTERNATIVES: An alternative to the recommended action would be to repeal Section 3. 36. 110 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and not reenact a similar section. Respectfully submitted, tl/oAyd Belsito ty ministrator FGB:bb Attachment v CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1HUN�!1flNGT0N8WH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Richard A. Harlow From James Georges Assistant City Administrator Deputy City Attorney Subject Taxing Cable Television Date August 8, 1977 MEMORANDUM OPINION The question asked at the 'August 3, 1977 PCTA Board of Directors meeting is. not whether cable television may be taxed as a utility or as a franchise, rather the questions are twofold : (1) Can subscribers of cable television be taxed under the city.'s five percent utility tax ordinance ; and (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is "no" can the city tax subscribers of cable television under a "use" tax . The franchisee, Dickenson Communications.,. will be paying the city a fee for the franchise .amounting to five percent of their gross revenues . The question raised is- whether users and subscribers of cable television will be required to pay the city ' s five percent utility tax. Presently there is in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code a cable tele- Vision tax found in Chapter 3 .36 entitled "Utilities Tax ," along with the telephone tax, electricity tax, gas tax and .water tax. The problem is that the present utilities tax on cable television sub- scribers is invalid because cable television is not a public utility . Cable Television service is not a public utility . . TV Transimission Company v. PUC., 47 Cal 2d 823 89, 301 Pac 2d 2; Public Utilities Code Section 216; Oran e Count . Cable TV Company v . City of San Clemente (197 59 Cal App 3d 165 , 130 Cal Rptr 129 . Therefore , I suggest that if the City- Council desires to tax. subscribers Of cable television service, it should be removed from the five percent utility tax Chapter 3 . 36 and placed in. a different .portion of the muni- cipal code and labeled a cable. television subscriber 's tax. There is no federal or state law which would prohibit such a cable television sub-. scriber' s tax, nor does it violate any FCC regulation or ruling. This office does not recommend either for. or against a cable television sub- scriber' s tax. The FCC regulation or ruling which John Bateman was referring to in the August 3 , 19.77 PCTA meeting is an FCC regulation that cities shall not impose a franchise fee greater than five percent of the franchis.'ee 's gross receipts . John Bateman misapplied the FCC regulation to the city ' s Memo Opinion to Richard Harlow August 8, 1977 - - Assistant City' Administrator Re:. Taxing Cable Television ' r five percent utility tax on cable television. What Mr. Bateman did not realize is that cable television service is riot a public utility ti<- and therefore, the city cannot tax ,it as - a utility, but -there is nothing to prevent the city, from taxing subscribers of cable television,. :.-,..-:,, Al Coen commented during the meeting that a utility tax on cable tele vision would be double taxation because Dickenson Communications would . already be paying a franchise fee. If Al Coen' s argument is accepted, then you would have double taxation for the electric company, the gas a company and 'the telephone company . All of them pay "a franchise fee and their users also pay a five percent utility tax, c : CONCLUSION: Cable television users or subscribers. may be. taxed on their use . The city ' s five percent utility tax shall not be applied to cable television. -. . A franchise fee of five percent is paid to the city by the operator of cable television. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended_ that Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 3 . 36 .110, Cable Television Utility Tax, be deleted and reenacted in another section of the code as a use tax or a subscriber' s tax, that is, if the City Council wishes to impose a tax on the users of cable television. M S GEORGE APPROVED: eputy City Attorney JG :bc cc : Mr. Bernie P. Svalstad 'DON P.. BONFA Fountain Valley Councilman and City Attorney Chairman of PCTA John R. Bateman, PCTA Consultant 1. /- B0ali ad4v IQ JA ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON B 1WEEUy7JT*lC0 CIL �• COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNIC TION " / HUNTINGTON BEACH % Y CITY CLERIC To Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito City Council Members City Administrator Subject PROPERTY TAX RELIEF Date January 10 , 1978 The Governor of California has requested a property tax relief measure from State Legislators by January 26 , 1978 . RECOMMENDATION: Request that our State Legislators include the following items in any tax relief measure : 1. Revenue Sharing - state revenue limits which are comparable to local government property tax revenue limits . - state surplus revenues , above the revenue limit , should be directed in part to local government in a special revenue sharing program to partially off-*set the $1S0 million loss of property tax growth resulting from property tax revenue limits . 2 . Advanced funding to Board of Control for SB 90 mandated costs . 3 . Reasonable local property tax revenue limits , including optional base year (choice of either of the last two years , and 2-year GNP index) . 4. Reimbursement to counties for costs of administering the split tax rate system. ANALYSIS: These provisions are recommended by the California League of Cities and the County Supervisors Association; the League has requested that we give immediate support to these proposed amendments . The concept of local government revenue sharing of surplus funds above the state revenue limits was incorporated in last year ' s SB 1S4 and the League position is to make that concept a specific commitment in this year' s tax measure . Respectfully submitted, /off. Floyd . Belsito City dministrator FGB :JC :bb S�a, 0r< RESOLVED that the City Council of. the City of Huntington Beach take action immediately to pass an ordinance providing for Senior Citizen exemption to the Utility Users Tax. Such ordinance shall provide that the utility tax shall not apply to any individual 65 years or older provided the combined adjusted gross income as used for Federal Income Tax reporting purposes for all members of the household was less than $5,000.00 for the calendar year prior to the fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for which the exemption provided in this ordinance is applied. The ordinance shall establish the rules, regulations, and procedure, necessary to implement the ordinance and shall set an effective date as soon as practicable. This Resolution was unanimously passed at a regular meeting of the Huntington Beach Chapter No. 857 of the American Association of Retired Persons held on August 17, 1977. Attest: For the Chapter Secretary President i s 7a, --/-90 9-- - ere) -- --�-I-/�------- ------- �/-SSA----_---- --X - ------ -- �-� - � . ----/-�3.3 - - � - �_S_� - _ -- -------- ---/-9---�-`� -----__ -- �� -�------ -- -------- -=- -- --- ---/9-3_S---------------- -�� -5-��------ --, � ---- ___�_g3� _��____ _�:__yo___ � n ___-_______ ___�q 3 7 � __ _ ._y___v____________�________ -___ —�9-3�!- - ----- � �/_s_7�-- --------- ---�9.3-9 � _ ----- �-s��---- ----- -_---- ---_�g y�----_ __ _�-�_o_ _ - - --�-i_9_-y-/ - �.-�� ---------------- ___/_�_y_.2_______________ _/,_�d__ ____�_______ ---- ! 9y_s�- -------- -��_�-d _ ._ � --- ----- ______��y�__ ___ �.��a _____ ___ - -1�-sue�-. - -/�-2-Z- -- -- -��'S/ - ----- --/ /� n --- -- ----- --_/_�S_-3__---- ------ -��.5��_�_��------ ---- -- %-I Jc - - /- - -_ -- - ---- - -____._/-U-7__ ------- ---�9- -g -----= i--ys" 6 2=-- ---------_ - - _�, y - . i i I j i ` ► I I I � I i i I I ' ' t I I � I / � � I I ► I I � � I I i I CITY OF HUNTINGTON ACH COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION- CA 77-11 FE � HUNTINGTON BEACH - To Honorable Mayor and City From. Floyd G. Belsito Y Y Y Council _Members City Administrator Subject LITIGATION LIABILITY Date August 31 , .1977 FUNDS At the Council Meeting of August 29 , 1977 , the Council voted to set aside three cents of the property tax rate to establish a liability fund in case the City loses the real estate transfer tax case . The Council also voted that the proceeds of such a fund be used for property tax reduction in subsequent years if the City should prevail in the real estate transfer tax lawsuit. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution which provides for the above . Respectfully Submitted, Floyd G Belsito 'City Administrator FGB :JC :bt CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 'AU CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • •n - HUNTINGTON BEACH Ron Shenkman TO City Council SI�� FROM Mayor Pro Tem SUBJECT PROPERTY TAX DATE August 11 , 1977 On July 29 , 1977 , I sent you a memo discussing my thoughts on the property tax. As we are well aware, the large increases in the assessed valuation have had tremendous impact on the property tax bills of Huntington Beach homeowners . With the adoption of the FY77/78 Budget, the City Council set a limit on the revenues derived from the property tax. to a 13. 5% increase in assessed valuation. Since then, the Assessor' s Office has notified the City that the assessed valuation will increase by 21 . 6% this year. By adopting a budget using the ZBB process , we have identified our program needs for the year and as a result have property tax revenue which can be returned to the homeowner in the form of a property tax refund or cut. My recommendation is that the City Council adopt a plan similar to the one implemented earlier this year by Garden Grove. Basically, their program rebated to homeowners funds above the amount needed for the adopted budget and reserves. My plan is to refund to homeowners the amount in excess of the 13. 5% increase in assessed valuation that is in the adopted FY77/78 Budget . There are several reasons why I feel this alternative is more viable than reducing the property tax rate. Those are : 1. A blanket property tax reduction would reduce the revenue from all areas ; i. e. , residential/commercial/industrial . By refunding to the owner-occupied residences, the City will continue to receive the same level of- support from the commercial/industrial sector, while lowering the tax burden on the homeowners. 2 . The City is presently in litigation on the Real Estate Transfer Tax which represents a potential loss of $1 , 500 ,000. If the City loses the litigation, the revenue would have to be derived from General Fund sources ; i. e. , budget and reductions , reserves , or increasing revenue sources . Implementing a refund plan will allow the City to retain a certain portion of the revenue for reserves , approximately $250 , 000. 3 . The City and the country in general are riding an economic crest. Council members are well aware of the recent economic fluctuations . By lowering the tax rate , future City Council ' s may be hampered in their ability to meet public demands given adverse economic con- ditions . The present City Charter severly restricts the City Council ' s ability to raise revenues by requiring six affirmative votes . .:75e:2 I 1 PROPERTY TAX -2- August 11 , 1977 4 . An inflation assistance plan would also provide the homeowners immediate disposable income which to a large degree will be plowed into the local economy, increasing sales tax revenues . There are approximately 40 , 000 owner-occupied residences in the City. In order for them to receive a refund, they would have to do it by an application process . The Public Information Office will develop an information process to provide the community with the details of the program. This will be done by a City newsletter, press releases , etc. Other elements of the program are : 1. All owner-occupied residences will receive the refunds . This includes duplexes , triplexes , etc. that are owner occupied. 2 . The last date for eligibility will be December 1 , 1977 . This is the last day for the Homeowners ' Exemption with the Assessor' s Office. 3. The refund will be mailed sometime after the first of the year when the City receives the property tax revenue from the Tax Collector' s Office. 4 . The mailing list will be established from the Assessor' s Tax Role . Naturally, some residences may not receive notice. Those people can contact City Hall and request an application form. S . The refund packet will contain a letter explaining the program, an application form, and a self-addressed , stamped envelope to ensure reasonable confidentiality for . the applicant . 6. Estimated cost for the program is $20 , 000 . Of that amount , $10 , 500 is for mailing charges , $2 , 500 for forms and checks , and the remaining $7 , 000 is in-house costs for developing the program. A tax refund program will return to the homeowners approximately $600, 000 , or an average of $20 to $25 ; the size of the refund depends on the assessed valuation. While this may not seem significant , it represents the equivalent to a 10¢ cut in the property tax rate for the homeowner. By adopting my plan, the City Council will be lessening the tax burden for the homeowners while at the same time maintaining the fiscal integrity of a rapidly growing community. RS :bb I .4 ,Jld CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION , • ',MUNTINGTON BEACH '' TO Mayor 8 City Council FROM Harriett M. Wieder 8494ECT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF DATE August 11 , 1977 In preparation for the forthcoming Study Session to discuss tax relief fo.r our citizens as proposed by,. Councilman Ron Shenkman, I would like 'to. offer additional thoughts. for our mutual discus- sion and consideration. Recognizing that the purpose of the Study Session is to determine what would be the best all inclusive ap- proach in. helping to relieve the taxpayers of the burden of the cost of running City government, This is a concern I '-m sure , we all share. Our discussion undoubtedly will center on the sum of $8.56 ,000., Which is the sum that is ' eCquiVa•lent to the difference between the, 13. 5 per cent assessed 'valuation adopted budget and the 21 . 6 per cent assessed valuation as determined by the Assessor . How best to use this amount in order to give .some measure of' relief- to. the. taxpayer is at this time the only amount that is negotiable. I , therefore, ould like to th offer e fol w lowing proposals : A. I would like t recommend that we reduce our tax rate from $1 o,. 62 to $i . 52 . This ten cent reduction is the amount allow- able because the adopted' budget was based on a 13. 5 per cent increase in assessed' valuation. The reason I feel confident and secure about doing this , is that the direction of the City, as well as the intent of the City Council is to search for means for broadening our revenue base ; such as, redevelopment of the downtown area, maintaining .our industrial_ land, as well as , increased business sales to the City` This reduction: should be the beginning of working toward reducing our costs of running .gove.rnment and Ithereby enabling us annually to reduce the annual tax rate. I know that one concern is the difficulty of raising taxes . This doesn't appear to. •be too valid inasmuch as this City Council has been very reluctant and fearful to reduce our tax rate for many and varied reasons. So, I would say that either way is no.t easy. It just means ".biting the bullet . " B. Fountain Valley has come up with an interesting plan that might be acceptable to us thatI would like to propose to you. (I have enclosed a newspaper clipping about it in the event that you might not have seen it . ) We might take. $600 ,000 of the $85.6,,Q.00 as the proposed Councilman Shenkman rebate to residential' property owners . This then would leave a $256,000 balance that we can give back to the taxpayer at this time in the foam of 'a three- cent property tax reduction from $1 . 62 to ►N. Mayor $ City Council -2- August 11 , 1977 In all instances the $856 ,000 does not translate into very much money return for the taxpayer. When the average tax- payer in Huntington Beach pays about $2 ,000 in taxes annually, an average of $30 rebate is truly "throwing the taxpayers a bone . " However , I do believe that our actions will reflect our intent . In discussion with Bud Belsito, he made available the following information to me that relates to the manner in which the other taxing agencies are responding to this tax burden. I have enclosed this for your information ' as well . Even without our addition to the increase Huntington Beach taxpayers will be paying anywhere from 24 cents to 40 cents per hundred dollars of .assessed valuation more on their tax bills because of .the higher assessed valuation. In addition to whatever action we might take on behalf of our own City, I hope that we will also do a long range , as well as a needed short range plan such as : A. Scheduling a meeting as soon as possible for next year 's de- cision making with all the taxing agencies in Orange County that effect. the property tax owner in Huntington Beach. B. That we evaluate how and actually work towards how we can streamline City government so that it .can be less expensive and still maintain its efficiency. I recognize that streamlin- ing government is a full time job and none of us have the lux- ury or opportunity to give it full time . We , therefore , must look to appointed officials to assist us in achieving this goal . HMW.:cb cc : Floyd G. Belsito Public Information Office attachments ASSESSED LESS NET CITY AMOUNT RETURN EXCESS VALUATIO\ HOMEOWNERS T KABL E RATE PAID TO TAX PROPERTY FULL MARKET VALUE 25s EXEMPTION VALUE PER. S100 TO CITY PAYER TAX REVENUE 75 , 000 S18 , 750 $1 , 750 517 , 000 X 1 . 62 S275 -40 $ -0 5.856 „000 X 1 ..61 273-..70 1 . 70 70 ,400 . 272...00: 3. 40 684 , 800 X 1 . 60 X 1 ..59. 270 . 30 5 .1.0 599 , _00 X. I -S8 Z:68 . 6.0 6 .-8:0 'S13,600 X 1 ..S7 . 266..:9.0, 8•. 50 4.28 ,000 X- 1..-56: 2.65. 20 10. 20 342 ,400 X 1 . S5 Z6.3.,510 11. 90 256 , 800 X 1 ..54 261 . 80 .13 . 60 171 , 200- X ,1. 53, 260..10 1S..-3.0: 85 ,.600 X 1.. 52 2.58. 40 17 .-00` -0- $100 ,,00.0 $25 ,:00,01 $:1 ,.7SO. $2.3, 2.50 X 1 . 62. S376.-65 $ --0- $856 ,.000; - X 1 . 61 3>74 ..3-3 2 -32 7 7 0 ,.40-0.- X 1 .-6 0 37-?�..0'0- 4..6 5 6.8 4,,8 0 0 X 1 . 59 36 9 6:8 6 ..9°7 5 9 9 ,.2.0.0 X 1.. 58. 3:67'..3-S. 91-30 S13 ,.60.0z X. 1 .-57 365 -03 11 . 62 4-28 ,:000 X 1 5.6 362 -7-0 1.3:..95 34-2 ,4.00 X I ..S5 360 ..38 16 . 2.7 256 ,,800 X 1 . 54 3 38-..015 18 . 6 0' 171 ,2`O 0 X 1 -53. 35S ..73 2'0 . 92 85. 600 X- 1 .-5;2 3-5-3..4 0 2 3..2:S -0- { Arc- Get Tam, Fund Rebate Fountain Valley officials are studying a flan to return shout $350,000 in surplus revenues to ci- ty taxpayers in the form of a re- ,.. bate. Mayor Roger Stanton said to- day he has asked city aides to look into using $350,000 in car- ryover funds from last year's . budget as a tax rebate for homeowners. But City Comptroller Howard - Stephens said he feels the car- �.. ryover funds should be kept inLK - - n Y� the city's reserves. '"ip "- "'x ° ':� .� •.; Stanton said the citq council has already proposed an 8.5-cent cut in last year's $1.21 per $100 assessed valuation tax'rate. "The rebate would be similar to- one in Garden Grove and another considered by Ilunt- ington Beach,"Stanton said. Huntconsidering na plan tofic officials are i - _ � bates between $20 and $50 to ` single-family homeowners. «' The Huntington Beach plan is based on the Garden Grove infla- tion assistance program institut- ed in .January and being con- sidered again this fiscal year. A Garden Grove city official said the payments given to homeowners could not he called avri " ates" because of legal com- r reb plications. T.. Stephens said the legality.of the proposed rebate plan in Fountain Valley must be ex- +• . plored by the city attorney. But if some form of rebate is approved by the Fountain Valley ~ council, Stephens said, it would ' s •'I:- -.. . , y probably be given to some 12,000 single-family homeowners in the .� N�: ; � ,+� z city. �' }a.•.u•:� Stephens said the rebate could . +N :^ Y+► ' ' come in the form of a check, which would prove costly, or a - v •.+ credit in a homeowner's monthly water bill.. sY'Q`,�y+;' 5 ,►.='r4e�l '�+. �"I r''�'! r A ,. ?` •f"�r'f y: y A y1toV/�;(*u. s 7,7 •1- '^�ca��'���y�l�i,MdC.p"'�-y N.�Y.�.-.A��-_..2-^!y� -M^ Y. q"�,�-y�yy' �„ J .. ,� `Y' � ~'�—`�".r,�� ''v..`"., r'"vim �aS'�"`�ai''.1Y,"m`,'�"�"%'aa..V;y�""":"'"n.,�r"Y°'t6y��'M r rg'..d'.�"aeY.�:+•`.;s''.!�:vim''�"�Y,"'��dl^- tin^ry,•�.�+ nq,� ,r'`� F w��—}.-��- - 1a1.~ 1. Y v .qi_ �` �4:.' :�v�•+ -n 4 f .�...r ''.."�"' ? � � 'S'w �- � h ."�.i ` J G AGENCY INCREASE DECREASE O. C . Sanitation District $ . 079 Westminster School $ . 15 Fountain Valley School . 40 Occanview School . 22 11 . B . City .School . 03 1-1. B. high School . 20 Orange Co . Tax . 10 Coast Community College . 09 0. C.1'. 1). . 005 Orange Co . Vector . 10 TOTAL $ . 86 $ : 514 REDUCTION IN TAX RATE TO MAINTAIN . SAME REVENUES TAXING AGENCIES FROM TO REDUCTION NEEDED Orange County 1 . 43 1 . 20 . 23 City of Huntington Beach 1 . 62 1 . 34 . 28 H. B. Union High School District 2 . 32 1 . 94 . 38 Fountain Valley Elem. District 1 . 34 1 . 09 . 25 H. B. Elementary School Dist. 1 . 66 1 . 41 . 25 Ocean View Elem. School Dist . 1 . 08 1 . 01 . 07 Westminster Elem. School Dist. 1 . 25 1 . 01 . 24 Coast Community College Dist . . 805 . 675 . 13 Orange County Harbors , Beaches . . 03 and Parks District Orange Co. Flood Control . 03 Orange Co. Transit District . 0426 . 034 . 0086 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH La CITY COUNCIL CO MUNICATION • • ;HUATINGTON BEACH Mayor City Council F Harriett M. Wieder TO y � y FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF DATE August 11 , 1977 In preparation for the forthcoming Study Session to discuss tax relief for our citizens as proposed by Councilman Ron Shenkman, I would like to offer additional thoughts for our mutual discus- sion and consideration. Recognizing that the purpose of the Study Session is to determine what would be the best all inclusive ap- proach in helping to relieve the taxpayers of the burden of the cost of running City government . This is a concern I 'm sure , we all share . Our discussion undoubtedly will center on the sum of $856 ,000 , which is the sum that is equiva;_1'entf; to the difference between the 13 . 5 per cent assessed valuation adopted budget and the 21 . 6 per cent assessed valuation as determined by the Assessor . How best to use this amount in order to give some measure of relief to the taxpayer is at this time the only amount that is negotiable . I , therefore , would like to offer the following proposals : A. I would like to recommend that we reduce our tax rate from $1 . 62 to $1 . 52 . This ten cent reduction is the amount allow- able because the adopted budget was based on a 13 . 5 per cent increase in assessed valuation. The reason I feel confident and secure about doing this , is that the direction of the City, ,$ as well as the intent of the City Council is to search for means for broadening our revenue base ; such as , redevelopment of the downtown area, maintaining .our industrial land, as well as , increased business sales to the City. This reduction should be the beginning of working toward reducing our costs of running government and thereby enabling us annually to reduce the annual tax rate . I know that one concern is the difficulty of raising taxes . This doesn' t appear to be too valid inasmuch as this City Council has been very reluctant and fearful to reduce our tax rate for many and varied reasons . So ,' I would say that either way is not easy. It just means "biting the bullet . " B. Fountain Valley has come up with an interesting plan that might be acceptable to us that I would like to propose to you. (I have enclosed: a newspaper clipping about it in the event that you might not have seen it . ) We might take $600 ,000 of the $856 ,000 as the proposed Councilman Shenkman rebate to residnnfal)property owners . This then would leave a $256 ,000 balance that we can give back to the taxpayer at this time in the form of a three, cent property tax reduction from $1 . 62 to $1 . 59 . Mayor &. City Council -2- August 11 , 1977 In all instances the $856 ,000 does not translate into very much money return for the taxpayer. When the average tax- payer in Huntington Beach pays about $2 ,000 in taxes annually, an average of $30 rebate is truly "throwing the taxpayers a bone . '.' However , I do believe that our actions will reflect our intent . In discussion with Bud Belsito , he made available the following information to me that relates to the manner in which the other taxing agencies are responding to this tax burden. I have enclosed this for your information as well . Even without our addition to the increase Huntington Beach taxpayers will be paying anywhere from 24 cents to 40 cents per hundred dollars of assessed valuation more on their tax bills because of the higher assessed valuation. In addition to whatever action we might take on behalf of our own City, I hone that we will also do a long range , as well as a needed short range plan such as : A: Scheduling a meeting as soon as possible for next year ' s de- cision making with all the taxing agencies in Orange County that effect the property tax owner in Huntington Beach. B. That we evaluate how and actually work towards how we can streamline City government so that it can be less expensive and still maintain its efficiency. I recognize that streamlin- ing government is a full time job and none of us have the lux- ury or opportunity to give it full time . We , therefore , must look to appointed officials to assist us in achieving this goal . HMW: cb cc : Floyd G . Belsito Public Information Office attachments ASSESSED LESS NET CITY AMOUNT RETURN EXCESS VALUATION HOMEOWNERS TAXABLE RATE PAID TO TAX PROPERTY FULL MARKET VALUE @ 25% EXEMPTION VALUE PER $100 TO CITY PAYER TAX REVENUE $ 75 , 000 $18 , 750 $1 , 750 $17 , 000 - X 1 . 62 $275 . 40 $ -0- $856 , 000 X 1 . 61 273 . 70 1 . 70 770 ,400 X 1 . 60 272 . 00 3. 40 684 , 800 X 1 . 59 270 . 30 5 . 10 599 , 200 X 1 . 58 268 . 60 6 . 80 513 ,600 X 1 . 57 266 . 90 8 . 50 428 ,000 X 1 . 56 265 . 20 10. 20 342 ,400 X 1 . 55 263. 50 11 . 90 256 ,800 X 1 . 54 261 . 80 13 . 60 171 , 200 X 1 . 53 260. 10 15 . 30 85 ,600 X 1 . 52 258 . 40 17 . 00 -0- $100, 000 $25 , 000 $1 , 750 $23 , 250 X 1 . 62 $376 . 65 $ -0- $856 , 000 X 1 . 61 374 . 33 2 . 32 770 ,400 X 1 . 60 372 . 00 4 . 65 684 , 800 X 1 . 59 369. 68 6 . 97 59-9 , 200 X 1 . 58 367 . 35 9 . 30 513 ,600 X 1 . 57 365 . 03 11 . 62 . 428 ,000 X 1 . 56 362 . 70 13 . 95 342 ,400 X 1 . 55 360 . 38 16 . 27 256 , 800 X 1 . 54 358 . 05 18 . 60 171 ,200 X 1 . 53 355 . 73 20 . 92 85 ,600 X 1 . 52 353 . 40 23 . 25 -0- ' FV residents 1Yay diet Tax hind Rebate, Fountain Valley officials are studying a plan' to return about n $350,000 in surplus revenues to ci- P, y ty taxpayers in the form of a re- -bate. w• *• -..• r j Mayor Roger Stanton said to- day he,has asked city aides to; look:.into using'$350,000 .in car-- s= ryover funds from last:year's budget as a tax rebatezfor . . '•,Homeowners.' q But City Comptroller.Howard — Stephens said he feels. the car- ` s ryyover funds should _be kept•in - the city`sreserves. ' ""''• *' i ��Y. , - Stanton said the citq' council has already,proposed an 8.5-cent _ r-. cut in last year's $1.21 per.$100 assessed valuation tax'rate: { t . ."'The rebate would be similar 1.�`to' one in Garden Grove and:'-!, i. a another considered by r` Hunt- inncnStantononaHuntgt Beach officials are on r <~ considering plan to.give re-;-.,, s _ ' bates between $20 and $50 to - "�" single-family homeowners. _T e,•Huntington Beach, lan is' "based on the Garden.Grove infla- -i tion assistance program institut- ed-,ins,:January and being con- sidered again this fiscal year. ' A Garden Grove city official JJJ said the payments given to c homeowners could not he called , � - • 'rebates" because of legal com- plications. Stephens said the, legality.r of • . • . . :. the proposed rebate.plan 'in - Fountain Valley must be ex- ploredbythecity'attorney:' _ 9:r - - :.:`-.. But if some form of rebate;is - - .-�-- approved by the Fountain Valley -" council, Stephens said- it.would - .'+�,.,''; probably be given to some 12,000 w single-family homeowners in the City. � ,, _•�l< Stephens said the rebate could come in the form of a check, "K • °`� _ which would prove costly, or. a .lcredit'in a homeowner's monthly r� water.bill � 'r ��•C,�`���;tiriS► �P' �1ff try• �1 tcT`,yy7( �- .: _ s: - tj r-.q t, - - y'.u'�+6.�„�_l�..µal1? '. � /l��'"� ear _ .- .. _ - ••.: �: 4- �'�` +4�-.�i""i+W'�"'r_„y,�4^n-i.Z,1•e iI�'��1- y, I.�'r`-•�V t r 1 Q r I�tr. r w `�,t • f - r�I�GJS�'9�y�'y.-� - aOSw'�•_�""+%`" ,c 1 .�::r►i�i-�; - �. �F 'f TMZa'` " 1` f j__'-., I� � ,r. S i � • 4J' C�rh;,�sr ��3W``e`a2;�,,G���Y' ;,,,J9��wi +"`��,r,+}r�+'`ke47'' �� .yC "*7•��. }:prdti•"+•�•.�-„`�,;^ ,�y,,4""1ru'K'.d�':✓�°,,M�'4+,.�f"�y„•-y�c.,.*, �; � oq"Gd'• - h ' ..y".w•�I 'Yµ.,i'�'i'.1 v '`Y-�.� �x„' 'f°'�:4 'G'- '`��2: '*''',?l''r�T" -•?'1 a�S,�.�n?'.�t S'�' �L:e•,,,F �.�T •Lr �yx,~`�1.c � Q +'•�`��`+�P'ate.-TMr y 3�•P+�,�r,�',�`,r' Y„��0o.:.`�i+i1..:-•�..w�i�.��;�.��'�'-+s;.•>.� ��"Nt •4yf�'L 1�,b�y+- �f'ti "-t,.L,[r e y.. �� _?P'p,.,x._ �'R+'�..�' AGENCY- INCREASE DECREASE 0. C. Sanitation District $ . 079 Westminster School $ . 15 Fountain Valley School . 40 Oceanview School . 22 H . B. City School . 03 H. B. High School . 20 Orange Co. Tax . 10 Coast Community College . 09 O. C.T. D. . 005 Orange Co . Vector . 10 TOTAL $ . 86 $ . 514. REDUCTION IN TAX RATE TO MAINTAIN SAME REVENUES TAXING AGENCIES FROM TO REDUCTION NEEDED Orange County 1 . 43 1 . 20 . 23 City of Huntington Beach 1 . 62 1 . 34 . 28 H. B. Union High School District 2 . 32 1 . 94 . 38 Fountain Valley Elem. District 1 . 34 1 . 09 . 25 H. B. Elementary School Dist. 1 . 66 1 . 41 . 25 Ocean View Elem. School Dist . 1 . 08 1 . 01 . 07 Westminster Elem. School Dist . 1 . 25 1 . 01 . 24 Coast Community College Dist. . 805 . 675 . 13 Orange County Harbors , Beaches . 03 and Parks District Orange Co. Flood Control . 03 r Orange Co. Transit District . 0426 . 034 . 0086 SACRAMENTO ADDRESS w CHAIRMAN STATE CAPITOL 95814 _ t* SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS TELEPHONE: (916) 445.5831 CHAIRMAN DISTRICT ADDRESS 17880 SKYPARK CIRCLE-SUITE 103 , DENNIS E. CARPENTER JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE IRVINE,CA 92714 (714) 557.3200 ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES COMMITTEES FINANCE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL • INSTITUTIONS JUDICIARY CAL FORNIA INFORMATION SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION BOARDS WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD April 25, 1977 Ms. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Ms . Wentworth, I have reviewed the City Council's Resolution No. 4439 and appreciate knowing the unanimous feelings by the Huntington Beach councilmen and women in opposing the redistribution of sales tax revenues on the basis of population and urging the legislature to allow a 20/ return of state sales and use tax revenues to cities. I appreciate having a copy of the official statements in this regard and want to thank you for bringing these views to my attention for additional reference when such matters are brought forth for voting. 4 DENNIS E. CARPENTER Senator, 36th District DEC:Cb d) . o J CIVIC CENTER 8200 WESTMINSTER AVENUE WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 714 CODE 898-3311 January 14, 1977 Mayor and City Council �11I City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Council Members: A most controversial subject of recent weeks is the large increase in assessed value imposed by the County Assessor on property in Orange County resulting in sub- stantial increases in property taxes. The enclosed copy of the Westminster Forum dated December 29, 1976, outlines the actions taken by the Westminster City Council to lessen the financial impact on our citizens. The Westminster City Council realized that the citizens were going to suffer from the increase in assessed valu- ation which had been predicted to be an increase of 20%, and took immediate steps to substantially reduce the City 's tax rate by 16 cents, decreasing it from 86 cents . to 70 cents per $100 assessed valuation. It is true that the city tax rate is a small percentage of the total tax bill , but if all the taxing agencies including the County of Orange, would substantially reduce their tax rate for next year, all the property owners would benefit and I dare say the entities would manage to survive. Very sincerely, Joy L. P7eugebauer, Mayor JLN. ih Enclosure D JAN 1..9 1977 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE �j` THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVT?RNMENT IN TAX RFiFORM CONFERENCE HELD DECEMBER 8- 9 , 1976 ,SACRAMENTO ,CALIF . REPORT PRESENTED BY MAYOR HARRIIETT WTEDFR The League of California Cities , the Counties Supervisor ' s Association and the California Tax Reform Association co-sponsored this conference . The general consensus at the conclusion of this conference was that there will be tax reform: the question is what tax reform will occur? Will it be a circuit breaker , a local income tax, increased state assumptional service , a revenue cap or what? This conference enables local officials to look for solutions to the tax crisis and to learn more about possible solutions that are being discussed in the State Legislature . It also should focus on the need for more responsive dialogue between State Legislators and local officials . The keynote speaker representing the CTA stated that the property tax is a crisis for us , the elected officials ,because it is causing a loss of faith in government ' s ability to deal with people fairly and compassionately It is causing a backing away from our national commitment to economic opportunity and justice.. There were approximately 300 local elected officials from throughout the state of California. The only representatives from Orange County were Supervisor Ralph Clark, Carolyn Ewing , Director of our Orange County League , and myself. I took over twenty six pages of notes and wish to share those points that I feel are of value and of concern to all of us . None of us elected officials , citizen or tax expert , can accept a tax structure which undercuts the basic values of our society. However, local government should not be made the scape goat for the property tax issue . The mood of the people is for tax reform. They do not want tax relief proposals which ultimately destroy local govern- ment , but they also will not idly set by and allow themselves to be taxed unmercifully. The question that I proposed for each of you as local elected city officials of the City of Huntington Beach is what role should our City play in. resolving the property tax issue? Will we succumb to the political expedient of providing temporary tax relief to those least in need? Will we exert the leadership which genuine tax reform needs? It was brought to our attention that the 1977 Legislature is going to consider a variety of tax plans which , if passed, will severely curtail property tax revenues for local govern- ment . Because the property tax is the life blood of local government , it is absolutely critical that we play an active roll in determining the course of tax legislation. In a sense , the Legislature and the people of California have been waiting patiently for us to step forward with solutions which can take into account both the need for tax reform and the vital services provided by local government , but in most part local government has not answered that silent call. and consequently the Legislature has finally been forced into the political vacuum and we might not like some of the solutions that they come up with. t Tax Reform Conference- Dec 8-9 , 1976 Page 2 The two days of this Economic Conference produced five panels , twenty two speakers , special speakers at the two luncheons . The list of subjects that were addressed were as follows : 1 . "What is Wrong with the Tax System" 2 . "Implications of Serrano v. Priest" 3 . "Property Tax Relief Proposals for 1977" 4 . "Prospects for and Problems of the Local Income Tax" S . "Prospect for Tax Reform" 6 . "The Role of Local Government in Tax Reform" 7 . "Lane Use and Taxation" Highlights from these different presentations were as follows : 1 . Did you know that residential property owners paid 700 of the state income tax as against people who rent who paid 300? 2 . Tax gross should be commensurate with value growth. (This philosophy will impact business the most . ) 3 . The best reform suggestion: "To put revenue contr.ols on state and local income tax" (This is another philosophy. ) 4. The state must take the most of the mandated cost put on local government off our backs . S . Some of the philosophys expressed : a. The level of flak that elected officials receive is determined by the area of tax equities that they are receiving . (Example- Minimal problems with sales tax for instance) b . Acceptance is based on the level of payment : rather than the amount . Interestingly enough sales tax is not an unpopular tax and even acceptable . Also it- is noted that state tax is more acceptable rather than local tax. 6. what is tax reform? "Any thing that makes somebody else pay more and me less . " There was an Iargument used at the splitting of the tax rolls "shifting property tax to business tax the oppositions list doesn' t believe that the shift of this kind of taxation is logical because it would cause an Tax Reform Conference Dec. 8-9 , 1976 Page 3 increase in the assessed valuation of residential property , and business would stagnate and decrease and even lerive the state in greot e.xciclus whilo people wood he migrutin}j Ili tho state to live here and buy a house . '['his would expand the unemployment and the problem and create an imbalance and make things even worse. 7 . We need to concentrate in making government more productive , more efficient and to work toward austerity government spending . 8 . What can we do in 1977? The following are some suggestions : A. Assessment freezes. B. Assessment chills . (Increase at 5%. or at a set rate) C . Split rolls is not the answer. D. Taxation of intangibles . (i . e . on net worth for instance) E. Some speakers were against the graduated . attacks on corporations . F . There is a need and an urgency to reevaluate the effects of SB-90 because it has not been implemented in the manner in which it was intended. 9 . Who is to blame : The taxpayer shares much of the blame because he demands more services, frills , etc . 10 . Possible solutions for tax reform: A. Freeze rates B. Freeze assessments . C . Split the roll . D. Put a percentage lid on property. (Example-1%-2% , etc) E. Increase homeowner ' s exemptions by a considerable amount and should be altered to provide relief to those over 62 . F. The State should fully fund all of its programs it passes . G. To eliminate slippage in school support . H. To develop a solution to Serrano Legislation Tax Reform Conf, _ .;nce - Dec 8-9 , 1976 Page 4 . I . To tighten the revenue limits as a restraint in government spending . J. To monitor and pay strict attention to increasing public pension cost . 11 . A particular highlight of the conference for me was a luncheon State Senator Albert Rodda who is the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and at the time was Senate Education Chairman. His topic was "Implications of Serrano v. Priest" . He is really the "Art Buchwald of Sacramento" . I was so impressed with his ability to communicate a very serious matter with a touch of levity and' yet much common sense that I have extended an invitation to him to keynote a seminar for Huntington Beach on property tax reform. (I am awaiting his answer. Senator Rodda in presenting the history of school financing prior to Serrano Legislation "A bill that contained county wide tax to support schools and then along came SB-90 that was originally intended as a school support bill 'as well as a tax relief bill and it really has turned out to be just a "laundry" of school support and tax relief which is really incompatible . It has only resulted in slippage and such revenue goes to other sources than for schools . SB-90 tries to say to school districts "put a cap on revenue per sutdent" however , it did not take into consideration any changes in enrollment . Senator voted against it because he thought it would eventually eff-ect local government . And as . example he states as inflation increases and enrollment decreases the school districts are then in trouble . Senator Rodda stressed that we must work towards tax reform not tax .relief. We must do something about the foundation of the Serrano bill and the resulting slippage in revenue . 12 . Propose the tax reform legislation is coming fast and furious . Among some of the legislation being written by the state legislators are those of State Senator Peter Behr and Assemblyman Priolo Priolo. Senator Behr ' s Bill was SB-1375 but is anticipated will be numbered SB-1 . As is presently written it appears to be very reminiscent of Huntington Beach transfer tax because it is a deferred property tax that is to be paid at the time of the sale . (5", transfer tax) Assemblyman Priolo is supporting State Legislation that is pushing the philosophy that a "residential property owner should not be paying for other than property related services" . lie does not believe that property owners should be paying for schools and health and welfare . When Assemblyman Priolo _was asked whether the State Legislature will respond to this area he answered : "This . is a two way street if local legislatures don ' t. come to us why should they expect us to come to them?" Tax Reform Conference- Dec 8-9 , 1976 Page S . 13 . Prospective proposals for the problems of the coming year were presented as follows : A. Local Tax to be levied and administrated only by local government . B. A surtax- of state income levied by locals resulting in 1% piggybacked by the state and to be administered by the state . C . Increase in state income tax. (State revenue sharing formula) D. A business income tax . E. Taxation on non-residential . (Example- This could be comparable to a users fee tax) Supervisor Ralph Clark announced that the Supervisor 's Association planned to join the California League of Cities to protest State Mandated Programs . He presented a report documenting the high per- centage of cost to Orange County because of State Mandated programs . (I WOULD RECOMMEND ,THAT OUR CITY TAKE A LOOK AT OUR OVERALL BUDGET AND COMPARE IT TO MANDATED COSTS THAT IMPACT OUR BUDGET) . IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT OUT THAT STATE MANDATED COSTS ARE 80% OF OUR PROPERTY TAX. (Example , insurance , and etc . ) Supervisor Clark also stated that under SB-90 disclaimer the state has not paid over 120 , 000 ,000 to Orange County alone for state mandated costs . RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS : 1 . I will be scheduling a public forum to discuss residential property tax reform. . I have extended an invitation to State Senator Rodda who was one of the luncheon speaker as well as the present State Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee . This is projected for late in February. I will keep you informed as plans develop . 2 . Inasmuch as the County Board of Supervisors (under the leader- ship of Chairman Diedrich)have been meeting with the Orange County State Legislators on many issues and property tax reform is one of their main priorities . I intend to initiate a request that the mayors in Orange County meet with the Board of Supervisors so that we can convey to them as well as our State Legislators the needs and requests of our local constituency. 3 . As the results of my attendance at this conference , I am taking up a suggestion of Supervisor Clark that we suggest to our - 4k RESOLUTION N0. 4915 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF . HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 198o-i981 TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY WHEREAS, the assessed valuation 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 1980-1981 is estimated to be $1 ,122,000,000.; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the four dollars ($4.00) 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, officesand activities; and WHEREAS, a tax rate of zero and 1854/100ths dollars ($0. 1854) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is needed for the voter approved indebtedness of the city, 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 1980-1981 be fixed at zero and .1854/100ths dollars ($0. 1854)' upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: I . Employee retirement $ 0. 1433 2. 1970 Park G.O. Bond 0.0421 $ 0. 1854 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at M 1 an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August, 1980. O Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk INITIATED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: / y City Administrator City At orney Res. No. 4915 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) j 1 , 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 an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of -August_ 1980, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinann, Thnmac. Finlpy, RailPM-MarAlliator,Ma_ ndi�- Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None CSC%• City Clerk and ex-offi'cio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct copy-of the original on file in this office. Otte t 19� c t�✓�uro�-� T City Clerk and Ex=officio Clerk of the City Codn6-1-of the-'Clay Qf Huntington Beach, Cal: ' - By- Deputy t. R RESOLUTION NO. 4671 A .RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1978-1979 TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equaliza- tion of the County of Orange, California, for fiscal year 1978- 1979 is $831,783,620'; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the four dollars ($4..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, a tax rate of zero and 1972/100ths dollars ($0. 1972) upon each one-hundred dollars ($100) of assessed value of property in said city , as assessed. by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board 'of Equalization of the County of Orange, is needed for the voter approved in- debtedness of the city , 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 1978-1979 be fixed at zero and 1972/100ths dollars ( $0. 1972) upon each one hundred dollars ( $100) of assessed prop- erty value in' said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows : 1. Employee retirement $0. 1365 2. 1970 Park G.O. Bond 0. 0562 3• 1955 Water G.O. Bond 0. 0045 $0.1972 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of GH :ps . 8/5/78 1 . Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of September, 1978 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk INITIATED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 00 ity Administrator City Attorney 2. I No. 4671 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) t ' 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 September , 19 78 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert, Shenkman NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pore City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 4512 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1977 1978 TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the Orange County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equaliza- tion of the County of Orange, California, for Fiscal Year 1977- 1978 is and The City -Council of the City of. Huntington Beach finds that the amount of money. to be .raised by . taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach, as a means of' providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities is : 1 . General $ 8,211 ,484 2 . Employee Retirement 13418,858 3 . 1955 water Bond I & R 37,419 4 . Library 1,.194,000 5 . Recreation and Parks 126673551 6 . Music and Promotion 245,703 7 . 1970 Park Bond I & R 4663972 TOTA14 $13,241,987 ; and . A tax rate of One and 55/100ths Dollars ($1 . 55) upon each One Hundred Dollars ($100) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by .the .County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors sitting as the. Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, WSA: cs 1 . w 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 1977-1978 be fixed at One and 55/100ths Dollars ($1. 55) upon each One Hundred Dollars ($100) of assessed property value in said city .. The said rate. shall be applied as follows : 1. General Fund $ . 96117 2. Employee Retirement .16608 3 • 1955 Water Bond I & R . 00438 4 . Library .13976 5. Recreation and Parks • 19519 6. Music and Promotion . 02876 7 . 1970 Park Bond I & R . 05466 TOTAL $ 1. 55000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by •the. City ,Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an/red ur.ned g an/regular meeting thereof held on the 29th day of August, 1977 . ATTEST: ay City Clerk INITIATED .NAND. APPROVED • APPROVED AS TO FORM: AS TO CONTENT: Cit Administrator y Attorne (j 2 .. RESOLUTION NO. 4439 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COV.4CIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING THE REDISTRIBUTION OF SALES TAX REVENUES ON THE BASIS OF POPULATION WHEREAS, statutory authority to levy sales tax was authorized to the cities of California in 1948, to provide .the cities with additional revenues and to relieve the property, owner of increasing tax burdens ; and WHEREAS, said authority was revised in 1955 .to provide a statewide uniform administration allocation of the tax; and WHEREAS, this present method of allocating sales tax revenues to cities is based upon the percentage of gross receipts on retail sales within a city; and WHEREAS, the Legislature is now proposing legislation to effect a modification in the distribution of sales tax . revenues , the basis of said modification on a per capita basis rather than . sales revenues generated by a particular city; and WHEREAS., said per capita distribution would be grossly unfair. to the City of Huntington Beach which has and is encouraging major commercial. facilities within ..the. City ., NOW,. THEREFORE,BE IT. RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the City of Huntington Beach is opposed to any change in local sales use tax laws which would redistribute sales tax revenues on the baSis_ of population. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be* sent to the State Legislature , to the League of California Cities and other .key officials or organizations . 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, 1977 . ? . .......... ...... ATTEST: Mayor Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk JOC :er By Deputy City Clerk :./ / r REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: C. ministrator ,- Cit t orn y i INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: j . 2. Res. -n. 4439 S'rA'rE 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 4th day of April 19 77 . , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Coen, Pattinson, Shenkman, Siebert, Wieder NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs The foregoing instrument is a correc Alicia M. Wentworth Copy of the original on file in this office. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Atte �� of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California v City C' f she City By Couna Of i e r gtcn Beach, Deputy City Clerk Ca I. By Deputy t , Fill RESOLUTION NO. 4445 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO RETURN FROM 16-2/3 PERCENT TO 20 PERCENT OF THE SHARE OF. STATE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES DISTRIBUTED TO CITIES I • WHEREAS, the State of California in 1974 increased the t State sales and use tax from 5re to 6¢; and Cities ' share of the State sales and use tax remain at le, thus reducing from 20 percent. to 16-2/3 percent their relative share of the sales tax revenues ; and - I Cities have increasingly found themselves with shortages of general. fund revenues; and The State has continued to impose mandated costs upon cities ,. thus even further reducing available general fund revenues , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED -that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach urges the State Legislature to pass legislation providing that the share of State sales and use tax revenues distributed to cities be returned from 16-2/3 percent to 20 percent. BE IT FURTHPHR RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the State legislators for Huntington Beach, all Orange County cities , and the Orange County Division of the League of California cities . 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 , 1977 • `7 , ) ATTEST: Mayor Al i ni a M, a+ni-Kdri-h ty Clerk By �s.ti . Deputy REVI WED AND APPROVED: PRO D AS FORM. -000 C y Administrator City At rney INIT ATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: er Rer lo. 4445 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 meeting thereof held on the 4th day of _ April 19 77 , ,by the -following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Coen, Pattinson, Shenkman; Siebert, Wieder NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT Councilmen: Gibbs The foregoing instrument is a correct Alicia M. Wentworth copy of the original-on file in this office. City.Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Atte t 19,9? of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California City B ;cn i;2ach, y Deputy City Clerk �. Deputy A SS 1 F3LY AN.D L �% � � J COW . � f S r ► 4-7 I A`s,�i��y - -13 a-rc►2a�- roN lop aL*ORIda C F E-7 K ANC� S E� SE�_ 7 N I Iao(--,,:;I- \,IAL-LjEY �I ���I17 . GG1�='DE-t�l 20L�F�9�4if 4uN-T1NCaTCti -E�C}Aj q-alrJ4-7: NC�►Lr �T C�EAL► CA r City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 150 CALIFORNIA 52548 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 31, 1976 V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange P. 0. Box 567 Santa Ana, Ca. 92702 Dear Sir: The City Council of Huntington Beach at its adjourned regular meeting held Monday, August 30, 1976, adopted Resolution No. 4313, setting the Tax Rate for the City of Huntington Beach for the fiscal year 1976-1977. A certified copy of said Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, 9 Alicia M. Wentworth ! � � City Clerk AMW:CB:pr Enclosure �b �t RESOLUTION NO. 4313 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF . HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976-1977 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the city of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange , California, for Fiscal Year 1976-1977 is $710 ,079 ,235; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said city of Huntington Beach, as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments , offices and activities is : 1. General $ 73- 100 ,792 2. Employee Retirement 1,179,300 3. 1955 Water Bond I & R 32,948 '4. Library 1,065,119 5. Recreation and Parks 1..1382 ,276 6. Music and Promotion 240 ,859 7 . 1970 Park Bond I & R 495 ,99.0 TOTAL $ 11,497,284 and A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ( $1 .6.2) upon each One Hundred Dollars ($100) of assessed value of property in said city , as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange , is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of ahb 1 ' money, 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 1976-1977 be fixed at One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1. 62) upon each One Hundred Dollars ( $100) of assessed prop- erty value in said city . The said rate shall be applied as follows : 1. General Fund $ 1 . 00000 2. Employee Retirement . 16608 3. 1955 Water Bond I & R . 00464 4 . Library . 15000 5. Recreation and Parks . 19551 6. Music and Promotion . 03392 7. 1970 Park Bond I & R :06985 TOTAL $ 1 .62000 PASSED AND ADOPTED bVV th City Council of the City of ad j cYurne� Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held .on the 30th day of August, 197b. t A Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attor ey APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AND AS INITIATING DEPARTMENT: 'C�4- City Administrator 2. Res. No. 4313 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 adjourned meeting thereof held on the 30th day of August , 19 76 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, Gibbs; Siebert, Shenkman NOES: Councilmen: Wieder ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 4125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1975-1976 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed. by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1975-.1976 is $580,623,450; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach, as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities is: 1 . Genera'l $ 5,80.6,236 2. Employee Retirement 964,299 3• 1955 Water Bond 16 R 32,979 4. Library 870,935 5. Recreation and Parks 1 ,085,708 6. Music and Promotion 182,548 7. 1970 Park Bond I s R 463,395 Total $ 9,406, 1.00 and, A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 .62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1975-1976 be fixed at One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 .62). upon each One Hundred and. no/10.0ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: . 1 . General- Fund $ 1 .00000 2. Employee Retirement 16608 3• 1955 Water Bond I & R .00568 4. Library . 15000 5. Recreation and Parks . 18699 6. Music and Promotion .03144 7• 1970 Park Bond .I R .07981 Total $ 1 .62000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August, 1975. Mayor PRO TEM ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Don P. Bonfa, City Attorney APPRn r*r) AS TO C 1 i-w L . • . _..._... ..... QT.Y. )R ,y ReL Ao. 4125 STATE OT 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 adjourned meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August , 19 75 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Aartl ttt, Gi hhs. rnpn, Ma npy, nnkp, WiedP NOES: Councilmen: ' None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California August 20, 1974 V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of grange P.Q. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Sir: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at'.1ts regular meeting held Monday, August 19, 19.74, adapted Resolution No. 3937, setting the Tax Rate for the City. of Huntington Beach for the fiscal year 1974-1975. D A certified copy of said .Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you Have any questions. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cb enc. RESOLUTION NO . 3937 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING .THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1974-1975 WHEREAS , the assessed valuation of the - taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach , California , as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California , for the fiscal year 1974- 1975 is $529 ,973 , 310 ; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach , as a means of pro- viding revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments , offices and activities is : 1 . General $ 5 ,299 ,733 2 . Employee Retirement 880 , 180 3 . 1955 Water Bond 1E R 33 ,971 4. Library 794 ,960 5. Recreation and Parks 943 ,988 6 . Music and Promotion 166 ,624 7. 1970 Park Bond 18 R 466 , 112 Total $ 8 ,585 ,568 and , A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 . 62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.'00) of assessed value of property In ' said city , as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors , sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange , is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1974- 1975 be fixed at One and trs: 62/100ths Dollars ($1 ..62) upon each One Hundred. and • no:/.100ths - ` Dollars ($100. 00) of assessed- property value in` said` city. The =: said rate shall be applied as follows : 1 . General Fund $ 1 .00.000 . :: 2 . Employee Retirement 1.6608_ y ` 3 . 1955 Water Bond 1 $ R . 00.641 4. Library . 15.000' 5 . Recreation and .Parks . 17.81.2. 6. Music and Promotion . 63.144 7. 1970 Park Bond 18 R .08795 • ` Total $ 1 .6260`0 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Counci-1 of .the C 1 ty of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held- on. t,he . 19th day .of August , 1974. ..fe�. _ Mayor ATTEST: 000 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON P . BONFA, City Attorney Rk No. 3937 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE 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 19th day of August , 19 74 . , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: . Bartlett, Matney, Wieder. Duke. Coen NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley, Gibbs City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I +. r August 21, 1973 V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange P. 0. Box 567 Santa ApA. CA , 92702 Dear Sir: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, August 20,, 1973,:. adopted ,Res*_,... lutinn No. '3749, setting the Tax Rate for the City 'of- Huntington Beach for the fiscal year 1973-1974. A certified copy of said Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact' this office if you 'have any questions. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:,p j Encl. i I w RESOLUTION NO. 3749 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL- OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1973-1974 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange , California, for the fiscal year 1973-1974 is $442, 271,658; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach, as a means of pro- viding revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments , offices and activities is : 1. General $4 ,376, 676 2 . Employee Retirement 735, 852 3 . 1955 Water Bonds I & R 34,984 4 . Library Fund 663, 407 5 . Recreation and Parks 751,862 6 . Music and Promotion 139,050 7 . 1970 Park Bonds I & R 462,970 $ 7 ,164, 801 and, A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 . 62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100 .00) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors , sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1973-1974 be fixed at One and 62/100ths WM: lm 1. Dollars ($1 . 62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100 .00) of assessed property value in said city . The said rate shall be applied as follows : 1. General Fund . 98959 2. Employee Retirement . 16638 3• 1955 Water Bonds I & R . 00791 4 . Library Fund . 15000 5 . Recreation and Parks . 17000 6 . Music and Promotion . 03144 7 . 1970 Park Bonds I & R . lo468 1 . 62000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the 'City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of August, 1973 . y o r ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON BONFA, ity At orney .Y L S PTEVIQe Assistant City Attorney r i 2.. is. No. 3749 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 Oth day Of A giiGt 19 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartl,tt, Gibbs , Green, Duke, Matney NOES Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: S?1ipley, Coen City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California the foregoing instrument is 4 ;,JrreCt COP of the original on file in this office. Attest AUG 2 1..�97 ........... 19 ............ ALICIA M. WENIWORTH -------------------- City Clerk.and Ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,Cal. i PAGE 1 OF 2 PAGES WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY i. Id ITY OF HUNTINtiTON BEACH No. • BLUE-CITY CLERK GREEN-CI TV ADMINISTRATOR 4:La CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL „„V„ REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department UGUST 1311973 F. B: ARGUELLO FINANCE INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorneys•use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1973-1974. WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, ,California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1973-1974 is $442,271,658; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach, as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, officts and activities, is: 1. General $ 403769676 2. Ftnployee Retirement 7350852 3. 1955 Water Bonds I & R 349984 4. Library Fund 6639407 5. Recreation & Parks 7519862 O r 6. Music & Promotion 1390050 7. 1970 Park Bonds I & R 462,270 $ 791649801 and, A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1.62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ' ($100.00) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money. Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds AUGUST 20, 1973 Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: W City Administrator PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE CITY CLERK I. d CITY OF HUNTI ON BEACH No. •- - GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR +4; CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department AUGUST 13,197 F. B.' ARGUELLO FINANCE INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1973-1974 be fixed at One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1.62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1. General Fund .98959 2. &mployee Retirement .16638 3. 1955 Water Bonds I & R .00791 4. Library Fund . 15000 5. Recreation & Parks . 17000 6. Music & Promotion .03144 7. 1970 Park -Bonds I & R .10468 1.62000 PASSED AND -ADOPTED by the City Council of the' City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of August 1973. Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds AUGUST -20, 1973 Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: wci inistrator 3 n � 9 August 14 , 1973 2� To: City Council From: City Attorney Subject : Resolution Fixing the Tax Rate for the Fiscal Year 1973-1974 At the request of the Director of Finance, we transmit herewith a resolution fixing the tax rate for the City of Huntington Beach, for the fiscal year 1973-1974, at $1. 62 upon each $100 of assessed property in said city . This resolution applies the tax rate to seven city funds . Respectfully submitted, DON P BONFA City Attorney V Assistant Ci y Attorney WM: lm Attachment \ �h i RESOLUTION N0. 3555 Y-I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE .FOR SAID CITY r; FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1972-1973. ; WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by' the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1972-1973 is $41o,283,199; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the 4 amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property F in said City .of Huntington Beach, as a means of providing rev- enue for the operation and support of the various . cit.y depart- ments, offices and activities, is: 1. General $ 4,019,750 . 2. Employee Retirement 681,398 3• 1955 Water Bonds I & R 39,018 4 . Library Fund 615,425 5. Recreation & Parks 697,481 6. Music & Promotion 128,993 7. .1970 Park Bonds I & R 464,522 $ 6,646,587 and, A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1. 62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value r of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is suffic.ient to raise the aforesaid amount of money. . 1 NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1972-1973 be fixed at One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1.62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: , A 1. General Fund. .97975 2, Employee Retirement .16608 3. 1955 Water Bonds I & R .00951 4. Library Fund .15000 5. Recreation& Parks . .17000 6. Music & Promotion . 03144 _ 7: 1970 Park Bonds I & R .11322 1.62000 PASSED AND. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of August, 1972. ; , ., Mayor ATTEST ?Y f City rk k.i APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' A City Attorney ; s: E~: 2. ;. .�_�,r. ..�.�..�...._ ._.._ a.. ..___.,...._...._.. . ... - - _...__ - Res . No.. 3555 STATE OF •CALIFORNIA ) `-: COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 88• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, PAUL C. JONES.,' ahe duly elected, qualified and acting-: 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 August, 1972, by the following vote: .A -J ' AYES: Councilmen: ` 1= Bartlett, ,Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, Coen ° t�- NOES: Councilmen: . None ABSENT: - Councilmen: _ , Shipley CityCl er. an - ficio Clerk of the City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California :. • �Y •r r- August 22, 1972 V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of ©range P. 0. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Sir: l� The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, August 21, 1972, adopted Reso- lution No. 3555, setting the Tax Rate for the City of Huntington Beach for the fiscal year 1972-1973. A certified copy of said Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:p Encl. RESOLUTION NO . 3361 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1.971-1972' AND RESCINDING RESO- LUTION NO . 3353 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property. pf the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of. Equalization of the ' County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1971-1972 is $370 ,230,779; and F The City' Council _ of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised. by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach, ar-, a means of providing rev- enue for the operation and support of the various city depart- ments , offices and. activities, is : . ' • 1 . General $ 3, 519, 7811 .2 . Employee. Retirement 687,000 3 • 1.955 Water Bonds I & R 41, 836 4 . Library Fund 555, 346 5. Recreation & Parks 629, 392 6 . Music & Promotion 103,628 7 . 1970 Park Bonds I & .R 46o, 752 $ 5,997 ,738 . � . and, A tax rate of One . and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 : 62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100 .00) of assessed value f - ssed b the Count Assessor and : o property in said city, as asse y y equalized by. the Board of Supervisors , sitting. as the Board of � Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money . .rw 4 • L NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of tihe City of Huntington. Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for, the fiscal year 1971-72 be fixed at One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 . 62) upon each One Hundred anti no/100ths Dollars ($100 . 00), of assessed property value in sald c1.ty . The said • Y• rate shall be applied as .follows : 1 . General Fund . 95070 2.. Employee Retirement . 18556 3 • 1955 Water Bonds .I & R . 01130 4 . Library Fund . 1.5000 5 : Recreation & Parks . 1.7000 6 . Musi:c & Promotion . 0.2799 7 • 1970 Park Bonds I & R . 1244 1 . 6200.0 With the, adoption of this resolution, Resolution No . 3353 is hereby rescinded. PASSED AND ,ADOPTED by -the City Council. of the 'City of- Huntington beach at a special meeting thereof held on the 31st day of. August , 1971. Mayor ATTEST: City4ZIerk . APPROVED AS TO FORM: E ` _s.-►��, C i ty •At t o r n 2.. Res.. No. 3361 ,.. STA'fl.; ol;' CALIVORNTA ) ,, ;i COUN'1'Y. OF ORANGE CITY OF IILIWING UON BEACH )' ! I: , PAUL C. JOW'S, the duly e:Lected , gtiik1.i.fie(I and acting City Clerk ' of.' the City of 1kintington Bunch , and- ex- offi.cio Clerk of the C:i.t•y Counc:i. L of siiid City , do hereby certify that the whole uurnber of members of. the City Con.iicil of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that -the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the itfl'irmative vote of more than a majority of All. the members of said City Council at a Mj�kMr Special meeting thereof held on the 3lst day of. August 1.9_2-L_, by the following vote AYES : Councilmen : +Shi_p1py , Ba t- rr Pn , Matney, ,Cpn^ M _rra ken NOES: Councilmen: None ARSE T: Councilmen: Gibbs City Clerk and -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington peach ; California August 24, 1971 V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange P.C. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92742 Dear Sir: The City Council. of Huntington Beach, at its regular adjourned meetin held',,,WndAy. -August 230 1971, adopted Resolution No. 3153 setting the Tax Rate for the City ❑ of Huntington Beach for the fiscal year 1971-1.972. A certified copy of said Resolution is enclosed. please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ s aw Enc. - r RESOLUTION NO. 3353 i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF I HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID f CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1971-1972 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1971-1972 is $370,230,779; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money- necessary to be raised by taxation on prop- erty in said City of Huntington Beach, as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city de- partments, offices and activities is : 1. General $ 3,490,462 d 2. Employee Retirement 687,000 3. 1955 Water Bonds--Int . and Red. 41, 836 4 . Library Fund 416,028 5. Recreation and Parks 629,392 i 6 . Music and Promotion 1032628 f i $ 5, 368,346 and, A tax rate of One and 45/100ths Dollars ($1. 45) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100 .00) of assessed value i of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting as a Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city i i 1 1 . , ' ! for the fiscal year 1971-1972 be fixed at One and 45/100ths Dollars ($1. 45) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars $100.00) of assessed value in said city . The said rate shall be applied as follows : 1. General Fund o94278 2. Employee Retirement . 18556 i 3. Water Bond Fund--1955 Interest and Red. .01130 4 . Library Fund . 11237 5. Recreation and Parks .17000 6 . Music and Promotion .02799 1. 45000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August, 1971. Mayor ATTEST: i City dtrlerk APPROVED AS .TO FORM: I City Attorne I 1 i i i 1 2 . i � is Res. No.335- k, r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) s } COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) G. ` I ; PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected ; qualified and . acting 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 "i 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 field on the 23rd E :r day of August 19_ZL_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: { Shipley, Bartlett, Green, Coen, McCracken NOES: Councilmen: . r _None r" ABSENT: Councilmen: . ->r .7 Gibbs Matne City Clerk 'and x-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City 'r of Huntington Beach, California `�w f August 21, 1970 , G V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange P.O. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Sir: The City Council of H t' o h, at its regular adjourned meeting het uesd y A gust 18, 1970, passed and adopted Resolutio o. 3 0 setting the Tax Rate for the City or Huntin ch for the fiscal year 1970-1971. A certified co otate Resolution is enclosed. Please do no h contact this office if you have any quest Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. L RESOLUTION N.O. 3 2` S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CMINCIL OF THE' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE: TAX FATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1970 - t971 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of_ the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed 1)y the County Assessor and fixed by the _Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for. the fiscal. year 1970-1971 is $339,783,919; and The City Council. of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be .raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach,. as means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments , offices and activities, is 1 . General $ 2,870, 359 .2. Employee Retirement . 508,554 3. Water Bond Fund--1955 Interest & Red._ 44. 376 4.. capital Outlay Fund 339.7S4 5. Library Fund 415, 794 6. "tusic and Promotion Fund 102,411 7. !recreation and Parks 645,589 and, $ 4,926,867 A tax rate of One and 45/100ths Dollars ($1.45) upon each One Hundred- and no/100ths Dollars ($1-00.00) of ASSESSED VALUE OF property in said -city, as assessed by the 'Countv. Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting -as a Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City l� of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal 1 year 1970-1971 be fixed at One and 45/100ths Dollars ($ 1.45) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed. value in said city. i The said rate shall be applied .as follows: i - 1. • - li r 1. General Fund .84476 2. Employee .Retirement . 14967 3: Water Bond Fund--1955 Interest d Red. .01306 4• Capital Outlay Fund . 10000 5. Library Fund . 12237 6. Music and Promotion Fund .03014 7. Recreation and Parks . 19000 Total 1.45000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington a urned Beach at a regu �r�meeting thereof held on the I8t h day of August- -, 1970. Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: 1 9 i + Ci ty , erk 1 . f APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7 1� � - •ate - City Attor ey P . 2. 11 Res. No. -.' STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , PAUL C. JONES, the_ duly elected, qualified c acting City Clerk of the- City of Huntington Beach , and e:- officio Clerk of the City- Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Counc :.l: r ' i of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregol€ resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than' a majority of all the members of said City Council n4 at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August 19 70 by the following vote:. AYES: Councilmen: Green, Bartlett, McCracken, Matney, Coed "I= NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs,~ Shipley CitT Clerk and officio Clerk of the City Council of the City. V- of Huntington Beach, California. . r August 19, 1969 V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange P.O. Box 567 Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Mr. Heim: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, August 18, 1969, passed and adopted Resolution No. 3037 setting the Tax Rate for D the City of Huntington Beach for the Fiscal Year 1969-70. A certified copy of said Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. r Jj+ 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3037 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY j . OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1969-1970 s .j 1 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the ' County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1969-1970 is $293,272,790; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money 'necessary to be raised by taxation on prop.erty in said City of Huntington Beach, as means of providing revenue s fop, the operation and support of the various city departments, ' offices and activities , is 1. General Fund $ 2,571, 854 2 . Employee Retirement 374 ,245 3. Music and Promotion Fund 53,141 4 . Library Fund 358,880 5 . Recreation and Parks 5573218 6 . Water Bond Fund--1955 Interest and Redemption 43,844 7 . Capital Outlay Fund 2933273 TOTAL $ 4,252,.455 and, is A tax rate of One and 45/100ths Dollars ($1. 45) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100 . 00) of ASSESSED VALUE OF property in, said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors , sitting as a Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient .to raise the aforesaid amount of money, 1 , ti i 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of-the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1969-1970 be fixed at One and 45/100ths Dollars ($1 . 45) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100 . 00) of assessed value in said city . The said rate shall be applied as follows : { 1. General Fund . 87695 ' 2 . Employee Retirement . 12761 3. Music and Promotion Fund . 01812 4 . Library Fund .12237 5 . ' Recreation and Parks .19000 6 . Water Bond Fund--1955 Interest and Redemption . 01495 7. Capital .Outlay Fund . 10000 TOTAL 1 . 45000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August , 1969 . Mayor 411 ATTEST: t rk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci y Attor 2 . � -' Res. No. 3037 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) . COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s§: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , PAUL C. JONES , the duly elected ; qualified and acting 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 _ August 19 E9 , by the following vote : AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, McCracken,, Kaufman, Matney, Coen, Green NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley City lerk and gjkzofficio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 18 August 1969 TO : City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No . 3037 At the request of the Director of Finance we transmit the attached resolution setting the tax rate for the City of Huntington Beach- for fiscal year 1969-1970 . Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney /ahb Attachment August 27, 1968 V.A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange P.O. Box 567 Santa Ana,, California Dear Mr. Heim-, The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at a regular adjourned meeting held August 26, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2818, setting the Tax Rate for the City of Huntington Beach for the Fiscal Year 1968-1969. A certified copy of said Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. ry..-n1 RESOLUTION NO. 2818 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1968-1969 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable prop- erty of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County.Assessor and fixed by the -County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equilization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1968-1969 is $284,033,290.00. WHEREAS, the City Council of 'the City of Huntington z Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by tax- ation on property in said City of Huntington Beach as means of providing revenue for the;'operation and support of the various City- departments, offices and activities, is 1. General Fund $ 294319148.00 Y' 2. Employee Retirement $ 3319000.00 3. Music and Promotion Fund $ 49,926.00 4. Library Fund $ 337,144.00 . 5. Recreation & Parks Facilities ti Fund $ 5230474.00 t 6. Water Bond - 1955 Interest & Redemption $ 46,724.00 7. Special Capital Outlay Fund $ 2750512.00 Total $ 399949928.00 _ o r•. 1. WHEREAS, a tax rate of One Dollar and Forty Five Cents ($1.45) of each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value of property in said city as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors sitting as a Board of Equaliz- ation of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, that the rate of tax- . ation for said City for the fiscal year 1968-1969 be fixed at One Dollar and Forty Five Cents ($1.45) upon each One Hundred Dollars ($100;00) of assessed value in said City. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1. General Fund $ .88241 T. 2. Employee Retirement $ .12014 3. Music and Promotion Fund $ .01812 f 4. Library Fund $ .12237 r 5. Recreation & Parks Facilities Fund $ .19000 6. Water Bond Fund - 1955 Interest ,& Redemption $ .01696 x 7. Special Capital Outlay Fund $ .10000 Total $ 1.45000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, at a regular adjourned- meeting thereof held on the 26th day of August, 1968. 2, s i Mayor ATTEST: City erk i APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney . �f } ^� -�• Res.+ No, 1 _ 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss : 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 4 . -I ,.. PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected , qualified and 5 acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex- 6 officio Clerk of the .City Council of said City, do hereby 7 certify that the whole number of .members of the City Council 8 of the City of Huntington-Beach is• seven; that the -foregoing 9 resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of 10 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council 11 at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 26th 12 day of Ausrugt 19 68 , by the following. vote : 13 14 AYES: Councilmen: 1.5 Bartlett, McCracken, Kaufman, Matnev, Green, Coen, } 16 NOES: - Councilmen: •17 None 18 ABSENT: Councilmen: 19 Shipley . 20 21 City Clerk and -officio Clerk 22 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 23 24 i The foregoing instrument,.is a.correct copy 25 of the original on file.iro-tPtis=office, 26 Attest _ 19_4..�... ` 27 City Clerk andExo .28 � rohe City: 29. Council of the City of Ifc' tirsoFi;Cal. _a: 30 144 na�. August 29, 1967 Mr. V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange P.O. Box 567 Santa Ana, California Dear Mr. Heim: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at a D regular adjourned meeting held August 28, 1967, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2625 setting the Tax Rate for the City of Huntington Beach for the Fiscal Year 1967-1968. A certified copy of said Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any question. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. ' r 1 R'_-'3OLUT.1CN No. 26z5 A .-!ES0, UT_10N 0: 'T.t4E -TTV COUN-CIL OF' THE ITY OF HUN"1n I'J`1'O I EEACH ,CAL IFORNIA,FIXING il-zE TAX SATE FOE AID CITY OF HUNTINGTON B ACH FOR T:fF. FISCAL -EAR 1967 - 1968. WEEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of 'untington Beach, California , as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the County Board of Equaliza- tion of t:-ie Coijnty of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1967_1968 is $288,489,K0.00. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach as means of pro- viding revenue for the operation and support of the various City depEirtments, offices and activities, is 1. General Fund P*,2,320,196 2. Employee Retirement 2949163 3• Music and Promotion Fund 1399918 4. Library Fund 2341,670 5. Parks & Recreation Facilities Fund 265,344 6. Water Bond -1955 Interest & Fund Redemption 479768 7. Special Capitel Outlay Fund 419g753 Total Vv7219808 WHEREAS, a tax rate of One Dollar and thirty-three($;1.33,)cents upon Ninety-Seven per cent (97%) of each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value of property in said City as assessed 1. Res.No. 2625 by tl e County Asses •or and equalized by the Boerd of Super- visor's sitting; as a Board of L.lualizati::n of the County of Ora Vie, is suf icient to raise the aforesaid amount of -Honey; 1140W, Tu;E_rEF*0 ::.:, B'W lm ?ESOL1TED by the City Council of Lhe Cit; of :iuritin�tcn Beach, California, that the rate of taxation for said City for the fiscal year 1967-1968 be fixed at 0ne Dollar and `thirty-Three Cents ('1.33) upon each One H 'n- dred :collars (4`100.00) of assessed value in said City. The said rite shall be applied as follows: 1. Gen•_�ral Fund .82913 2. Ehployee Retirement .10512 3. Music and Promotion Fund .05000 4. Library Fund .08386 5• Parks & Recreation Facilities Fund .O9482 6. Water Bond .Fund-e1955 Interest & .01707 Redemption. 7. Special Capital Outlay Fund .15000 Total 1.33000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City i of �untingt_n Beach, California, a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 28th day of August, 1967. Donald D. Shipley Mayor 1 ATTEST: Paul C. Jones APPROVED AS TO FORM: LgjL_C yCer Ann Marshall LOU ANIN ARSHALL,As s t-CITY Attorney for K.DALE BUSHvCity Attorney 2. _ Res. No. 2625 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , PAUL C: JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Cleric 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 ]leach 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 day of August 19 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Coen.- Bartlett.—Gisler, Kaufman, Greener Ship1gy NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Stewart Paul C. Jones City Clerk and ex-o ficio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I r 2 RESOLUTION NO 2410' 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITI COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH* CALIFORNIA 4 FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH66 FOR19 THE FISCAL YEAR 5 19 - 67 . 6 WHEREAS$ the assessed valuation of the taxable pro- 7 perty of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed 8 by the County Assessor and fixed by the County Board of Equal- 9 ization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal 10 year 1966-1967 is $220,691,540.001 11 12 WHEREAS,, the City Council of the City of Huntington 13 Beach finds that the amount of money necessary to be raised 14 by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach as 15 a means of providing revenue for the operation and support 16 of the various City Departments, offices and activities, it 17 as follows : 18 Fund of Pur2ose Amount 19 1. General Fund $ 1,777,752 20 2. Employee Retirement $ 243)184 21 3. Music and Promotion Fund $ 107,035 22 4. Library Fund $ 197,866 23 5 . Special Recreation Fund $ 151,369 24 6. 1955 Water Bond Fund Interest & Redemption $ 481,830 25 7 . Special Capital Outlay Fund k 321;1106 26 Total $ 218471,142 27 WHEREASq a tax rate of one dollar and thirty-three 28 cents ($1.33) upon ninety-seven percent, (97%) of each one 29 30 2 hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed value of the property in 3 said City as assessed by the Cou,xty Assessor and equalized by tte 4 Board of Supervisors sitting as a Board of Equalization of the 5 County of orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount 6 of money: 7 NOW, THEREFORE O BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of 8 the City of Huntington Beach,, California, that the ratteof 9 taxation for said City for the fiscal year 1966-1967 be fixed . 10 at one dollar and thirty-three cents ($1.33) upon each one 11 hundred dollars ($1,00700) of assessed value in said City. 12 The said rate shall be applied as follows : 13 Fund Pureese Tax LM 14 1 , General Fund $ .83045 15 2. Employee Retirement .11360 16 3. Masic and Promotion Fund .05000 17 4, Library Fund .09243 18 S . Special Recreation Fund .07071 19 6. 1955 Water Bond Fund - 20 interest & Redemption $ .02281 21 7 . Special Capital outlay Fund �-15000 22 Total $1.33000 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 '�uNTINGTpN RA L, CITY OF a4 - •_. -- -------- ------ ------------ ------ --- — -- ------------- - o �rc0f g 9 -q Q CALIFORNIA �C�UNTY GPI O August 23, 1966 O Mr. V. A. Heim Auditor-Controller County of Orange P. 0® Box 567 Santa Ana, California Dear Mr. Heim: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular adjourned meeting held August 22, 1966, passed and adopted Resolu- tion No. 2430 setting the Tax Rage for the City of Huntington Beach for the Fiscal Year 1966-1967 . A copy of said Resolution is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any question. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk BY Deputy City Clerk st/enc Res. No. �. . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of 2 Huntington Beath, California, at a regular- adjourned meeting 3 thereof held on the 22 day of August, 1966. 4 5 6 7 Jake R. Stewart yor 8 9 10 1Z 12 ATTEST** 13 Paul C. Jones 14 CtyME Z5 By: Ernestina Di Babio Deputy City Clerk 16 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 17 18 JR r E E . 19 City Attorney 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 . 1 2 Res , No , 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 COUNTY OF ORANGE ss : 5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 6 I , PAUL C . JONES , the duly elected, qualified and. i 7 acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex- 8 officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby 9 certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that �the foregoing 10 1 resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of 11 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council 12 at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22 day of August 13 19 66 , by the following vote : 14 AYES : Councilmen: 15 16 Coen, Bartlett , Kaufman, Green, Stewart 17 NOES : Councilmen: 18 None 19 ABSENT : Councilmen: 20 Gisler, Shipley 21 22 'r 23 Paul C. Jones f The foregoing instrument is a correct copy City Clerk and ex-o f f i c i o Clerk 24 of the City Council of the City of the original on file in this office. of Huntington Beach, California 25 _ i Attest 26 By: Ernestina Di Fabio i 2 7 5...�,.� ..... Deputy� __. Deputy City Clerk I - - City Clerk- and Ex off' o Clerk of the City 28 Council of the City.of Huntington Beach,Cal. f 29 9 . .. .... 30 t 1 r�l V. A. HEIM !�WT'v C)F / n� AUDITOR-CONTROLLER O ,V d 7 `C�.1 FINANCE BUILDING © I s 630 NORTH BROADWAY P. O. BOX 567 p p SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 02702 TELEPHONE% $34-2450 O AREA CODE 714 OFFICE OF AUDITOR-CONTROLLER August 19, 1966 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 207 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: In accordance with Section 51510 of the Government Code, we are submitting herewith, a statement show- ing the assessed value of property within your city, for the fiscal year 1966-67 after same has been equalized by the County Board of Supervisors, sitting as a Board of Equalization. Yours very truly, V. A; Heim • AUDITOR-CONTROLLER • By Assistant VAH/DJ/dr Attachments 1 CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL PUBLIC UNSECURED • SECURED ROLL UTILITY ROLL ROLL Land $ 52, 733, 150 $ 1,909, 770 $ 121,660 =T= Mineral Rights 25,017,340 - - ► Improvements 08,274,790• 35,661,850 4, 569,080 arees, vines - - Personal Prop. 4, 186, 130 8, 133,880 4, 738,390 • Less Exemptions 4,637,080 - 17,620 y Net Total $ 165, 574,530 $ 45,705, 500 $ 9,411,510 Solvent Credits $ 373,200 $ - $ 2,297,200 Aircraft $ - $ - $ 11,000 . 1 .r 'c. •.y w •d� ' CITY OF H1,1N7INt TON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - - City Administrator To City Clerk. From Acting City Attorney Finance'.Director SubjectCharter Section 606-- Date August 28 , 1979 Determination of City Tax Rate The confusion generated this year over the setting of the city tax rate may be avoided next year if an ordinance were to be adopted setting forth the appropriate procedures. "New" Charter section 606 provides that the "Council shall prescribe by ordinance for the assessment , levy and collection of taxes upon property which is taxable for municipal purposes . Old Charter section 1208 (which section 606 replaced) . read differently. It was as follows : "The procedure for. . . ( setting the tax rate) shall be prescribed by ordinance." , ( emphasis mine , the under- scored words being omitted in the "new" Charter) . Because the tax rate must be set by August .31 each year, it is a practical impossibility to set the rate by ordinance since the rate must be set upon assessment data, materials not available until after the third Monday in August , and because all ordinances except emergency ordinance ( those which affect the public peace , health , or safety) re- quire two readings, five days apart. For instance, in 1978 the third Monday was on the 21st of August , giving ten days to calculate the rate and read the ordinance two times, five days. apart. In 1979 the third Monday was August 20. The data was not available until several days later since the county assessor missed his deadline . Apparently this is the rule , not the exception. Necessity dictates that the tax rate be set by resolution. In reading "new" Section 606 and "old" Section 1208 together , it would not appear there was any overt intent by the Charter Revision Committee to institute an absurdity. These framers of the new Charter were generally unaware of the many practical problems they created when they considered a " streamlining" of the Charter to be appropriate . In the tax rate setting area , we have to assume that no real change wasin- tended when Section 1208 was rewritten so as to compel an absurd result . It is recommended that the city adopt an ordinance providing that at any regular or adjourned meeting on or before August 31 .of each year , the Council shall by resolution, set the tax rate for the current tax 3 91' Memorandum to City Administrator, city August 28 , 1979 Clerk and Finance Director Page 2 Re : Determination of City Tax Rate year by simple majority. Please advise as to your wishes in this . matter . 4WILLIAM S. AM ARY Acting City Attorney WSA:bc t TEXT OF GANN SPENDING-LIMITATION INITIATIVE LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Establishes and defines annual appropriation limits on state and local governmental entities based on annual appropriations for prior fiscal year. Requires adjustments for changes in cost of living, population and other specified factors. Appropriation limits may be established or temporarily changed by electorate. Requires revenues received in excess of appropriations permitted by this measure to be returned by revision of tax rates or fee schedules within two fiscal years next following year excess created. With exceptions, provides for reimbursement of local governments for new programs or higher level of services mandated by state. Financial Impact: Indeterminable. ARTICLE XIII B. Sec. 1. The total annual a2propriations subject to limitation of the state and of each local government shall not exceed the appropriations limit of such entity of government for the prior. year adjusted for changes in the cost of living and population except as otherwise provided in this Article. Sec. 2. Revenues received by any entity of government in excess of that amount which is appropria'- ate b such entity in compliance with this Articled Turing the fiscal year shall be returned bv a revision of tax rates or fee schedules within the next two B su sequen iscal years. ------------- Sec. 3. The appropriations limit. for any fiscal year pursuant to Sec. 1 shall be Adjusted as-follows: (a) In the event that the financial responsibility of providing services is transferred, in whole or in part, whether by annexation, incorporation or otherwise, from one entity of government to. another, then for the year in which such transfer becomes effective the appropriations limit of the transferee entity shall be increased by such reasonable amount as the said entities shall mutually agree and the appropriations limit of the transferor entity shall be decreased by the same amount. (b) In the event that the financial responsibility. of providing services is transferred, in whole or in part, from an entity of government to a private entity, or the financial source for the provision of services is transferred,'in whole or in part, from other. revenues of an entity of government, to regulatory licenses, user charges or user. fees, then for the year of such transfer the appropriations limit of such entity of government shall be decreased accordingly. (c) In the event of an emergency, the appropriation limit may be exceeded provided that the appropriation limits in the following three years are reduced accordingly to prevent an aggregate increase in appropriations resulting from the emergency. See., 4. The appropriations limit imposed oii any new or existing entity of government by this Article may be established or changed by the electors of such entity, subject to and in conformity with constitutional and stritutory voting; requirements. The duration of any such change shall be'as detcrinined.by said cleetors, but shall in no event exceed four years from the most recent vote of said electors creating or continuing such change. '12 Sec. 5. Each entity of government may establish such contingency, emergency, unemployment, reserve, retirement, sinking fund, trust, or sin►liar funds as it shall deem reasonable and proper. Contributions to any 'such fund, to the extent that such contributions are derived from the proceeds of taxes, shall for purposes of this Article constitute appropriations subject to limitation in the year of contribution. Neither withdrawals from any such fund, nor expenditures of (or authorizations to expend) such withdrawals, nor transfers between or among such funds, shall for.purposes of this Article constitute appropriations subject to limitation. Sec. 6. Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse such local government for the costs of such program or increased level of service, except that the Legislature may, but need not, provide such subvention of funds for the following mandates; (a) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency affected; (b) Legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a crime; or (c) Legislative mandates enacted prior to January 1, 1975, or executive orders or regulations initially implementing legislation enacted prior to January 1, 1975. Sec. 7. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to impair the ablility of the state or of any local government to meet its obligations with respect to existing or future bonded indebtedness. Sec. 8. As used in this Article and except as otherwise expressly provided herein: (a) "Appropriations subject to limitation" of the state shall mean any authorization to expend during a fiscal year the proceeds of taxes levied by or for the state, exclusive of state subventions for the use'and operation of local government (other than subventions made pursuant to Section 6 of this Article) and further exclusive of refunds of taxes, benefit payments from retirement, unemployment insurance and disability insurance funds; (b). "Appropriations subject to limitation" of an entity of local government shall mean any authorization to expend during a fiscal year the proceeds of taxes levied by or for that entity and the proceeds of state subventions to that entity (other than subventions made pursuant to Section 6 of this Article) exclusive of refunds of taxes; (c) "Proceeds of taxes" shall include, but not be restricted to, all tax revenues and the proceeds to an entity of government, from (i) regulatory licenses, user charges, and user fees to the extent that such proceeds exceed the costs reasonably borne by such entity in provid ni g i�e'regu atron, product, or service. an ii a inves m�of tax Fevenue—s ""DPfi[fi spec o any local government, "proceeds of taxes" shall include subventions received from the state, other than pursuant to Section 6 of this Article, and, with respect to the state, proceeds of taxes shall exclude such subventions; r (d) "Local government" shall mean any city, county, city and county, school district, special district, authority, or other political subdivision of or within the state; (e) "Cost of living" shall mean the Consumer Price Index for the United States as reported by the United States Department of Labor, or successor agency of the United States Government; provided, however, that for purposes of Section 1, the change in cost of living from the preceding year shall in no event exceed the change in California per capita personal income from said preceding year; Wl (f) "Population" of any entity of government, other than a school district, shall be determined by a method prescribed by the Legislature, provided that such determination'shall be revised, as necessary, to reflect the periodic census conducted by the United States Department of Commerce, or successor agency of the United States Government. The population of any school district shall be such school district's average daily attendance as determined by a method prescribed by the legislature; (g) "Debt service" shall mean appropriations required to pay the cost of interest and redemption charges, including the funding of any reserve or sinking fund required in connection therewith, on indebtedness existing or legally authorized as of January 1, 1979 or on bonded indebtedness thereafter approved according to law by a vote of the electors of the issuing entity voting in an election for such purpose. (h) The "appropriations limit" of each entity of government for each fiscal year shall be that amount which total annual appropriations subject to limitation may not exceed under Section 1 and Section 3; provided, however, that the "appropriations .limit" of each entity of government for fiscal year 1978-79 shall be the total of the appropriations subject to limitation of such entity for that fiscal year. For fiscal year 1978-79, state subventions to local governments, exclusive of federal grants, shall be deemed to have been derived from the proceeds of state taxes. 0) Except as otherwise provided in Section 5, "appropriations subject to limitation" shall not include local agency loan funds or indebtedness funds, investment (or authorizations to invest) funds of the state, or of an entity of local government in accounts at banks or savings and loan associations or in liquid securities. Sec. 9. "Appropriations subject to limitation" for each entity of government shall not include: (a) Debt service. (b) Appropriations required for purposes of complying with mandates of the courts or the federal government which, without discretion, require an expenditure for additional services or which unavoidably make the providing of existing services more costly. (c) Appropriations of any special district which existed on January 1, 1978, and which did not as of the 1977-78 fiscal year levy an ad valorem tax on property in excess of 121 cents per $100 of assessed value; or the appropriations of any special district then existing or thereafter created by a vote of the people, which is totally funded by other than the proceeds of taxes. Sec. 10. This Article shall be effective commencing with the first day of the fiscal year following its adoption. Sec. 11. If any appropriation category shall be added to or removed from appropriations subject to limitation, pursuant to final judgment of any-court of competent jurisdiction and any appeal therefrom, the appropriations limit shall be adjusted accordingly. If any section, part, clause or phrase in this Article is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, the remaininl., portions of this Article shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect. STATEMENT OF THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, September .17. 1979 Ma r MacAllister called the regular meeting of the City Council of,the City of.Huntington each to order at T:30 Present:' Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister. Bailey, Yoder, Finley Absent: Pattinson �r,►r*�f�r,rw,ear+r,M►,►w�++►++nN+ir*w+r*w�►rtt�titatir+,rs*riw*rttit+r�+rrir+rrnt++rw,trrNrrrtw,►,►r,►rt**w�r*x� NEW ASSESSED.VALUATION FIGURE --APPROVED The City Administrator informed Council that the County Auditor/Controller's Office had provided the City with a new assessed valuation of•$983,927,670. He stated that the County Auditor/Controller's Office advised that a Minute Action by the City Council approving the amended assessed valuation figure would suffice. On motion by MacAllister, second Finley. Council approved the new assessed valuation figure of $983,927,670 as provided by the County Auditor/Controller's Office by the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson n •� ►w,r+rkrw*r+r*,rwrr*�e*rr►rr,►trtar,►�rrw�ir►.wwirrw*�,�w**,rnr�+r.iw.t.*t+�s�w.,►�rr*�r;,r*.tw.�r Mayor adjourned the regular meeting of the City Council Of the.City of Huntington Beach at i?.nn P-M_ to October 1. 1979 at 6-no P m . in RnniR_A� Civi - Cant r, Hunti'naton Reach, ATTEST: Alicia 11. Wentworth ity Clerk .an ex-o fic o C er of the City Council of the City Alicia M. Wentworth of Huntington beach,- California City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Don MacAllister County of Orange Mayor City of Huntington Beach; I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is'6 true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 17th daffy of September 19 79 WITNESS nay hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 18th d6y••of ---_ September 19�_. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio fferk of the.City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California BY _�.De pu y 12/78 • _ J 4L CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4� f1 INTER-DEPARTMENT .COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Floyd G. Belsito From F. B. Arguello City Administrator Director of Finance Subject City Assessed Valuation Date August 28, 1979 At 2:00 pm today, I received a letter from the County of Orange in reference to our 1979-80 property assessed values. In reviewing the letter, and the attached computer printout, I find that the figure we used last evening on Resolution #4791 was incorrect. The correct total assessed valuation is $994,398,090 and not $933,943,810 as indicated in said resol.ution. It appears that we were given incomplete information by the County in that the Public Utility assessments were not part of the information transmitted to us. The total tax rate does not, of course, change but the $0. 1972 rate as applied to the corrected assessed valuation will mean that the amount of revenue anticipated will increase by $119,216 - all of which will be used to help defray employee retirement costs, 1970 Park G.O. Bond Issue costs, and 1955 Water Bond Issue costs. We still cannot be certain as to the exact amount of revenue we can expect from pro- perty taxes because many unresolved applications still exist. For example, this city's share of the $4.00 basic tax rate will be affected by Assembly Bill 8, Chapter 282, Statute of 1979, i .e. (1 ) Based on 1978-79 tax revenues increased by 82.91% of the 1978-79 state as payment determined by Section 16260 of the Government Code. (2) Tax revenue base to be adjusted to reflect the growth of tax revenues. This probably not determinable until December, 1979• (3) Effect of business inventory adjustment - cities as a whole will lose $21 ,000,000 this year - and our share not yet determined. (4) Assessor will probably reserve 2.6% of all assessments to allow for- possible adjustments when setting base year to 1975-76• I Would recommend that we advise the Council of the above and revise Resolution #4791 to reflect the correct assessed valuation figure. We could do this at the September 4, 1979 meeting and still have time to get our resolution to the County on the due date- September 7, 1979. F. B. Arguell Director of Finance V. A. HEIM AUDITOR-CONTROLLER L- FINANCE BUILDING 630 NORTH BROADWAY 2 + "1 P. O. BOX 567 :? - SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 834-2450 V AREA CODE 714 OFFICE OF AUDITOR-CONTROLLER August 27, 1979 TO: . Orange County Cities SUBJECT: 1979-80 Assessed Values Enclosed are the 1979-80 assessed valuation statements for the property within your city. For those cities which have a Community Redevelopment Agency within their boundaries, incremental value has been excluded. The following general information is provided to assist you in your tax rate and budget calculations: Protested Assessments We are unable at this time to advise you if any significant protested as,osnments exist which you need to consider in calculating your voter approved indebtedness tax rates. The late delivery of the 1979-80 assess- _ ment roll extended the taxpayer's protest deadline to September 15, 1979. The County Assessor has advised that no significant protests exist to date. Tax Revenues from the $4.00 Basic Tax Rate The amount of property tax revenue that your city will. receive during- fiscal year 1979-80 will be your share of the $4.00 basic county tax rate levied by the Board or Supervisors and distributed in accordance with Assembly Bill 8, Chapter 282, Statutes of 1979. Each ci.ty's proportionate share of property tax will be determined on a basis of your. 1978-79 tax revenues increased by 82.91% of the 1978-79 state assistance payments determined for your city pursuant to Section 16260 of the Government Code. This tax revenue basis will be adjusted to reflect the growth of tax revenues at each tax rate area (TRA) and for adjustments due to jurisdictional changes. Each city's tax revenue ar ments for growth and jurisdictional. changes have not been determined. ::e hole to have growth adjustments calculated by December 1979 but we are 1 uncertain when _Jl1r1Sdctlonal adjustments will be known. �ra , Orange County Cities Auclus t 27, 1979 Page 2 An additional adjustment you should consider is the reduction in cities' business inventory (B/I) exemption revenues required by Section 47 of AB 8. The State Controller will proportionately reduce each city's 'B/T reimburse- ment so that cities in the aggregate will receive twenty one million dollars ($21,000,000) less than they would otherwise receive. Senate Bill 17, Chapter 49, Statutes of 1979 required assessors to establish new base year values for 1978-79 where the original 1975-76 Proposition 13 values were not properly determined. These reassessments will result in a significant number of refunds during fiscal year 1979-80 and, therefore, we anticipate reserving the value attributable to the SB 17 rollbacks from the total values used to compute the $4.00 basic county tax rate. Our best estimate at this time is that 2.6% of the assessment roil will be reserved. For your estimate of 1979-80 property tax revenues. from the $4,00 basic County tax rate, you may want to assume your .revenues will increase by the same }percentage that your city's assessed valuation has increased, adjusted for the state assistance payment, business inventory, and SB 17 reserve adjustments. Tax Rate Resolutions In order that the Tax Collector-Treasurer can meet the statutory deadline for ma:i.linr, tax bills and to maintain our apportionment schedule, it is necessary that your tax rate resolution adopting tax rates associated vitil the repayment of voter approved indebtedness be received by this office as soon as possible but no later than September 7, 1979. `Plank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, feel free to contact hen Jones, Senior Accountant Tax Unit, at 834-2455. AUDITOR-CONTROLLER 1 RSR:eg Enclosure D - y :C6iP__4 6-24-79 1979=8? L:STRICT VALUES uSEv TO SET TAX RATES -- DIST ScOUENCE PAGE 7 (EXCLUDES INCREASES •iTNIh FcOEVELUPNENT AGENCIES) if PE JF TYPE OF SECURED PUBLIC UTILITY TOTAL StCUREO uNS=_CU:ZEG TOTAL SECURED 6 TAR DIST F%JNJ VALUE .VAL.)t VALUE VALUE VALUE UNSECU�cI, YALU_ Al 05Ya 0049-_l hu;1TINGTON BEACH CITY MiN RTS 2;,795,65? 23,795.65;: v Z3,795,6° LAND 354,G-t6,570 3,6J5,6C.: 357,b52,37v 1,112,370 3i8,7o4,7. IMPS 478,137,070 53*094,58" 531,631,653 18,o35,07i. 550,4b7,32;. TOTAL L&I 655,979,29,o 57,3J0,38:: 913r274,670 14.7%6,r, 933,OZ7.71C PERS Pk;,P iC,o1Z,d0 3.153,9v: i3,706,7r6 2.r639,65 aZ o::C,410 is.,S I t.,/7 Y .L,754,17- _ 1.i,754r17C 21,GZ6.42; 31,7oO,59G LTH --XcMP 4,9,9,2i: 4,9y?, .zt- 47,-38_ 4,996,o2O TUT VALUE 37.cp 7a b 69rIS4,2d0 9�Z.8�',3tJ 6',54c,7a- 99,.,3,9 -39L ,i/G EXEYP iCve;•,Giv 5�.43G,= :) +„o - 5-,4c:,56C d7I EAEiF �,3c3.15_ ..ic3.iiC 1.,SL.,735 .:,d63,935 NE V>LU-- Z t,5✓;s93, 6i:.454, 8 457?aG7ba[:) 51s_i:,sb5 928aa:9s595 Ai<CRArT 05i GIST TO1AL MIN RTS cS,795,65's 23,795,b5c3 23,795,650 LAND 354P046P57'� 3,605,800 357,652,373 1,11Z,37J 35d,764,740 IMPS 478,137,OTC• 53,094,56J 531,831r6:) 18,635,670 550,467r32C TOTAL LEI 855,979,Z9C 57,300,3dv 913,279,b7J . 19.74b,C4i; 933.027,71%, PERS PRGP 1L,b:2,8b:. 3,153,9G5 i3,7bbr76C 2G,639,b5u 34rbOt.+:0 BUS INVTY iC,7;4,17i c) i0,754,17-0 21.t,C°c,.2J 31,7bJr5VL OTH EAZAP 4,9,9.24- 4,949,24C 47,3a; 4.?9c.62C TOT VALUE 872r397,C64 6v,�54P281 932,851,36J bir546,73.) 994,346,:;911 HID EXEMP 5v,430.u-'., is 50P430.0-3 4.44L:- 5L,r25r360 811 EXEMP 5,363,15 J 5,363,1:J 1C,5C,v735 15,3b3,9" 16,6,3,93: b , 4a2 51,05.,3d5 926,iiE,`NET VALUE 8 AIRCRAFT v C 1,-,95,CC-; 1,)95,a. 1 1 WESTMINSTER FORUM r '- ; —- MAYOR JOY NEu(;� UE32 o l The property tax and its property tax reduction of �1 impact on the homeowner the ?S cities and the many has been given much special districts in the' attention for the past county. l �. several months. Recently Unfortunately, our. total! ` one Orange County city property tax bill has gone announced that it will be up and will probably con-? i q offering property tax re- tinue to do so because the' bates to those who own City Council has control of homes. only a small percentage of 1 believe that Westmin- the total property taxes; ster's approach to the cur- Ours is about nine percentr` rent property tax situation with the remaining 91 per= offers a more realistic and cent controlled by "thel ,financially responsible county and the manyspe. alternative. For the past vial districts includin.gi eight consecutive years, school, sanitation, ceme-' bur city's property tax tary and vector control.= ` rate has been steadily By way of a historical; lowered perspective, between 19i This year Westminster, and 1960, the city'si a along with the entire property tax rate was 40l _ cbunty, experienced a cents per $100 of assessed! r _ drastic increase in the as- valuation. The tax rate in s e s s e d valuation of 1961 was' increased to 50, property. In Westminster, cents. As the city began to v the County Assessor's of- experience a tremendousi flail o-_ flee determined that the rate of growth, mostly in :"total value- of- new. and -the- form of new singlei ' _:existing structures, along family residences, the� to 1-_with the land, had in- rate was doubled in-19611 - :.`,creased in value 20.5-per- . 1962. This was necessary' _. 3 : .cent. Since the property.' to meet. the tremendous 4 _ _'tax and assessed valuation :-costs of the many public =-sre directly related, if the--." improvements aad serv- 0 R- u tax rate remains constant- ices that the new homes " -.or"increases and the as and their occupants re-: • =ti e:s s e d valuation in- quired.-The one dollar tax ~ ,creases, then rate remained anti)" 1968. property .-: ,taxes will also increase. Sy. 1669' the number of © ' .-For ease of illustration, if new bmes being built was ° :�a house were valued at- - beglallmo, to subside and O" $1'.000 by the County -- city from -_-.Assessor and the city-.,_sources• other-t-han property tax" rate. was,$1."1--.property.-tax were meeting, r; er 3100 of assessed valua-- . a larger share of_city "tion, the city property tax" _.expenditures. _ " `' W�4iZ�-z ail tha house would be$10. ' 'With the slow'dovni in j :--If a year later the asses- sor valued the house:at growth .and " increase in -' 1,200, the city's portion of other city revenues, the the propertv tax on that City Council lowered the -'.house would be $12 if the city tax rate by two cents -„tax rate of 81 remained. in 1969. This was not a :r However, the city could tremendous amount. It did counteract this increase in however offer tangible --home value by lowering ;.proof that taxes could be decreased. Although many; :;the' city property tax Fate .,- -;.to aboug 8�.5 cants. government agencies are ­­-Essentially,'this is what " now' talking of reducing= .r .-happened -in Orange the -property tax rate,h. - N ar4 n 1 9,t?v__4{j_ +�,,. i 1'he assessor -in- " - a.> ;creased the valuation of ; was the exception and not. _ o :-real property while many,'.' the rule. y taxing agencies lowered l .amhopeful that he their property tax rate . many-other•governmental : v -'only a fraction or not at agencies that receive :'all. However, the West- . money from the property : r riinstec City Council took tax will follow our exam- -:action to offset the in- ple of a direct. reduction of crease in assessed valua- the property tax. Property t.ion by reducing the city tax rebates after the fact tax rate from 86 cents to are costly to administer 70..cents.-This reduction- 'and constantly increasing represents a 16 cent de- the property tax rate.does :r:ease' over last years not offer a realistic solo- propertytax rate and is to lion ttr a °city's: revenue` knowledge the largest needs. ,-� /• City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 0Z6� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 13, 1979 Ken Jones,, Sr.. Accountant, Tax Unit Office of Auditor-Controller County of Orange 630 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA. 92701 Dear Mr. Jones: The City Council. of the City of 'Huntington Beach at a Special Meeting held Monday, August 27, 1979, adopted Resolution No. 4791 fixing the Fixcal Year 1979-1980 Tax Rate for the City of Huntington Beach. We have enclosed a certified copy of said resolution for your infor- mation. Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure CC: Lee Branch,. County Clerk —mailed 8/28/79 Bradley Jacobs, County Assessor - mailed 8/28/79 Pt • A'j f' City of. Huntington Beach . P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 23, 1979 Mr.. Lee Branch County Clerk P. 0. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Branch: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a Special Meeting held Monday, August. 27, 1979,- adopted Resolution No. 4791 fixing the Fiscal Year 1979-1980 Tax Rate for the City of Huntington Beach. We have enclosed a certified copy of said resolution for your information. Sincerely yours, Alicia. M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cd Enclosures City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 28, 1979 Mr: Bradley Jacobs .County Assessor 630 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear for. Jacobs: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a Special Meeting held Monday, August 27, 1479, adopted Resolution No. 4791. fixing the Fiscal Year 1979-1980 Tax Rate for the City of Huntington Beach. We have enclosed a certified copy of said resolution for your information: Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cd Enclosures RESOLUTION NO. 4791 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE FISCAL YEAR 1979-1980 TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY WHEREAS, the assessed valuation 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 1979-1980 is $933;943,810; and' WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach will be receiving a pro rata portion of the four dollars ($4.00) 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, a tax rate of zero and 1972/100ths dollars ($0. 1972) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is needed for the voter approved indebtedness of .the city, 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 1979-1980 be fixed at zero and 1972/100th.s dollars ($0. 1972) 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. 1433 2. 1910 Park G.O. Bond 0.0500 3• 1955 Water G.O. Bond 0.0039 $ 0. 1972 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of September, 1979•. Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: City Clerk INITIATED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci Administrator City Attorney V()SA t R( No. 4791 S'rA1'E OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WEN WORTH, 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 xxXxIax special meeting thereof held on the . . 27th day a of August 1979 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Thomas, Mandic, Yoder, Finley .NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson, MacAllister, Bailey City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California t he foreo ng instrum-ent is a correct copy �#thg ori�iiai �n file in this office.Not _��/.•,:�; cf the City G�ur►�il e�th@`bl��`.E+i ��itti�, tan geach,Cal. ��: _ Deputy r Ar, 70,,w I CITY COUNCIL O /{ADAVIO E. PARRYCity r/�aMAYOR - � i/�i /V-1 (� A q n t ABET G. MARGETT � FE✓ 2 1 1979 1 MAY14R PRO TEMPORE 240 WEST-HUNTINGTON DRIVE CITY OF HU1NTINGTON BEACH CHARLES E. GILB I ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL OFFICE DONALD D. PELLEGRINO JACK SAELID LYLE W. ALBERG February 16, 1979 CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK 1s , ° TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Certain fees and taxes adopted by our City Council, between June 6, 1978 and the July 1, 1978 effective date of Proposition 13 have been challenged by a lawsuit filed by Paul Gann and his People's Ad- vocate group in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on December 28, . 1978. (Case No. C 266979) . The challenge to our fees and taxes will affect all cities adopting fees and taxes between June 6 and June 30, 1978, as well as those adopted thereafter. The hearing. is presently set for March 8, 1979 at 9 A.M. in-Department 86 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, before the . Honorable Vernon G. Foster. The City of Arcadia has retained the outstanding Los Angeles law .firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher to aid in the defense of this suit. If your city will be affected by its outcome, we would appreciate your financial support as set forth on the enclosed schedule to insure the most vigorous defense possible. In addition to allegations of denial of equal protection and privileges and immunities, the suit alleges Proposition 13 became effective on June 7, 1978 , and that the fees and taxes required a two- third (2/3) vote of the qualified electors of our city to become ef- fective. We do not believe this to be the law. The fees and taxes_ adopted were as follows: 1. Increase in our paramedic ambulance fee charged to transport patients from $25 to $55. Adopted by Resolution June 27, 1978 2. Increase in our overnight annual on street parking permit application fee from $12 to $24 . Adopted by Ordinance June 27, 1978. 3. A monthly sewer service charge of fifty cents ($.50) per month per one and two family dwellings, etc. Adopted by Ordinance June 27, 1978. MAILING ADDRESSES TELEPHONES CITY HALL P.0. BOX 80 91006 446.4471 • 681.0276 LIBRARY 20 W. DUARTE ROAD 91006 448-7111 POLICE DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX EO 91008 447.2121 FIRE DEPARTMENT 710 S.SANTA ANITA AVE. 91006 446.2128 4 . A monthly street sweeping charge of approximately one-half cent (1/20) per street frontage foot . Adopted by Ordinance June 27, 1978 . 5 . Our annual $ . 0044 tax levy to fund our 1946 sewer bond issue . Adopted by Ordinance on June 27, 1978 and amended on September 1.9 , 1978 . 6 . Our annual Lighting Maintgnance District levy to pay Edison power bills for street lights. Adopted by Ordinance on June 27, 1978 and amended September 19, 1978 . 7 . Our annual Vehicle Parking District levy to fund the cost and maintenance of two existing downtown parking lots . Adopted by Ordinance on June 27 , 1978 and a- mended on September 19 , 1978 . 8 . An increase from 5% to 7% in our Utility User Tax. Adopted by Ordinance June 30 , 1978 . (Levyable only by Chartered Cities . ) 9 . An increase, in varying amounts , of our admission tax on horse racing. Adopted June 27 , 1978 . (Levyable by Chartered Cities only. ) Financial support should be made payable to the City of Arcadia Gann Suit Litigation Fund and be mailed to Mrs . Catherine Murphy, Arcadia City Treasurer, at the above address . It should be indicated that legal support in the form of briefs or legal points and authorities has been recommended at the trial level by the League ' s Legal Advocacy Committee . They should be mailed to Mr . Charles J. Liberto , Arcadia City Attorney, at the above address. Questions regarding the suit should be directed to Mr. Liberto . Yours very truly, Qat�C , E David a v Parry, Mayor Encl . The following contribution schedule is a recommended minimum. A contribution greater than this recommended minimum would be welcome to insure the best defense possible. Thank you. Population Under 10,000 $100. 00 10,001 to 30,000 150. 00 30 ,001 to 50,000 200.00 50,001 to 75,000 250.00 75,001 to 100,000 300.00 100,001 to 200 ,000 350.00 200,001 to 500 ,000 400. 00 Over 500,000 500.00 C4- P OPERTY TAX , FACTS for 1 - POLICY MAKERS �1 Q aURlKi OG4,III �N 41WA z� kk OF California State Board of Equalization 1020 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 BOARD MEMBERS George R. Reilly, San Francisco .......................... First District Iris Sankey, San Diego ........................................ Second District APRIL 1978 William M. Bennett, San Rafael ............................ Third District Richard Nevins, Pasadena.................................. Fourth District Pamphlet No. 29 Kenneth Cory, Sacramento .........................._.-...- State Controller LDA Douglas D. Bell, Executive Secretary U THE BACKGROUND OF PROPERTY TAXES The ad valorem property tax is one of the oldest forms of taxation, traceable back to Biblical days. Property taxes became the main source of revenue for both State and local governments when, by the 19th Century, they were introduced throughout the United States. In 1912, the property tax provided 70 percent of all revenues for State purposes in California. Since then the State government has shifted from conventional forms of the property tax to other taxes. The sales and use tax, administered in California by the State Board of Equalization, is the largest revenue producer for State government. Property taxes are used exclusively for local pur- poses except for a State tax on a special category of railroad cars that yields a tiny fraction of the State's General Fund receipts. But the property tax, while no longer a significant source of State Revenue, still accounts for 37 percent of tax revenues collected in the State and provides nearly one sixth of all federal, State, and local tax revenue in California. In the 1977-78 fiscal year, property tax revenues amounted to nearly $470 for each man, woman, and child living in the State. 11 S d From this money comes the local support for schools, fire and police departments, health, welfare,��S recreation facilities, and other public services. d On April 1, 1977, the method of taxing timber in California.changed from a local assessment of \� standing timber to a yield tax applied to the value of downed or felled timber. The tax is admin- istered by the.State with the taxes distributed back to local government. THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATOR Next to the taxpaying public, the State Legislature is most concerned with property taxes, for the Legislature makes the laws affecting property taxes. The Legislature's influence in this area has . been felt significantly in recent years. Each year numerous•measures affecting property taxes are enacted into law during the legislative session. Such a measure was the Forest Taxation Reform Act, AB1258, approved by the Governor on May 23, 1976. Irregular practices in the assessors offices of several California counties that came to light in the mid 1960s prompted enactment of the first major tax reform legislation since the 1930s. Familiarly known as AB-80, this 1966 law added to or amended 105 sections of five different codes. Some have called it a "Bill of Rights" for California taxpayers. A significant change by the 1966 Legislature was the introduction of a realistic assessment ratio replacing the long outmoded full value standard that had probably never been observed. This key section requires assessors to assess all property subject to general property taxation at a publicly announced ratio of 25 percent of full value. In its leadership role in the field of property taxation,the Legislature calls on a number of resources, including the advice and counsel of the elected Members of the Board of Equalization, the practical experience of the county assessors, and the expertise of the professional personnel of the Board's property tax department and legal staff. _ 1 _ 1 THE ROLE OF THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The role of the State Board of Equalization in property tax covers four broad areas:. • It assesses the property of companies supplying certain utility services such as gas, elec- tricity,telephone, and railroad transportation and certifies its assessments to local govern- mental units for application of local tax rates and collection of taxes for the support of local government. • It prescribes rules, regulations, and instructions and furnishes guidance to county asses- sors in their efforts to value correctly and fairly the numerous types of taxable property that are subject to local assessment. It surveys the activities of the assessors periodically and reports on their conformity with the law. It also provides continuing education of property tax appraisers by conducting property appraisal courses in the appraisal of all types of property. • It measures the relationship between the assessed value of locally assessable property in each county and the full value of the property. It is empowered to raise or lower the assessed values on a county's secured local roll to achieve intercounty equalization of assessment levels. • It imposes a tax on every timber owner who harvests either timber he owns or timber acquired from a governmental agency. The county assessor determines the value of locally assessable property for taxation purposes, but the State also has an interest in this valuation through its assigned responsibility to promote unifor- mity throughout the State in the assessment of property for taxation. Uniformity is important because the assessed values determined for property taxation are used in the multibillion dollar distribution of State aid to school districts. To achieve equity in this distribution and in other areas where assessed values are used as a yard- stick, the State seeks an independent measure of each county's available tax base. The Board's Division of Intercounty Equalization sends appraisers into each county every third year to value a cross-section of property independently of the county assessor. From this sample the full value of locally assessable property for the whole county is found. The Office of Appraisal Appeals (OAA) acts as an independent reviewer of differences between the Division of Intercounty Equalization and county assessors in their respective estimates of market values of properties selected for appraisal by the division. The Board's total estimate of the value of locally assessable property in a county in the current year is compared with the total locally assessed value on the county tax roll. This comparison establishes the ratio between assessed value and full value. The ratio between the locally assessed value and the State Board's determination of full value is used to: 9 Distribute state aid to school districts. 0 Compute amounts that school districts must repay the State on loans for school construction. • Determine whether counties are to provide equalization aid to school districts. • Determine the counties' share of Medi-Cal costs and aid to the aged, blind and disabled. • Establish school district debt limits. • Adjust tax rates of certain taxing districts that cross county boundaries. • Provide county boards of equalization and assessment appeals boards with ratios that they must use when revising assessments appealed to them by taxpayers. • Maintain a reasonable degree of equality in the assessment levels of the 58 counties. I - 2 - t_ THE ROLE OF THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The laws governing the work of theassessor'sof all counties in California are made by the Legisla- ture, not by the individual county governing bodies. The duties of the assessor are: To discover all taxable_ property; To value it; To list it on the assessment roll. The county assessor is not the tax collector. Nor does he make any of the decisions which deter- mine the total amount of taxes to collected. The assessor's primary responsibility is to determine the value of each piece of property, so that in • proportion to this value all owners of taxable property may contribute a fair share of the cost of supporting the schools,fire and police departments,health facilities, and other essential government services. The sum of money needed each year by a local government, over and above its revenues from un- secured property taxes and other sources, determines what is called the tax rate. The tax rate of each governmental unit within which a property is situated is applied to each $100 of the property's assessed value. TAXABLE PROPERTY Standing timber is an example of real property specifically exempted from ad valorem tax and sub- ject to a special yield tax. All privately owned real property in California not exempt from tax Under the federal or State Constitutions or statutes is subject to taxation and is assessed at the some proportion of "fair market value," or "full value when a standard other than fair market value is prescribed by the Constitution or by statute. Most tangible personal property is also tax- able in proportion to value. These provisions of law are intended to distribute the burden of tax- ation equally on all tangible property, both real and personal. REAL PROPERTY is defined as • The possession of, claim to, ownership of, or right to the possession of land. All mines, minerals, and quarries in the land, all standing timber whether or not belonging to the owner of the land, and all rights and privileges appertaining thereto. • Improvements (buildings; structures; fixtures; fences; fruit, nut, and planted ornamental trees and vines). Also taxable are possessory interests in real property, except standing timber, which is subject to the yield tax. These are rights of possession held by private parties in government-owned land or improvements. Some examples: U.S. Forest Service permits for summer homes, grazing leases, and mining rights. PERSONAL PROPERTY is defined as all property except real property. Generally all tangible personal property is taxable. Included are: Portable machinery and equipment including office furniture, tools, supplies, merchandise, consigned goods, raw materials, and goods in process. But there are many exceptions to this general rule. Household goods and personal effects and 50 percent of all inventories, for example, are tax-exempt. Intangibles are not taxed. Some of these intangibles are: Bank accounts, notes, stocks and bonds, debentures, liquor licenses, insurance policies, club memberships, copyrights and solvent credits. - 3 - Tax Reform Conference - Dec 8-9 , 1976 \ Page 6 . budget team that they take a look at the state mandated costs imposed upon the City of Huntington Beach and see how much of our administrative costs are impacted by state and federally mandated programs . In addition, I have re- quested the City Administrator to ask the budget team as they prepare the years budget (once we have adopted our goals) that they work toward a five year goal of reducing the costs of city government over the next five years . I appreciate the opportunities offered me as an elected official as well as Mayor of the City this year to take advantage of invitations to attend such seminars and conferences . My only regret is that there are not more members of our City Council that are available or inclined to want to do likewise . I hope that this will change in the future . If not , if in my attendance I can share this knowledge and information with you, I am sure that our City Council will be more effective on behalf of our constituency. 16f, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7 6-118 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION „ � HUNTINGTON BEACH To HONORABLE MAYOR AND From FLOYD G. BELSITO . CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY ADMINISTRATOR Subject AMENDING THE ORDINANCE Date JULY 26 , 1976 RELATING TO THE OCCUPANCY TRANSIENT TAX Present wording of Section 3 . 28 . 090 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code pertaining to the remittance of tax collected for transient occupancies , and the related accompanying report , contains ambiguous language that might be construed so as .to require tax submission following the close of each calendar quarter , rather than on a monthly basis , as has been the custom Tor-many years . To aid in resolving the matter, the amended ordinance will provide for a due date to the City on the last day of the month following the related activity of the prior calendar month, with a delinquency factor taking effect on the first day of the second month following. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Ordinance Number 2098 amending Section 3. 28 . 090 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code be adopted. Respectfully submitted , FloydrKinistrator elsito City FGB:bb ORDINANCE NO.,Z. 0 gig AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 3. 28.090 PERTAINING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain -as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach- Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 3 . 28.090 to read as follows : 3. 28. 090 Reporting and remitting. Each operator shall file a report tie--lae-t-day-e-f--theeach month on forms provided by the city treasurere��e�aeg- ie-e�eee-e -eaei-ea�eada� qaa-pteP7-eJ2-at-the-eaeee-a€-aey-ehe_F�6e-p-Pepe,�6A.Rg-PeP4ed wiei- a -ee-esae� sed-a - ix;of the total rents charged and received and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies for the preceding month. �4 -fee- ie- ie- e#�t�a 4:e-€-i-1ed3-tThe full amount of tax collected shall be remitted to the city treasurer. die-e �- �eaee�e�-�aa�-eea��#e ee� e�-�e�e� ag-�eede-€ems-a -ee� € eae- ie�de�- -de deee- -aeeeeea� - a-e�de�- e- eea�e-ee��eeea-a€-tie-ta* aad-die-�xa - e�e �e- a� ie�- ee� a }ea-}�s-ode-�ea�a:Said tax, coZZected by each operator during a caZendar month, is due and payable on the Zast day of the first month foZZowing and shaZZ be delinquent and subject to the penaZties noted in Section 3. 28. Z00 of this chapter on the first day of the second month foZZowing. Said report shaZZ be fiZed at the . same time the tax is remitted. Returns are due and payable. and delinquent immediately upon cessation of business for any. reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the city until payment is made to the city treasurer. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after .its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the pas- sage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News , a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published 1. MT:ahb r 0V � y h i in Huntington Beach, California. 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 , 1976 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Ci try Att rn M,T APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AND AS INITIATING DEPARTMENT: NO FISCAL IMPACT y� FISCAL IMPACT -- BUDGETED �o FISCAL IMPACT -- NOT BUDGETED Ci Administrator REQUIRES FINANCIAL IMPACT RE°ORT �� 2.. 76-9'8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION , HUNTINGTON BEACH ^-^ V To HONORABLE MAYOR AND From FLOYD G. BELSITO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR Subject AMENDING THE ORDINANCE Date JUNE 29, 1976 RELATING TO THE OCCUPANCY TRANSIENT TAX Pre ent wording of Section 3 . 28 . 090 of the Hu; tington Beach Muni ' pal Code pertaining to the remittance of tax collected for t nsient occupancies , and the relate accompanying report , contain ambiguous language that might construed so as to require ax submission following the ose of each calendar quarter, ther than on a monthly is , as has been the custom To r-many y r s . AV To aid in res loin the matter 'the amended ordinance will g provide for a ue date to thCity on the fifth of the month following the r ated activity of the prior calendar month., with a delinquen factor,.,A aking effect five days subsequent, or the tenth of t mont . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended at Ordinance Number ' O q Q amending Section 3. 28 . 090 f the Huntington Beach Municipal Code be adopted. Respectfully ubmitted, Floyd elsito Acting ty Administrator FGB:b ti ,a WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE CITY CLERK •� CITY OF HUNTINGTra�BEACH No. GREEN-C1 T,CLERK', "ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL ,F. REQUEST= for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Y Date' .• Request made by Department • C 1 Tune 10, 1976 Arnold Ross Administration INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting'at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate _ paragraph outline briefly reasons'•£or the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's,Office. 1 Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: 5octian 3. 2 , 639Q of the Huntington beach iMunicipal Code relating to the Transit Occupancy Tax is in dire need of amending to aid in clarifying several 'inconclusive areas ; it appears that the City may conceivably J have been improperly .collecti.ng Bed Taxes and penaltios for many years , orgo, this request at addressing the problem and resolving the con7 ten.tious, matter® 5,dggested Format for 3. 28. 090--Reporting and Remitting Each operator shall gale a re-p- rt the last day of each I ntth,,dh farM.9 provided by the Cizy Treasurer, of the total lent &ffar-ged and ree-iyved and the amount of -tax collected. for Transient Occupancies , At the lime the report is filed, the full anount of tax collected shall 'be remitted to the City Treasurer. Those paYments shall be delinquent on the 6enth day, after.. the day such Payments are due and payable to the City. men s received subs,equent to the teeth day shall be ;subject to!- penalties and 'interest. l turns. 'and pa.y=nts are due iiii iediat6ly upon ,., cessa.tion of business for any reason. All takes collected by operators pprsuant to this chapter ahal1 be held. in trust for the Accotint of the City until payment is made to the City Treasurer. Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds June 21 , 1976 Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: G it �;• City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 76-97 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To HONORABLE MAYOR AND From FLOYD G. BELSITO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR Subject AMENDING THE ORDINANCE Date JULY 12 , 1976 0 RELATING TO OIL PRODUCTION SEVERANCE TAX P-* Section 5. 32 . 140 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to penalty fees for delinquent payment of oil production business tax presently allows for a one month delinquency factor, or a virtual 30-day grace period beyon t e elinquency dates for fee submission- to the City, before penalties can be assessed. The fee in question refers to the quarterly oil severance tax payments which are due to the City on or before April 1 , July 1 , October 1 , and January 1 for the respective quarters and "delinquent on the 31st. day after the day such quarterly payments are due and payable. " Substituting the recommended language in Section 5 . 32 . 060 will have the desired effect of resolving the matter, and allowing for the more appropriate 30-day delinquency period, before penalties for late payment can be assessed. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No.20 97 relating to penalty fee for delinquent payment of oil production business tax. Respectfully submitted, B r� Floyd . Belsito , Acting City Administrator FGB :bb Attachment ORDINANCE NO. 2- 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 5 . 32.060 RELATING TO PAY- MENT OF OIL PRODUCTION BUSINESS TAX The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The .Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 5. 32. 060 to read as follows: ° 5. 32. 060 Quarterly payments--When delinquent. All pay- ments for all quarters , as required by this chapter, shall be delinquent on the } - ems -dad=a€ ems- e-�a -seed-Qaa� e�� ga3ee-awe-sae-a �-�aa��eday following the due day for any such quarterly payment. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the pas- sage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days .after adoption in the Huntington Beach News , a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of August, 1976. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City - Clerk tb9P� City ttorn 1. WSA: ahb APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AND AS INITIATING DEPARTMENT: -/-�' NO FISCAL IMPACT Cit Administrator FISCAL HPACT -- BUDGETED FISCAL IMPACT -- NOT BUDGETED REQUIRES FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT 2.. WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE C I TY CLERK , CITY OF HUNTINGTVN BEACH No. ' - GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION . Date '. Request made by Department June 10;'11,976 Arnold Ross Administration INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must 7 be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: Section 5. 32.140-Penaltyfor DelinSuencies, relating to •Oil Production Severance Tax, allows for a virtu~`al 30-day grace period bend the delinuericy dates for fee submission to the City, before penalties can be .assessed.. What is req'ired at this time is appropriate language like. sq;_ . .- 5. 32.140 Penalty for Delinquencies If any fee ^herein rec'uixe-a .to `be 'paid -to the City is not paid before it becom4,,$ delinquent, as provided in this chapter, a. pe?nalty in an amount oqual .*o 10 percent of 'sucb fee shall be added thereto and an additional penalty in _an anciunit -equal ;to 10 percent of such fee for each one-month ' pofiod during which such fee coi'tirues or remains delinquent shall be assessed. Such penalties shall be and become a part _of: such fee and shall be enforced and collected as 'part of such fee; provided; however, that the aggregate of .such penalties shall: not exceed 100 percent of .the amount of the delinquent license fee. { Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds June 21, 1976 Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: City Administrator d e OQ2G�— — �� ! City of Hunting ton Beach 9 Y B _ , P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 626" _ 7 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK �D September 8, 1976 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fountain Valley 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92108 Gentlemen The City-Council of. the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Tuesday, September 7, 1976, adopted Resolution No. 4319' urging the California State Legislature to review the -State property tax structure and to enact such -appropriate legislation as. may be necessary tc provide property tax relief to homeowners. We are enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 4319 for your information. Sincerely yours, Alicia M.. Wentworth 'City Clerk AMW:cb enc. RESOLUTION NO. 4319 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO REVIEW THE STATE PROPERTY TAX STRUCTURE AND TO ENACT SUCH APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF TO HOMEOWNERS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach . finds that an inequity exists in the State tax structure as already overburdened property owners are currently faced with an average increase of 26% over previous property assessments; and Since SB. 90 established property .tax ceilings for local jurisdictions, the State of. California will be the greatest beneficiary of the increase in assessed values; and Even though some local jurisidictions plan .to reduce property tax rates,, - such reductions do not substantially affect . a homeowner's overall tax Vill in .light of. the increased. asses"sements; and A revision of the tax structure is the most direct and efficient means of providing much-needed tax relief to property owners; and The task of bringing equity to the existing tax structure rests squarely with the State of California, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in furtherance of its policy of maintaining taxes to the minimum to the citizens of the City of Huntington Beach while providing the highest quality of services, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach urges all State legislators to make every effort to review and reform the property tax structure to eliminate the many inequities which currently exist. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council supports and encourages legislation designed to provide -ii—iiediate property tax relief. to the property owners of the Ci*y. Pr BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to all area representatives of the State Legislature, the Orange County Board of Supervisors , the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities , as well as to the mayors of all Orange County cities . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of September, 1976. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED -AS TO ORM: . N P. BONFA, C Attorney ty Administrator Asst . -CityXtb4rney APPROVED, INITIATING DEPARTMENT NO FISCAL IMPACT FISCAL IMPACT -- BUDGETED FISCAL IMPACT -- NOT BUDGETED REQUIRES FINANCIAL IMPACT RE°ORT 2 . Res. No. 4319 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 7th day of September , 19 76 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: flnrtlptt, Pattinann -n n- Gihh, Siebert, Sh -n man- Wieder NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None i I J.."� City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of'the City of Huntington Beach, California i i he foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the-original on file in this office. Attest City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the City ' Council of the City of Huntington Beach,Cal. �u��Denn�► 10 6 says CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 76-134 t ?� COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION w: HUNTINGTON BEACH To The Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G: Belsito x,� City Council Members City Administrator Subject 1976/7,7 TAX RATE Date August 26, 1976- The city of Huntington Beach assessed valuation for 1976 77 is $710 , 079, 235 , $50 ,079,235 higher than originally estimated. This increase in assessed valuation over the estimate would provide an additional $811 ; 284 in revenues at the. present $1 . 62 per $100 tax rate. The City Council must adopt a tax rate by resolution for FY 1976-77 on or before August 31 , 1976 . Attached are- four different tax rate structures for the City Council to consider. It is my recommendation that the tax rate remain at the present $1 . 62 because wage settlements are not finalized with the various associations . During the budget hearings the City Council discussed several times the possibility of having to increase or impose various user fees. The additional revenues from the property tax may give the City Council the flexibility of not having to increase or impose these fees . If there were a surplus after negotiations , these monies could then be used for the establishment of an equipment replacement fund, acceleration of the ash tree replacement program or other one-time projects . If the tax rate is reduced and negotiations are com- pleted which result in expend.itures . in excess " of -our contingency balance , it would be necessary to provide the difference from other sources of revenue such tips user fees : Also attached for your perusal is a listing of- Orange County cities and their adopted FY 1976-77 tax rates .. Respectfully submitted,- Floyd -G. elsito a City Administrator FGB:bb \✓ s August 20, 1976 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTY TAX RATE AND AMOUNT @ $710, 079 ,235 RATE AMOUNT General 1. 00000 7 ,100,792 Employee Retirement . 16608 1, 179, 3.00 i Library .15000 1, 065,11-9 Recreation and Parks . 19551 1 , 388, Z76 Music and Promotion . 03392 .240, 859 1955 Water Bond . 00464 32 ,948 0 j 1970 Park Bond . .6985 495 , 990 TOTAL 1 . 62000 11 ,503 , 284 Increase. (Decrease) -0- I i I i 1 _ i f j i j . I I c yy ., August 26 , 1976 RATE AMOUNT General 1 . 0000 7 , 100 , 792 Employee Retirement . 16608 1 , 179 , 300 Library . 15000 1 , 065 , 119 Rec & Parks . 17447 1 , 238 , 875 Music & Promotions . 03128 222 , 113 1955 Water Bond . 00464 32 , 948 1970 Park Bond . 06985 495 ,990 Total 1 . 59632 11 , 335 , 137 i Decrease ( . 02368) i DECREASE IN ANNUAL HOME- HOME ASSESSED AT OWNER' S PROPERTY TAX BILL ' $50 , 000 $2 . 55 i ! $60 , 000 $3 . 14 $70, 000 $3. 73 $80 , 000 $4. 33 i $90 , 000 $4. 92 $100 , 000 $5. 51 i f ! - 2- i I . I August 26 , 1976 i I I i C RATE AMOUNT General . 9736.8 6 , 913 , 899 Employee Retirement . 16608 1 , 179 , 300 I Library . 15000 1 , 065 , 119 Rec $ Parks . 17447 1 , 238 , 875 I Music and Promotions . 03128 222 , 113 j 1955 Water Bond . 00464 32 , 948 I 1970 Park Bond . 06985 495 , 990 i Total 1 . 57 11 , 148 , 244 Decrease (. 05) I I DECREASE IN ANNUAL HOME- 1 HOME ASSESSED AT . OWNER' S 'PROPERTY TAX BILL ; j $50 ,000 $5 . 38 i i $60 , 000 $6. 63 j $701, 000 $7. 88 $80,000 $9. 13 j $90 ,000 $10. 38 I $100, 600 $11 . 63 i i i - 1 f j i l - 3- s i i August 26 , 1976 RATE AMOUNT General . 91026 6 , 463, 567 Employee Retirement . 16608 10179 , 300 i Library . 15000 1 ,065 , 119 Rec & Parks . 17447 1 , 238 , 875 Music & Promotions . 03128 222 , 113 i 1955 Water Bond . 00464 32 , 948 i 1970 Water Bond . 06985 495 ,990 i j Total l. 50658 10 ,697 , 912 Decrease ( .'113420) i i f DECREASE IN ANNUAL- HOME- HOME ASSESSED AT OWNER' S PROPERTY TAX BILL $50 , 000 $12 . 20 $60 , 000 $15 . 0.3 $70 , 000 $17. 87 i $80, 000 $20. 70 $90 , 000 $23. 54 $100 , 000 $26. 38 i -4- 'i August 26 , . 1976 CITY TAX RATES CITY TAX RATE LABOR SETTLEMENT FY 76 FY 77 DIFF . Anaheim $1 . 05 $ . 95 . $ . 10 Yes Brea _ $1. 43 $1. 40 $ . 03 No Buena Park $1 . 06 $1. 02 $ . 04 No Costa Mesa $1 . 4474 $1 . 3217 $ . 1257 Yes Cypress $ . 95 $ . 895 $ . 055 Yes Fountain Valley $1 . 43 $1. 295 $ . 135 Yes Fullerton $1 . 3050 $1. 2650 $ . 04 No Garden Grove $1. 10 $1 . 10 -0- No Irvine $ . 33 $ . 33 -0- No Laguna Beach $2 . 107 $1 . 77 $ . 337 No La Habra No Data No Data La Palma $1 . 00 $ .198 $ . 02 No Los Alamitos $ . . 95 $ . 95 -0- Yes Newport Beach $1 . 16 $1 . 11 $ . 05 No Orange $1 . 29 $1 . 18 $ . 11 Yes Placentia $1 . 22 $1. 18. $ . 04 Yes San Clemente $1 . 44 $1 . 21 $ . 23 Yes San Juan Capistrano $1. 10 $1 . 06 $ . 04 No Santa Ana $1 . 61 $1 . 59 $ . 02 No Seal Beach $1 . 35 $1. 07 $ . 28 No Stanton No Data No Data Tustin $ . 9955 $ . 96 $ . 0355 No Villa Park $ . 98 $ . 95 $ . 03 No Westminster $ . 86 $ . 70 $ . 16 Yes Yorba Linda No Tax Rate No- �t 0. • August 26, 1976 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTY TAX RATE AND AMOUNT @ $710, 079,235 RATE AMOUNT i General ,41a49 1-rA9A04 , . L,7S2,�8� l- Employee Retirement . 16608 11179 , 3.00 I c Library .15000 1 , 065,1P9 Recreation and Parks -?o .19551 1,48-�;�-76 1, 3 i Music and Promotion 031 36 . 03392 1955 Water Bond . 00464 32 ,948 0 7 1970 Park Bond . .6985 495 , 990 TOTAL h Sb 00 o 1=6 2-( 6&O i _ — ll, � � "7, Z37 j . Increase . (Decrease) -0- i j j i I _ 2 OY 7 j .i . I I i i . -1- r r, n� August 29, 1976 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL% Please read this carefully. It is not a technical report; but I have thought it out prior .to writing. Everyone is appalled and concerned about the recent Hardships placed on. belaagered property owners. The recent increases in property assesinents have taken I heavy toll on the American public... Unfortunately many politicians are seizing this unfortunate sit- uation to capitalize on it pmlitically. They think that bythrowiiig a meaningless bone to the homeowner everything will turnout rosy: NONSENSE. . . A bone without meat thrown to a starving man is a cruel thing to do. Now let me get down to specific recommendations ' as they relate to the people of Hungington Beach-. Our current $1 . 62 tax-irate should not be tampered with simply to thnow that meaningless bone to our residents. Politics should not play a role in a deeision which will have short and long term Eihancial implications. People need relief not rhetoric and false information. For example , if we .reduce. our tax rate as much as i05 an owner of a $60,000 house would realize a pitiful reduction of. $6:63 a year in his city property taxes.. Is this relief? 111kt kxsst I think not.. .. Not many weeks ago we were looking for ways to raise revenues . We were seriously considering imposing a trash collection -fee on our residents : The cost of such a fee would. have been about 20 to 24 dollars a years. This is more than triple the . $6.63 saved due to a poiiible taxi decrease. May I suggest that we bite the bullet and not. impise any such dee even at the risk on not having the desired reserves and contingencies. THIS WOULD SHOW REAL EFFORT on our part. {1 ) A token reduction in the property -tax rate will do the following: 1 : Provide little or no reliefhomeowners. 2. . Reduce the city' s income by _several hundred thousand dollars which in turn could necessitate the following: 3. Imposition -of user$ fees which would place real hardships on thousands of Huntington Beach residents.. 4. Possibly cause us to curtail needed and wanted. social and. human services . Our goad should be as follows : 1 . Curtail cost of government by keeping growth to 5% to 7% annually. 2. Develop a long range plan planning for economic downturns as we had in 1974. This could aasily occur .again in 1978� 3. Base financial deeisiohs on .factual data as '-much as possible. 4. Continue our moratorium on hiring of personnel unless the .- Situation: if critical. Remember action. without information is .irresponsible. Can.-you imagine . reducing a tax rate without data which shows the consequences? RE[VEMBER, PEOPLE ARE CRYING OUT FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AND NOT A. PATRONIZING GOVERNMENT OUR RULERS WILL BEST PROMOTE THE IMPROVEMENT OF' - THE NATION -BY - STRICTLY CONFINING THEMSELVES . TO;,THEIR OWN. LEGITIMATE 'DUTIES,. . -BY LEAVING CAPITAL TO FIND ITS MOST•. LUCRATIVE -SOURSE; • COMNiODITIES THEIR PAIR 1PRICE, INDUSTRY AND INTELLIGENCE T HEIR NATURAL:REWARD, IDLENESS AND FOLLY THEIR NATURAL PUNISHMENT, B'Y-MAINTAING: PEACE, . BY DEFENDING. PROPERTY .AND BY OBSERVING STRICT ECONOIVIY ';IN. EVERY DEPARtMEINT OF THEN STATE. LHT THE GOVERNMENT .DO TRIS_THE PEOPLE WILL ASSUREDFL�r DO THE REST. . .Thomas Babington Macaulay. . . . . : ..: : . : : Snce. relp� L Ron' S hsskman i 410 kit r'R PARCELS MUA+TI4GT(lN 3E.iCH CITY MAY Up 070 :/A A/P o 3C3 0 ACS-6A401 i 4"-001 114-160-54 NCLLP WILLIAl A ET AL 4301 N FIGUERCA LCS ANGELES! CAL 90063 i 4=00.1 114-160-55 BpCCKHJRST ASSOCIATES (DTI 6333 41LSHI�E SLVU SUITE. 1:5? �1 9.VEreLY HILLS* CAL 90211 �R 46In 4-001 114-1bC-5e CC%;NT♦ 4'4NITATION UIST e 1 ET LL P El 33- X 5175 108L.+ iLLIS AW FCU-%TAIN 'VLT+ CAL 9270_ 4" a-001 LIA-160-60 STLU OF CALIF CEPT JX PU3LIr. M04rS y-001 IIA-160-01 STATE OF CALIF OEPT- U PUBLIC. :03KS F IR 4-001 114-100-63 STATE Of CALIF OEPI OF :U3lIC MOPKS .-GO, 1116-ieO-64 ST.% GF C:.IIF-FwI.A " 4-G01 114-Lo0-OP, Tn_PPE+ JAISEY E. N (NRI ?ICCIAiLLIr PHILI.P P 0 539 4167 rES.S• AAt1 �S�u s. �A :-001 114-160-64 TP.O;iPE+. DAISEY E H tNQ1. PICCIRELLi+ P141LIP P J box 4167 MrSe• 4FI2 � '0 -001 11:-200-09 CGUhTv :+-ANITATIC-N GIST *I GF ORANGE Ca ET 4L P 3 80X 317; 10844 ELLIS Aft F6UNTAIN VLY. CGL 927U 04 B y 27.B3,4C x 51 14 R. S. 86-7 69J a Y =S. 34.83 AC. o y 1 sq \ /.57AC o I ';• R.S.29 - 27 - -•jo.r..`S' a ,1`, m I {' za' 9s R. S. 49-20 m �C m . j� R.S.P5 -94 ,- 39 /2.56 AC. •'3n. .�y, A. B j P�• TDr 43.40AC. �Q FRWY. p c' 3a •o•/ h v lets' 51 1 22.21 AC. 3804' ^� / � ba;� �� 0 37, R S. B 6-B P A . !35j (13IN a 63 O�Q \ 6.03 AC. s ' � 47.09' Ss Off' q1 ,•,. CENTER SEC. /9-6- /O as 9' R. S. 86-/O , /95/ ' BANNING TRACT Q > /976to PL NOTE = ASS OR'S BL B ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL NUMBERS % BOOK 114 PAGE 16 SHOWN /N CLES COUNTY OF ORANGE �_: ' 12 September 1975 a TO: City Council FROM: City Administrator SUBJECT: Correcting Ordinance Re Uniform Transient .Occupancy Tax Transmitted herewith for first reading by the City Council is an ordinance the purpose of which is. to correct a clerical error of omission on the part of Book Publishing Company when it published the new Huntington Beach. Municipal Code and in- . advertently omitted Chapter 3 . 28, Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, contrary to both the intent of the City Council and the instructions of the city to Book Publishing Company. The City Attorney 's Office has researched this matter, and finds that the law is not clear on whether the method to be used in correcting a publisher's error of omission is by having the publisher provide to city the proper. insert pages for insertion in the copies _of the Huntington Beach Municipal _ Code books, or whether the correction should be accomplished by the adoption of a correcting ordinance . In order to be sure that the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance is legally enforceable, the City Attorney ' s Office has recommended the conservative approach which consists of reenacting the ordinance. Respectfully submitted, /lam DAVID D. ROWLANDS City Administrator DDR:ahb Attachment S 12 September. 1975 r10 6 TO: City Council FROM: City Administrator SUBJECT: Correcting Ordinance Re Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Transmitted herewith for first reading by the City Council is an ordinance the purpose of which is to correct a clerical error of omission on the part .of Book Publishing Company when it published the new Huntington Beach -Municipal Code and in- advertently omitted Chapter 3 . 28, Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, contrary to both the intent of the City Council and the instructions of the city to Book Publishing Company . The City Attorneys Office has researched this matter, and finds that the law is not clear on whether. the method to be used in correcting. a publisher's error of omission is by having the publisher provide to city .the proper insert pages for insertion in the copies of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code books , or whether the correction should be accomplished by the adoption of a correcting ordinance . In order to be sure that the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax .Ordinance is legally enforceable , the City Attorney ' s Office has recommended the conservative approach which consists .of reenacting the ordinance. Respectfully submitted, z2, - cz, DAVID D. ROWLANDS City Administrator DDR:ahb Attachment J ORDINANCE 140. 2015 AN ORDINANCE OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTIPIGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERLTO CHAPTER 3. 28 PERTAINING TO T11E UNIFORM TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY_ TAX The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, by Ordinance No . 1990 , has adopted, effective July 16 , 1975 , the Huntington Beach Municipal Code as a reco- dification of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code; and WHEREAS, Book Publishing Company erroneously failed to include the text of Chapter 3 .28, Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, contrary to both the intent of the City Council and the instruction of the city to Book Publishing Company , this ordinance is being enacted to correct such clerical error of omission on the part of Book Publishing Company. SECTION 2. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 3 . 28 thereto to read as follows : Chapter 3.28 UNIFORM TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 3. 28.010 Purpose . The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby declares that this chapter, which shall be known as .the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax is adopted to provide a tax on the rent charged in a hotel by the operator of said hotel . 3. 28. 020 Definitions . Except where the context otherwise requires , the definitions given in this section govern the con- struction of this chapter: (a) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture , association, social club , fraternal organization, MT: er 1 . joint stock company , corporatiion, estate, trust, business trust , receiver,. trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination • acting as a unit . (b) "Hotel" means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occu- pancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes , and includes any hotel , inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel , lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory , public or private club, mobilehome or house trailer at a fixed location, . or other similar structure or portion thereof. (c) "Occupancy" means the use or possession or the right to the use or possession of any room or rooms or portion thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes . (d) "Transient" means any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit , right of access , license or other agreement for a period of thirty ( 30 ) consecutive calendar days or less , counting portions of calendar days as full days . Any such person so occupying space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thirty ( 30) days has expired unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy.. In determining whether a person is a transient, uninterrupted periods of time extending both prior and subsequent to the effective date of this chapter may be con- sidered. (e) "Rent" means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for. the occupancy of space in a hotel valued in money , whether to be received in money, goods , labor or otherwise, including all receipts , cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature , without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. (f) "Operator" means the person who is proprietor of the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mort- gagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity . Where the operator performs his functions through managing agent of any type or character other than an employee, the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for the purposes of this chapter and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Com- pliance with the provisions of this chapter by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be considered to be com- pliance by both. 3.28. 030 Tax Imposed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax on the rent charged by the operator at a rate equal to the current , combined state and local use tax rate. Said rate shall be declared by the City Council by resolution from time to time . Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment . The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient ' s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel . If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the, operator of the hotel, the city treasurer may require that such tax be paid directly to the city treasurer. 3. 28. 040 Exemptions . No tax shall be imposed upon: (a) Any person as to whom, or any occupancy as to which it is beyond the power of the city to impose the tax herein pro- vided; (b ) ' Any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business ; (Rest of Page Not Used) 3• (c) Any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express . provision of federal law 'or inter- national treaty ._ . No :exempt shall be granted except upon a claim there- for made .:at. the .time rent is collected and: under penalty of per- Jury 'upon a form prescribed .by the city treasurer. . .3.28. 050 Operator' s Duties . Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter to the same extent and at the same time as ,the rent is. collected from every transient . The amount of tax shall be. separately stated from the amount of the rent charged, � and.. each .transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator.. .Ido operator `of a hotel shall advertise or state- in . any. manner, whether directly or indirectly, that the tax- or any .part thereof will be -assumed or absorbed by the opera- tor, or that it will not be added to the rent , or that , if added, any part will be . refunded except in the manner hereinafter pro- vided. . . 3.28. 060 Register. Every owner; .keeper or proprietor of any lodging :house , rooming house, motel or hotel shall keep a register wherein -he shall : re.quir.e all guests , roomers or .lodgers to inscribe their names .upon their procuri-ng lodging of. a room or accommoda- tions . Said register shall also show the day of the month and year when said name was inscribed, and the room occupied, or to be occupied by said lodger, or roomer or guest in such lodging house, rooming house, motel or hotel Said register shall be kept - in a. conspicuous place in said lodging house, rooming house, motel or hotel, and .shall at all times be open to inspection by any peace officer of. the State of California. 3. 28. 070 Guests must register. Before any lodging for hire to .any person s in any lodging house, or before renting any room to any person(s ) in any rooming house; or before furnishing any accommodations to any guest(s ) at any motel or hotel, the pro- prietor, manager or owner thereof shall require the person(s ) to whom such lodgings are furnished, or room is rented, or accommo- dations furnished, to inscribe his/their name(s ) in such register kept for that purpose as hereinabove provided, and shall set oppo- site said name(s ) the time when .said name(s ) was/were so inscribed, the room occupied by such lodger(s ) 3 roomer(s ) , or guest(s ) , and the license number and description of the vehicle said lodger(s ) , roomer(s) or guest(s ) drove . 3. 28. 080 Registration. Within thirty ( 30) days after the effective date of this chapter, or within thirty ( 30) days after commencing business , whichever is later, each operator of any hotel renting occupancy to transients shall register said hotel with the city treasurer and obtain from him a "Transient Occu- pancy Registration Certificate" to be at all times posted in a conspicuous place on the premises . Said certificate shall, among other things , state the following: 4. (a.) The name of the operator. ; (b ) The address of the hotel; (c ) The date upon which the certificate was issued. (d) "This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named on the face hereof has fulfilled the requirements of. Chapter 3. 28 by registering with the city treasurer for the purpose of collecting from transients the Transient Occupancy 'Pax and remitting said tax to the city treasurer. This certificate does not authorize any person to conduct any unlawful business or to conduct any lawful business in an unlawful mariner, nor to operate a hotel without strictly complying with all local applicable laws , including but not limited to those requiring a permit from any board, commission, department or office of this city . This certificate does not constitute a permit ." 3.28. 090 Reporting and remitting. Each operator shall file a report the last day of the month following the close of each calendar quarter, or at the close of any shorter reporting period which may be established by the city treasurer, on forms provided by him, of the total rents charged and received and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies . At the time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the city treasurer. The city treasurer may establish shorter reporting periods for any certificate holder if he deems it neces- sary in order to insure collection of the tax and he may require further information in the return. Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for any .reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the city until payment is .made to the city treasurer. 3. 28. 100 Penalties and Interest . The following shall give rise to penalties and interest: (a) Original Delinquency . Any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter within the time required shall pay a penalty of ten percent (10% ) of the amount of the tax in addition to the amount of the tax. (b) Continued Delinquency . Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of thirty ( 30) clays following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent ( 10%) of the amount of the tax in addition to the amount of the tax and the ten percent ( 10%) penalty first imposed. (c ) Fraud. If the city treasurer determines that the non- payment of any remittance due under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the tax 5 . i shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subparagraphs (a.) and (b ) of this section. (d) Interest . In addition to the .penalties imposed, any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate. of one half (112) of one percent (1%) per month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the tax, exclusive of penalties , from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid. (e ) Penalties Merged with .Tax. Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this section shall become a part of the tax herein required to be paid. 3. 28. 110 Failure to collect and report tax--Determination of tax by city treasurer. If any operator shall fail or refuse to collect said tax and to make, within the time provided in this chapter, any report and remittance of said tax or any portion thereof required by this chapter, the city treasurer shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due . As soon as the city treasurer shall procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this chapter. and payable by any operator who has failed or refused to collect the same and to make such report and remittance, he shall. proceed to determine; and assess against such operator the tax, interest and penalties provided .for by this chapter. In case such determination is made , the city treasurer shall give a notice of the amount so assessed by serving it personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the operator so assessed at his last known place of address . Such operator may within ten ( 10) days after the . serving or mailing of such notice make application in writing to the city treasurer for a hearing on the amount, assessed. If application by the operator for a hearing is not made within the time prescribed, the tax, interest and penalties ,' if any, determined by the city treasurer shall become final and conclusive and immediately due and payable. If such application is made , the city treasurer shall give not less than five (5) days written notice in the manner prescribed herein to the operator to show cause at a time and place fixed in said notice why said amount specified therein should not be fixed for such tax, interest and penalties . At such hearing, the operator may appear and offer evidence why such specified tax, interest and penal.ties should not be so fixed. After such hearing the city treasurer shall determine the proper tax to be remitted and shall thereafter give written notice to the person and in the manner prescribed herein of such determination and the amount of such tax, interest and penalties . The amount determined to be due shall be payable after .fifteen (15) days unless an appeal is taken as provided in Section 3 . 28. 120 . 3. 28. 120 Appeal. Any operator, aggrieved by any decision of the city treasurer with respect to the amount of such tax, interest and penalties , if any , may appeal to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within fifteen (15) days of the serving or mailing of the determination of tax due . The . council shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal, and the city clerk sliall give notice in writing to such operator at his last known place of address . The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the appel- lant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hear- ing. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and .payable upon the service of notice . 3. 28. 130 Records . It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the city of any tax imposed by this chapter to keep and preserve , for a period of three ( 3) years , all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax as lie may have been liable for the collection of and payment to the city , which records the city treasurer shall have the right to inspect at all reasonable times . 3. 28 . 140 Refunds . The following shall warrant a refund: (a) Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the city under this chapter it may be refunded as provided in subparagraphs (b ) and (c ) of this section provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded , is filed with .the city treasurer within three ( 3) years of the date of payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the city treasurer. (b ) An operator may claim a refund or take as credit against taxes collected and remitted the amount overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established in a manner prescribed by the city treasurer that the person from whom the tax has been collected was not a transient ; provided , however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed unless the amount of the tax so collected has either been refunded to the transient or credited to rent subsequently payable by the transient to the operator. (c ) A transient may obtain a refund of taxes overpaid or paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received by the city by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection (a) of this section, but only when the tax was paid by the transient directly to the city treasurer, or when the transient having paid the tax to the operator, establishes to the satisfaction of the city treasurer that the transient has been unable to obtain a refund from the operator who col- lected the tax . (d) No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant established his right thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto. 7• 3. 28. 150 Actions to collect . Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by the transient to the city . Any such tax collected by an operator which has . not been paid to the city shall be deemed a debt owed -by the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the city under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City of Huntington Beach for the recovery of such amount .- 3.28: 160 Failure to register. Any operator or other per- son wbo fails or refuses to register as required herein, or to furnish any return required to be made, or who fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the city treasurer, or who renders a false or fraudulent return. or claim, is guilty of. a misdemeanor. Any person required to make, render., sign or verify any report or claim or who makes any false or fraudulent report or claim with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by this chapter to be made, is guilty of a misdemeanor. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage . The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News, a .weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach , California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of an adjourned Huntington Beach at / regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of October, 1975 . ATTEST: ✓1 Mayor pR0 TfiM City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City r y MT 8: 0 No. 2015 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-offi.cio Clerk of the City Council of. the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the .City Council of the City of Hurttington. Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of September 19 75 , .and was again read to said City Council at a regular . meeting thereof held on the 14th day of October 19 75 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen. Shipley; Duke NOES: Councilmen: Matney ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California '4 The Charter of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby amended by adding Section 1221 to read as follows: "Section 1221. REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX". "The City Council shall not levy a tax on the transfer or conveyance of any interest in real property unless authorized by the affirmative votes of a majority of the electors to authorize such a tax at a general or special election. Any ordinance heretofore adopted by the City Council levying a tax on the transfer or conveyance of any interest in real property prior to the effect- ive date of this amendment shall be of no further force and effect". RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30 (pltpostAlign a ) SENT TO March Fong Eu, Sec. of State p fST DATE2 Attn: Dorothy E. Anderson STREET AND NO. i O 111 Capitol Mall --� -M P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE N Sacramento, CA 95810 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ............ 10s RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only............600 N 2. Shows to whom,date and where delivered..35c O SERVICES With delivery to addressee only............85o DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................................................... SOB ZSPECIAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) .......................................... 300 POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Sep.1968 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ` City of Huntington Beach p ^, P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 626" OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June. 23, 1975 The 'Honorable March Fong Eu Secretary of State State of-California 111 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814 4. Attention: Dorothy E. Anderson Certification Officer Pursuant to your letter dated June 18, 1975, we are forwarding certi- fied copies of the publications related to the Huntington Beach Special Municiparl Election held May 27, 1975. Also enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 4087 relative to the canvass of said election and a certified copy of the argument against the charter amendment. Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth .City Clerk AMW:CB:tlo Encl. Executive Office (916)445-6371 ' Certification (916)445-1430 Corporation Index (918)445-2900 's7 Corporation Records (916)445-1768 Office of the Secretary of State 111 Capitol Mall Election Division (916)445-0820 r m a March Fong Eu Sacramento,California 95814 Legal Division(Corp.) (916) 445-0620 Notary Public Division (918)445-8507 °qucoRN�� State Archives (916)445-4293 Uniform Commercial Code (916)445-8061 _ 9 June 18, 1975 v' c_ -4 X ) n pzo Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk _ ;K P.0.Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 " C -n, Dear Ms. Wentworth: �p Charter amendment of the City of Huntinnton Beach, adopted at the election on May 27, 1975, was received and filed in this office on June 5, 1975. To complete our files, will you please forward a certified copy of all publications, a certified copy of any arguments for or against the charter proposal and a certified copy of the abstract of the vote. Very truly yours, Certifiron Officer DEA:s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH v To David D. Rowlands From James Georges City Administrator Deputy City Attorney Subject Fire Tax Exemption Date September 4, 1975 MEMORANDUM OPINION You have asked this office to .check the law regarding the city 's fire tax exemption with the county . Chief Picard in his July 28, 1975 letter to you is correct when he stated that once the city has filed for an exemption from the county 's .fire protection tax then it need not refile every year thereafter. Government Code Section 25643 .1n _the . second paragraph states that, "Every city which provides its own fire protection services and which files prior to. March lst of any year with the board of super- visors declaring that it is providing its own fire protection services , shall not be assessed during the following fiscal year and any year thereafter for, any portion of the costs of county fire protection services . " (Emphasis added. ) Government Code Section 25643 was repealed and reenacted with different wording in 1970. If the City of Huntington Beach has filed for tax exemption prior to March 1st of any year subsequent to 1970 then it doesn't have to refile for the exemption every year there- aft G / �o APPROVED BY : AMES GEORGES Deputy City Attorney JG :id DON P. BONF cc : Raymond C: Picard, Fire Chief City Attorn Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk 1-7s 1s -rw 5 RESOLUTION NO. 4125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1975-1976 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the city of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1975-1976 is $580,623,450; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach, as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities is: 1 . General $ 5,806;236 2. Employee Retirement 964,299 3• 1955 Water Bond I & R 32,979 4. Library 870,935 5• Recreation and Parks 1 ,085,708 6. Music and Promotion 182,548 . 7. 1970 Park Bond I s R 463,395 Total $ 9,4069- 160 and, A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 .62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1975-1976 be fixed at One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 .62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($)00.00) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1 . General Fund $ 1 .00000 2. Employee Retirement . 16608 3. 1955 Water Bond I .s R .00568 4. Library . 15000 5. Recreation.- and Parks . 18699 . 6. Music and Promotion .03144 7. 1970 Park Bond. 1 & R .07981 Total $ 1 .62000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August, 1975. Mayor PRO TEM ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Don P. Bonfa, City Attorney APPRO"r-D AS TO C CITY AUi,,i,; .. TOR `r Re lo. .4125 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 adjourned meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August 19 75 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: hartl att_ Cihhg. enen o. Ma nP,yt, MAP-, Wi adc+r NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California .ry r . OFFICE OF THE MAYOR PETER J. CONIGLIO vz MONTEREY,CALIFORNIA 99040 July 31, 1975 E E W E LJ TO: All Mayors of California Cities AUG 4 1975 My Dear Mr. Mayor: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I have addressed to our Governor. I am hopeful that after review your City will take similar action; and hopefully, if the movement grows it will have some impact at the State level. We would welcome any suggestions you might have on a concerted effort to ultimately effect relief for the tax payer in the form of comprehensive tax reform legislation. ersona 5.ea � o Mayor PJC/gm . 3 rOOACE OF THE MAYOR MONT[RZY,CALIFORNIA 03040 PETER J. CONIGUO July 210 1975 b The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor State Capitol ,.Sacramento,.. CA 95814 .Dear=.Governor Brown: The message of this letter is a matter of great urgency and concern tothe people of our City rAnd-,', I' believe,, to citizens-`of the State of California. iThe_ majority. of- the City of Monterey underwent a major re-assessment {for= the .fiscal year 1975•-76 which has. resulted in increases in -excess :100$. in-,-•many, instances and approximately 42-4.5% on an average. effect-lias, been devastating, particularly to our homeowners. While assessment in terms of total value may reflect fair market .value.;. the.-dramatic increase in one year is totally unfair. I •respectfully urge upon you and the Office of the Governor the support:: f •legislation which will limit the power of the assessor to .increase.­:;assessments in any given year •beyond-a certain maximum. The unfairneaA of massive increases in any single year could then be precluded. We are asking our representatives in the State legislature to sponsor-- such legislation and hope• that your office will support this kind of. enactment. In additi+on, to the foregoing, Mr. Governor, I urge that emergency legislation be explored and pursued for immediate relief to the tax payer,. particularly the homeowner, for the purpose of mitigating im. some manner this horrendous increase for this • fiscal year. In making this- request, I am mindful of the equalization appellate process available .to .the aggrieved citizen. . This offers no . solution or relief because' the problem, in most instances, is not the total assessment per`.se, but rather the fact that the. increase came all in one year. We have in -our; City people who literally can no longer afford to live in their homes because they cannot absorb this real property tax increase all in one year. They need help, and I. appeal to you and your office for assistance at the State level. v OFFICE OF THE MAYOR PETER J. CON1GL10 MONTaRRY,CALIFORNIA 93940 The..:Honorable.:Edmund G. :Brown,, Jr. . July.:21, 1975 Page 2 I :believe this kind of problem .has and will continue to. occur through- out California unless swift remedial action at the State level is pursued: You should be advised-.that the City of Monterey,-as. a taxing agency, is taking action to cut our tax rate substantially this year because we are -cognizant -of our responsibility in the total taxing process to do our .share to assi'st 'the tax payer. Additionally, Mr, Governor, I am strongly suggesting that a tax reform commi-ss<ion •be appointed or other State machinery be implemented to review.-the existing philosophy which req*es the property owner to accept the .�major burden of the ever increasing cost of`government. This is no longer a tolerable situation, and a more equitable manner must be .found ­to distribute the tax burden, To this end, I am appointing a local committee of citizens to explore this problem,. and I am� urging my fellow Mayors to do the same in their respective jurisdictions, Hopefully, the grass roots movement will grow and the resulting product will culminate in a series of realistic alternatives for a solution. to cure this cancerous infringe- ment on the basic rights of our people. Perhaps there are presently some :on-going. State investigations in this regards and if so, they should be accelerated and`- mandated as a `priority project. In closing, I know that the requests and suggestions herein contained may be an over simplification of a very complex problem. However, the people need help and all government, at every level, must respond. Back level has to play its part. Now is the time; The .City of Monterey stands ready to play its part. Thank you, . Mr. Governor, -for your immediate and understanding attention t matter. Re ectful yours, Con P /gm c`- - Assemblyman Murphy "SenAtot'.Grunsky City- Council • POSITIC PAPER FOR THE CITY OF MONTT-FY !` .,EGARDING PROPERTY TAXES July 1975 In Monterey, as elsewhere throughout the State of California , property taxes have taken a precipitous increase , primarily due to new assessments reflecting more realistic property values , and the citizens of the community have reacted very strongly to this situation. Property taxes have risen, in some cases , beyond the reasonable ability of property owners to pay them. This is particularly true in the case.of those single-family homeowners who are on fixed incomes , notably senior citizens, and for those who must live on moderate or restricted incomes. However, the ramifications of high property taxes goes far beyond the inability of some people to pay them. It ultimately permeates the entire community in that young people are unable to get into the housing market, middle-aged citizens are unable to meet the expenses of living and raising and educating their children , and those who are retired or are approaching retirement are faced with higher costs then they can bear, and no other housing alternatives are available to them. It appears to us that the time has arrived where the term "tax revolt" reflects a new reality, when a significant section of.the people of our community may no longer be able to afford the "luxury" of home ownership. This situation is not good, and has far reaching overtones for our society. Despite the efforts of some local government units to alleviate this situation by reducing the property tax rate, many units of local government, notably, school districts and counties, have- state-mandated costs and other built-in expenses which virtually eliminate their ability to further reduce the property tax rate. It has long been known that the property tax; despite its demonstrated ability to raise much needed_ government revenue , is not'a particularly good tax. The property tax, as has been noted , is both regressive and inelastic. The principles charges against the pr6perty tax are that it isn't necessarily related to a person's ability to pay, as the income tax theoretically is, and it is generally unresponsive to changing economic conditions. The City of Monterey believes that there should be basic structural tax reform which is based on the following general principles: 1. -There should be less reliance placed on the property tax, particularly as it relates to owner-occupied real estate, to pay the significant and growing costs of local government services. The property tax should, generally speaking , be replaced by the income tax as a means for paying a greater share of the cost for necessary local government services. 2 . The property tax should be relied upon primarily to pay property-related expenses of local government units , and not those which are human or socially related(such as education, welfare service, medical service, etc.) . -The-expenses of meeting these .functions are not logically related to the ownership and use of property. 3 . Basic reform should continually be made in the federal and state income taxes to the degree that existing tax "loop holes" are closed , which in effect would allevaiate the tax burden on the middle-class and increase the tax burden of those who have a greater ability to pay. 4 . The federal government should continue , and should increase the .amount of money available for, the general revenue sharing program. Additionally, special revenue sharing programs might also be expanded to assist the cities and counties towards meeting the expenses of specified programs and services.. 5'. The State of California should adopt a "revenue sharing" or a similar program which-basically would provide that a portion of the state revenue raised by personal and corporate income taxes would be at to the cities and counties on a formula basis in order to provide financial assistance and to decrease local government reliance on the property taxes, • 6. Concurrently with all of the above, local government should conduct a thorough exami- nation of all existing programs and services , should consider deleting or modifying those services which are not necessary or which could be appropriately reduced , and should conduct necessary services- in the most effective-and efficient means. We believe that the above ideas and suggestions would serve the residents and taxpayers of the State of California in a more beneficial fashion , and that the present crisis relating to assessment practices and property taxes would be substantially alleviated as a result of creating basic structural tax reform which generally adheresto the above and related principles. r City of Huntington Beach i y P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 28, 1975 /M Qi " ll� W. E. St John �i . County Clerk 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 �v Dear Sir: - (A) The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its Q v regular adjourned meeting held on Monday, August 25, 1975, P adopted Resolution No. 4125 fixing the Tax Rate for said City for the Fiscal year 1975-76. Enclosed is a certified copy for your information. Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:s cb Enclosure It RESOLUTION NO. 4125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1975-1976 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year 1975-1976 is $580,623,450; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the .amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington Beach, as a means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments, offices and activities is: 1 . General $ 5,806,236 2. Employee Retirement 964,299 3• 1955 Water Bond I & R 32,979 4. Library 870,935 5. Recreation and Parks 1 ,085,708 6.. Music and Promotion 182,548 7. 1970 Park Bond I & R 463,395 Total $ 9,406,100 and, A tax rate of One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 .62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value of property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal year 1975-1976 be fixed at One and 62/100ths Dollars ($1 .62) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed property value in said city. The said rate shall be applied as follows: 1 . General Fund $ 1 .00000 2. Employee Retirement . 16608 3• 1955 Water Bond I & R .00568 4. Library . 15000 5. Recreation and Parks . 18699 6. Music and Promotion .03144 7. 1970 Park Bond I & R .07981 Total $ 1 .62000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August, 1975• Mayor PRO TEM ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Don P. Bonfa, City Attorney APPR,-" ,''T AS TO C r_ "i ._ . ...... CITY. A' T ) • Vi No. 4125 STATE.OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) se: 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 adjourned meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August 19 75 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett - Gihha. Caen, Ma hey„ MAP , Wieder NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct coPy of the o: a—/-b—n f/i2h'e�in`thhis offi�e:-1 A c l ..-e / ..fir`- ...... 1 ' City Cle '; - ; . - ,. Clerk of th° Ci"- ; . Council the. `,' . .. ..._ .. ton . ach;Cal. -� ------ - ePu�! By . _ REC0i•:;)I;•1G REQUESTED _ VI'. I ' `f� I f 666 BY AND MAIL TO 11663 iy City.of Huntington Beach - _....w..., .. Office of the City Clerk P0Box190Zi Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 - .I i, VNII; CM:i llf; C;:unit' ItecurJ6 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1993 A14 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH' AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 3. 20 THERETO RELATING TO THE IMPOSI- TION OF A DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX ON THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds it necessary that this ordinance be adopted as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 3 . 20 to read as follows : CHAPTER 3. 20 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX 3. 20. 010 Title . This chapter shall be known as the "Documentary Transfer Tax Chapter" of the city of Huntington Beach. It is adopted pursuant to the authority contained in Part 6. 7 (commencing with Section 11901 ) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 3. 20. 020 Tax imposed. There is hereby imposed on -each deed, instrument or writing; by which any lands , tenements , or other realty sold within the city of Huntington Beach shall be granted, assigned , transferred or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons , by his or their direction, when the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale ) exceeds One Hundred Dollars ($100) , a tax at the rate of Twenty-seven and one-half cents ($0. 275) for each Five Hundred Dollars ($500 ) or fractional part thereof. 3.,20. 030 Payment of Tax . Any tax imposed pursuant to Section 3. 20. 020 hereof shall. be paid by any person who makes , signs , or issues any document or instrument subject to the tax , or for whose use or benefit the same is made , signed or issued. WSA :er BK 9 142•IPG 667 3. 20. 040 Exceptions . The tax imposed by Section 3. 20. 020 hereof shall not apply to: (a) Any instrument in writing given to secure a debt . (b ) The United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or the District of Columbia for any tax imposed pur- suant to this chapter with respect to any deed, instrument , or writing to which it is a party , but the tax may be collected by assessment from any other party liable therefor. (c ) The making, delivering or filing of conveyance to make effective any plan of reorganization or adjustment : (1 ) Confirmed tinder the Federal Bankruptcy Act , as amended; (2 ) . Approved in an equity receivership proceeding in a court involving a railroad corporation, as defined in subdivision (m) of Section 205 of Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended; (3 ) Approved in an equity receivership proceeding in a court involving a corporation , as defined in subdivision ( 3 ) of Section 506 of Title 11 of the United Mates Code, as amended ; or (4 ) Whereby a mere change in identity, form or place of organization is effected. Subdivisions (1 ) to ( 4 ) , inclusive, of this section shall only apply if the making, delivery or filing of instruments of transfer or conveyance occurs within five (5 ) years from the date of such confirmation, approval or change. (d ) The making or delivery of conveyances to make effective any order of the Securities and. Exchange Commission, as defined. in subdivision (a) of Section 1083 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; but only if-- (1 ) The order of the Securities and Exchange Commission in obedience to which such conveyance is made recites that such conveyance is necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provi- sions of Section 79k of Title 15 of the United States Code , rela- ting to the . Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; (2 ) Such order specifies the property which is ordered to be conveyed; ( 3 ) Such conveyance is made in obedience to such order. 3. 20. 050 Exception - Partnership. The following exception shall apply to partnerships : 2 ' sK 1 1417K 668- (a) In the case of any realty held by a partnership, no levy shall be imposed pursuant to this chapter by reason of any transfer of an interest; In a partnership or otherwise, If-- (1 ) Such partnership (or another partnership ) is considered a continuing partnership within the meaning of Section 708 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 ; and (2 ) Such continuing partnership continues to hold the realty concerned. (b ) If there is a termination of any partnership within the meaning of Section 708 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1.954 , for purposes of this chapter , such partnership shall be treated as having executed an instrument whereby there was conveyed, for fair market value (exclusive .of the value of any lien or encum- brance remaining thereon) , all realty held by such partnership at the time of such termination. (c ) Not more than one tax shall be :imposed pursuant to this chapter by reason of a termination described in subdivision (b ) , and any transfer pursuant thereto, w1th respect to the realty held by such partnership at the time of such termination. 3. 20. 060 Administration. The county recorder shall admin- ister this chapter in conformity with the provisions of Part 6 . 7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and the provisions of any county ordinance adopted pursuant; thereto. 3. 20. 070 . Refunds . Claims for refund of 'taxes imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 5096 ) of Part 9 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. SECTION 2. Upon its adoption the City Clerk shall file two copies of this ordinance with the County Recorder of Orange County . SECTION 3. This is an emergency ordinance necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare and shall take effect upon adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause same to be published within fifteen days of its passage in the Huntington Beach News , a new.spaper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Reach, California. , PASSED AND ADOPTEh by the ("Ity Council of the City of 3 . 9X 114"� TP6 669 Huntington Beach at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 9 th day of June , 19 75 . ' Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 90N P. BO �,'A, City Attorney City Administrator V._LL,TAM e 'AMSBA Y, Deputy City Attorney h . �K i 142"M 670 Emergency Ord. No. 1993 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified ani acting City Clerk of the City of Huntin(Itcn Beach and ex-officio Clerk •.)f the City Council of the said Cite, dog hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was read to the City Cminci I. of the City of Huntington Berruh at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 9th day of June, 1975, and was passed and adopted by at least four-fifths (4/5) affirmative votes of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Wieder, Bartlett, Coen, Shipley, Duke, Gibbs NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Matney _ i-ty Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. . Attest .._-._....._...)9.� -.- ind f the City%fer€c c Council ai the City of Huntington i P@(,h. re' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � '? COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 74-119 HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From City Administrator City Council Me Subject RESOLUTION 3996 POINTING Date December 4 , 1974 A REAL PROP RTY T SFER TAX CLAIMS AGE The appointment of a Real Property Transfer Tax Claim Agent is required by Westminster Small Claims Office if they are to extend "quantity claim filing priveleges" to the City Treasurer' s Office . This means that all forms can be filled out by the Treasurer' s Office personnel in the City Hall and then taken to Westminster. Otherwise , all applications will have to be made out in Westminster, thereby resulting in a considerable time loss . When this Resolution is filed with Small Claims Court , they will contact the Treasurer' s Office directly when problems are to be handled or dates changed, otherwise they must go through the City Clerk' s Office as the only authorized City agent in Westminster Court. Ordinance No. 1925 relating to the Real Estate Transfer Tax mentions only the Finance Director as the administrator of that Ordinance , and since the Treasurer' s Office has performed the administrative enforce- ment work prior -to going to court , it seems logical to appoint the Treasurer as agent for that purpose. RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 3996. Respectfully submitted, David D. Rowlands City Administrator DDR:p . 1'� 1 July 19, 1974 To: The Huntington Beach City Council L/ From: The Cambay Lane Pinochle Club Subj: Complaint of lack of reaction by Huntington Beach Administration regarding increase in property value. Attention: Councilwoman Wieder Confirming my telephone call to you on Tuesday, July 16, we are forwarding this document as evidence of our displeasure. The Monday evening TV newscasts carried reports of protests to the county of practically .every city adjacent about the 17% increase in assessed valuation of property. This naturally increases the outlay of tax money by we property owners. Upon conclusion of the newscasts we became dis- gustedly aware that no mention was made of Huntington Beach, the second largest city in the county, in the roster of cities complaining for their residents, We recognize that the county assessors increase will serve to also increase this cities tax revenue income but we feel we were entitled to at least a semblance of an act of indignant protest by your body. 1� 1537-� is'3Ga K1 s - /17 _ l Adrian R. and Lou Dukum 5352 Bonanza Delve HuntingmaBeaeb,Calll.92649 ILI d� 19'-7 bkd I i I V Aoj, oo ____ ttom�,,/^^'•W`� 7�A A Xv / Cam, vuvrak o^rnR 7,, .Z 16972 Canyon Lane, Huntington Beach, Calif. 92649 June 22, 1974 Huntington Beach City Council i 3entlemen: As homeowners in Huntington Beach, we strongly �+ oppose the passing of a 1% tax of the Salee Price should we sell our home, Signed ' v.,�. 11MOLUnS A. Barnare 'f1 3eat��, arnararnar �•w..n,�"L:.-,u �� � ,ac-+tom �� C��•:..�..�c� .f J ` 61 efA r 76 the buntington 14each City Coawci,L: OVC [� (7(7 ,� i A& homeownete., �xy hw"Gand and J a ttono oppose the pao_poaPd !% as .a / / .tax on bowies dOtd,i.,s IduntiMfton /) /'E v An(' / C'/ �'��� teach. 56 hoseouw-t iA oue ttaKed now; 41, !7,'eel del f e'l!7 t A Gouts, 8912 SatteqceCdODtiwe �t Ai n Seach CaU o4nia 92646 e _ y: y i 0 ORDINANCE NO . 1925 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-ORDINANCE CODE BY REPEALING ARTICLE 175 AND ADDING ARTICLE 175, PERTAINING TO REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. Article 175 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding Article 175 to read as follows : ,ARTICLE 175 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX 1750. TITLE AND PURPOSE. This article may be cited as the "Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach. " The tax imposed under this article is solely for the purpose of raising income and revenue which is necessary to pay the usual and current expenses of conducting the municipal government of the City of Huntington Beach. 1751. IMPOSITION OF TAX. There is hereby imposed a tax on all transfers by deeds , instruments., writings or any other document by which any lands , tenements or other interests in real property sold, located in the City of Huntington Beach, are or is granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed to or vested in a purchaser, or purchasers thereof, or any other person or persons, by his or their direction. Said tax shall be levied at the rate of one-half of one percent of the value of consideration. 1752. DEFINITIONS . The term "value of consideration" means the total consideration, valued in money of the United States , paid or delivered, or contracted to be paid or delivered in return for the transfer of real property, including the amount of any indebtedness existing immediately prior to the transfer which is secured by a lien, deed of trust or other encumbrance on the property conveyed and which continues to be secured by such lien, deed of trust or encumbrance after said transfer, MHM:er 1. and also including the amount of any indebtedness which is secured by a lien, deed of trust or encumbrance given or placed upon the property in connection with the transfer to secure the payment of the purchase price or any part thereof which remains unpaid at the time of transfer. "Value of the consideration" also includes the amount of any special assessment levied or imposed upon the property by .a public body, district or agency, where said special assessment is a lien or encumbrance on the property and the purchaser or transferee agrees to pay such special assessment or takes the property subject to the lien of such special assessment . The value of any lien or encum- brance of a type other than those which are hereinabove speci- fically included, existing immediately prior to the .transfer and remaining after said transfer, shall not be included in determining the value of the consideration. If the "value of the consideration" cannot be definitely determined, or is left open to be fixed by future contingencies,, "value of the consi- deration'.' shall be deemed to mean the fair market value of the property at the time of transfer, after deducting the amount of any lien or encumbrance, if any , of a type which would be excluded in determining the "value of the consideration" pursuant to the above provisions of this section. As used in this article, the terms "real property" and "realty" shall be deemed to mean real property as defined by and under the laws of . the State of California. 1753. PERSON ON WHOM TAX IMPOSED. Any persons who make a transfer which is subject to the tax imposed under Section 1751 of this article, and any persons -to whom such a transfer is made, shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax imposed under said Section 1751, provided, however, that the United States, State of California, any city, county, city and county , district or any . other political subdivision of the State of California shall be exempt. from, any - liability for the tax imposed herein. 1754 . EXCEPTIONS. The tax imposed by Section 1751 hereof shall not apply to : (a) Any transfer made solely to secure a debt; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to exclude the amount .of any such indebtedness from being included in the "value of consideration, " pursuant to Section 1751 in connection with transfers which are not made solely to secure a debt; (b ) Transfers to make effective any plan of corporate reorganization or adjustment (1) Confirmed under the Bankruptcy Act, as amended; (2 ) Approved in an equity receivership proceeding in a court involving a railroad corporation as defined in Section 77 (m) of the Bankruptcy Act , as amended; 2. ( 3) Approved in an equity receivership proceeding in a court involving a corporation, as defined in Section_ 106 ( 3) of the Bankruptcy Act , as amended: (c) Any transfer of property from one spouse to the other in accordance with the terms of a decree of dissolution or in fulfillment of a property settlement incident thereto; provided, however, that such property was acquired by the husband and wife or husband or wife prior to the final decree of dissolution. (d) Transfer or transfers , conveyance, lease or sublease without consideration which confirm or correct a deed previously recorded or filed. (e) Transfer to or between the United States, State of California, any city , county , city and county ; district or any other political subdivision of the State of California and trans- fer executed pursuant to eminent domain proceedings by the United States , State of California, any city , county, city and county, district or other political subdivision of .the State of California. (f) Transfers made pursuant to any order by the court in any mortgage or lien foreclosure. proceeding or upon execution of a judgment, or a transfer in lieu of foreclosure. (g) Transfers recorded prior to the effective date of this article. (h) (1) In the case of real property held by a partner- ship , the tax imposed shall not, apply .by reason of any transfer of an interest in a partnership or otherwise, if: (i) Such partnership is considered as a continuing partnership within the meaning of Section 708 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and (ii ) Such continuing partnership continues to hold the real property concerned. (2) If there is a termination of any partnership within the meaning of Section 708 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 , for purposes of this article, such partner- ship shall be treated as having executed an instrument whereby there was transferred, for fair market value, all realty held by such partnership at the time of such termination. ( 3) Not more than one tax shall be imposed pursuant to this article by termination described in subdivision (h) (2) , and any transfer pursuant thereto, with respect to the real property held by such partnership at the time of such termination. 3• (i) The making; or delivery of conveyances to make effective any order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1083 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 ; but only if: ( 1) The order of- the Securities and Exchange Commission, in obedience to which such conveyance is made , recites that such . conveyance is necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of Section 79K of Title 15 of the United States Code , relating to the Public. Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; (2) Such order specifies the property which is ordered to be conveyed; (.3) Such conveyance is made in obedience to such order. 1755 . ADMINISTRATION OF TAX. The Director of Finance of 'the City of Huntington Beach (hereinafter in this article referred to as "Director" ) shall collect the tax imposed under this article' and shall otherwise administer this article. He may make such rules and regulations , not inconsistent with. this article, as he may deem reasonably necessary or desirable. to administer this article as well as necessary forms and receipts . 1756 . DUE DATES, DELINQUENCIES, PENALTIES, INTEREST. The tax imposed under this article is due and payable at the time the deed, instrument or writing effecting a transfer subject to the tax is delivered, and is delinquent if unpaid at the time of re- cordation thereof. In the event that the tax is not paid prior to becoming delinquent , a delinquency penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of tax due shall accrue . In. the event a portion of the .tax is unpaid prior to becoming d-elinquent , the penalty . shall only accrue as to the portion remaining unpaid. An addi- tional penalty .of ten percent (10%) shall accrue if the tax re- mains unpaid on the 90th day following .the date of the original delinquency . Interest shall accrue at the rate of one-half of one percent a month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of tax, exclusive of penalties , from the date the tax becomes delinquent to the date of payment . Interest and penalty accrued shall become part of 'the tax. 1757. DECLARATION MAY BE REQUIRED. The tax imposed by this article shall be paid to the Director by the persons referred to in Section 1753. The Director shall have the authority as part of any rules and regulations promulgated by him as provided for herein to require that the payment shall be accompanied by a declaration of the amount of tax due signed by the person paying the tax or by his agent . The declaration shall include a state- ment that the value of the consideration on which the tax due was computed includes all indebtedness secured by liens , deeds of 4 . trust, or other encumbrances remaining or placed on the property transferred at the time of transfer, and also includes all special assessments on the property which the purchaser or transferee agrees to pay or which remains a lien on the property at the time of transfer. The. declaration shall identify the deed, instrument or writing effecting the transfer for which the tax is being paid. The. Director may require de- livery to him of a copy of such deed, instrument or writing whenever he deems such to be reasonably necessary to adequately identify such writing or to administer the provisions of. this article . The Director may rely on the declaration as to the amount of the tax due provided he has no reason to believe that the full amount of the tax due is not shown on the declara- tion. Whenever the Director has reason to believe that the full amount of tax due is not shown on the declaration or has not been paid, he may, by notice served upon any person liable for the tax, require him to furnish a true copy of his records relevant to the value of the consideration or fair market value of the property transferred. Such notice may be served at any time within three -•( 3) years after recordation of the deed, instrument or writing which. transfers such property . 1758 . DETERMINATION OF DEFICIENCY . If on the basis of such information as the Director receives pursuant to the last para- graph of Section 1757 and/or on the basis of such other relevant information that comes into his possession, he determines that the .amount of tax due as set forth in the declaration, or as paid, is insufficient, he may recompute the tax due .on the basis of such information. If the declaration required by Section 1757 is not submitted, the Director may make an estimate of the value of the consideration for the property conveyed and determine the amount of tax to be paid on the basis of any information in his possession or that may come into his possession. One or more deficiency determinations may be made of the amount due with respect to any transfer. 1759. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. The Director shall give written notice to a person liable for payment of the tax imposed under this article of his determination made under Section 1758. Such notice shall be given within three ( 3) years after the re- cordation of the deed, instrument or writing effecting the trans- fer on which the tax deficiency determination was made . 1760. MANNER OF GIVING NOTICE. Any notice required to be given by the Director under this article may be served personally or by mail; if by mail, service shall be made by depositing the notice in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served 5• at his address as it appears in the records of the City or as ascertained by the Director. The service is complete at the time of the deposit of the notice in the United States mail, without extension of time for any reason. 1761. PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION. Any person against whom a determination is made under thss article or any person directly interested may petition the Director for a redetermina- tion within sixty (60 ) days after service upon the person of notice thereof. If a petition for redetermination is not filed in writing with the Director, City Hall, Huntington Beach, California 92648, within the sixty (60 ) day period, the determination becomes final at the expiration of the period. 1762. CONSIDERATION OF PETITION; HEARING. If a petition for redetermination is filed within the sixty ( 60) day period_, the Director shall reconsider the determination and, if the person has so requested in his petition, shall grant the person an oral hear- ing, and shall give him ten ( 10 ) days ' notice of the time and place of hearing. The Director may designate one or more deputies for the purpose of conducting hearings and may continue a hearing from time to time as maybe necessary . 1763. DETERMINATION OF PETITION. The Director may decrease or increase the amount of the determination before it becomes . final, but the amount may be increased only if a claim for the increase is asserted by the Director at or before the hearing. 1764 . FINALITY OF DETERMINATION. The order or decision of the Director upon .a petition for redetermination becomes final thirty (30 ) days after service upon the petitioner of notice thereof. 1765. TAX A DEBT. The amount of any tax, penalty, and interest imposed under the provisions of this article shall be deemed a debt to the City . Any person owing money to the City , under the provisions of this article shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City for the recovery of such amount . 1766 . REFUNDS. Whenever the amount of any tax, penalty or interest has been overpaid, or paid more than once, or has been erroneously collected or received by the City under this article, it may be refunded as hereinafter provided in this section, pro- vided a written claim therefor stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds under which the claim is founded is filed with the Director within three ( 3) years of the date of payment. The claims shall be on forms furnished by the Director. The Di- rector may make such refund if he is satisfied that the claimant is entitled to the refund under the provisions of this section. No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant establishes his right thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto. 6. 1767. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this article, or application thereof to any person or circumstances , is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this article which can be given effect without- the invalid provision or application; and to this end the provisions of this article are declared to be severable. SECTION 3. The City Administrator and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to negotiate. with the County of Orange for its aid in the collection of the tax imposed by this ordinance . Any agreement so negotiated shall be submitted to the Council of the City of Huntington Beach for its approval. SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News , a weekly news- paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED .AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held. on the 1st day of July , 1974 ry� Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4!P- , City Adminstrator City At hey 7• Ord. No. 1925 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-offi"cio Clerk of .the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members "of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of June . 19 74 , and. was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on. the 1-st day of July 19 74 , and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen Ra.rtl , C: h"a� Matnpy- Wi"pdpr$'. Dttkp,, rnPn NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley 00/ A. ---�'/� City Clerk and ex-o fiCio er of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, "California / 6 z ! DO. 0 (R)4Od6 a R E W T Huntington Beach Calif.. Thursday,June 27, 1974 83 ; _ Beacuse-the meeting at which - — - g academic interest and public and Henry Duke' — al4hoursession. - --_--, REAL - ESTATE TRANSFERTAX OPPOSED Biggest boon to budget balan- "retreat from the'goals widely would not be included in the charge, man; Jerry Evans; Clarence Eber- cing for the Huntington Beach acclaimed throughout the state to he noted as,one example. weiti; Pat Suter; and Bob Reidesel, 1974-75 city budget is.the half-per- relieve the homeowners of'-heavy And administrator Rowlands president of the Meredith Garden cent. real estate transfer tax, the burdens." has said that it's negotiatable who Homeowners Assn. city council declared Monday. But, "Why will people buy here when" pays the tax,the buyer or the seller All the council a to to the since its a first in Orange County, they can buy cheaper elsewhere," e/ "And -when you're selling a g P not man people are familiar with she asked the council.. real estate transfer barrel,althouggh Y P P $50,000 home,a fee of$250 or n isn't some apparently wanted it to be how it works. At the same session, however going to make a big difference to w Y. s Sim I stated whenever `a : former councilman Jack Green told. even lower than the half percent :. ., P Y ,. either side, he added. home or other property is sold in the council that the tax was not that finally agreed upon. P Pe Y A number of speakers. Huntington-Beach, the city will innovative.The Southern California -addressed the issue of the tax in the City. Finance Director had collect a fee equalling one-half per- Association of Governments Monday.council session,which was indicated to the'council ever'since cent.of the price of the sale. (SCAG).supported the idea back in somewhat more subdued in tone its first formal consideration of the On'a$40,000 home for example, 1971,,he said. than previous sessions had been. budget-on May 22 that the city must the city will collect$200.It is expec- . Gity Administrator Dave Applause did punctuate almost' examine new sources of revenue ted-to bring$1.3 million into city cof- Rowlands also noted that San Jose, ,. every speaker's remarks,however, since even with tax hikes in many 1" fers.this year, .according-to city Vallejo and Oakland had implemen- during the public hearing portion of areas, there will still be a deficit sources. ted-sucha real estate tax and that the 5-hour session. problem in-the-budget in four or five Opposition to the tax was strong the city of Santa Ana is considering Among those local citizens.who_ years. for local real estate Ysales-people, it, �� spoke to the council in reference to i who say the additional charge would Not all transfers would be taxed the transfer tai were: Stan Hirsch- Th transfer tax was proposed as make it harder to sell homes in the under the law, staff attorney Mike : berg; Frank Sano; Rudy Lozano, one way to' stop the leak in the city. Miller noted Mofiday. A dissolution recreation. and parks com- budget barrel caused by inflation Realty board president Shirely of marriage agreement in which one missioner;.Dave=Diamond, HOME : and the mounting demands caused Commons .on Monday -called it a spouse received the•family home council president; William.Gover- by increased population. June 27, 1974 City Council City'of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Re: Proposed ZZAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX Councilmen and Councilwomen: . As PROPERTY 01-RMS in the city of Huntington ,Beach we feel that the beauty of the city itself is NOT the END RESULT of the City _Council or the Planning Commission ........but TIT, CONCENTRATED EFFORT of the PROPERTY O;MERS in maintaining their -property and THEREBY displaying their PRIDE OF 0TWERSHIP and it is on this basis that we are OBJECTING to the proposed Real Estate Transfer Tax which would be an additional burden for a HOME MITE11 to handle. Ile further feel that it is the. sworn duty of each council member or any public officer to not only protect the people that put him/her into office.....but to FIGHT to hold down taxation. Attached is a clippi.ng. from*the front page of the Huntington-Beach Independent newspaper,- dated: Thursday, June 27, 1974 in which City Administrator Rowlands stated: "AND WMN YOU'RE SELLING A $50,000 HOME A FEE OF $250 OR SO ISN'T GOING TO T?AFE A BIG D iIF�MMENCE T0-EITEM SIDE." Perhaps V1r. Rowland's home is PAID FOR (without any encumberances) and he can well afford to toss out $250 or more and not make a bit of difference to him.......BUT it would be interesting to have PTr. Rowlands make a personal survey of how few in HUNTINGTON BEACH are lucky enough to own a home - free and clear of any encumberances, and if they do - howr they feel about being assessed and having to pay because they are a home owner - selling their home for one reason or another. . I would venture* to say that he will find few (even those that can afford it) that 'will be in agree- ment with his thinking. He should also bear in mind that H[JNTINGTON BEACH is not a city of RETIREES - but young families and some of whom are having to. ' tighten their budgets in order to maintain their homes, cars, etc. and remain. in Huntington Beach. Following are a few more reasons for objecting. 1. Our wonderful UNITED-STATES OF PMERICA was founded .on home o?•mership and your proposed taxation is about to destroy. the very principles on which our mmixy country was founded if you continue to think of addi- tional tax burdens for home owners. 2. Retired persons who are nowr home owners and can no longer maintain their homes, lawns, etc. to their present standard, due to ill health and find- ing the cost of outside maintenance greater than a fixed income will allow will be compelled to sell 'and move into apartments, etc. 3. Young men being transferred to another town or state and having to move their families, sell their home, etc. The referred to fee of $250 will certainly bean assist in purchasing a home elsewhere. 4. Necessity to sell, because of divorce, death of .husband or wife and many, many more reasons for disposing of one's home. .The attitude of the city council, at present, is that of "I don't give a damn" and driving people out of Huntington Beach and into other cities —where (hopefully) the city councils are justly proud of their home owners and work to protect their interests and keep them withini - their cities as the beloved home owners WHO PAY TAXES. We suggest that instead of imposing additional taxes on the already overburdened HOME OWNER that you study the problem thoroughly and code.up with a solution_ City Council of Huntington Beach continued: whereby -everyone: Apartment dlijeller, mobile home oT•mer or renter, hotel dweller, etc. be taxed a like. We would like Ito Im- ow whose suggestion this method of taxat"imas -via s. I can assure you, .he or she idill not get our votes again and for the, rest of the co-mcil to tlfii-k it was such a t.remdndous idea and go alonx, with it, appaxenLly you were all in. a hmrry to end the rnieetinl- and go on home and so you all went aloiZ for the ride. I have a further suggestion.1 If you camot do better than this proposal of taxation and you are in such haste to b,,dance the budget or whatever - perhaps, you should all forego your salaries, -incomes ainj donate it to the City of Huntington Beach and thereby confii-m that you have the o*Lty and all of its HOME U-411FRES interests at heart. Attachedare signatures of HOPE] CNILTIERS who feel. as wo do about this tax. Sixicerely, en 8-4z6_)._ encl. (H.B.Ind.newspaper) signati-tres IKETTTI ON cc: to H.B.Indej_-,endent NevTspaper �i i / C • / / / ...0 L - JJ.: JS T I APE A WA. CY -in the- City- -of Ail MMP M= 2E= and STtOM nWEI ' T{) W PROPOSED al1Lt� A`F, MMMUM ZE o fob 2nv I� J August 6 , 1973 To : City Council From: City Attorney Subject : Resolution Urging Enactment of Legislation ' to Alleviate Tax Burden on Coastal Zone Cities Having Regional Public Beach Areas At the request of the City Administrator, we transmit herewith a resolution urging the state legislators to enact legislation that will afford all the people in the State of California the opportunity of sharing in the cost of coastal preservation and maintenance for their pleasure through a. state-wide tax subsidy to the governmental agencies within the coastal zone . Resp ctfully submitted, DON P ONFA, City Attorney B S MEVIS Assist a t City Attorney WM:lm Attachment WHkTE-CITY ATTORNEY •• � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH No. BLUE-CITY CLERK GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department 8/6/73 City Administrator Administration INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby'requested: Resolution similar to attached. Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds 8/6/73 Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: ty Admim ra r i� RESOLUTION NO. 8062 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH URGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WILL ALLEVIATE THE TAX BURDEN ON COASTAL ZONE CITIES HAVING REGIONAL PUBLIC BEACH AREAS WHEREAS, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 has declared the California coastal zone to be a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all the people; and WHEREAS, the California coastal zone is defined to include all lands extending seaward to the outer limits of the State jurisdiction, and extending inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range, or in certain areas five miles from the mean high tide line; and WHEREAS, the properties contained within the coastal zone have traditionally served as the main tax base to' support the services provided by the numerous local governmental en- tities having jurisdiction within this zone; and WHEREAS, the recent passage of the Property Tax Relief Act of 1972 (S.B. 90) restricts local jurisdictions . from increasing their property tax levels on the property remaining on the tax rolls, which must continue to support the required level of services; and WHEREAS, the extent and nature of many of the local public services provided within the coastal zone are required to accommodate the influx of the State' s people who visit -the Coast, but who are not presently required to pay taxes to support J P _1_ these services, _ Ach as road maintenance, police protection, traffic control, fire protection, rescue operations, ambulance services, litter control, sanitary facilities, etc. ; and WHEREAS, a recent report prepared for the City of Newport Beach concludes that of the 9,874, 000 persons visiting this City' s local beaches each year, 85 percent were residents from areas other than the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, there is a deficit of approximately one million dollars a year in the revenues attributed to the beach operations in Newport Beach. Said deficit is being borne solely by the local taxpayers; and . WHEREAS, the operation, improvement and maintenance of public recreational beaches and the expenditure of funds for such purposes is in the interest and for the benefit of all the people of the State and accordingly constitutes a matter of State-wide interest; and WHEREAS, there are other coastal zone cities which, like the City of Newport Beach, operate public beaches and other regional recreational areas with maintenance costs being borne by local taxpayers; and WHEREAS, it appears that there is a need .and ample justification for the State to assist local communities charged with the responsibility of operating and maintaining public beaches and other regional recreational areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that all the people of the State of California be afforded the opportunity of sharing in the cost. of coastal preservation and .maintenance for their pleasure, through a state-wide tax subsidy to the governmental agencies within the coastal zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach respectfully urges the California State Legislature to enact legislation that will alleviate the tax burden on coastal zone cities having regional public beach areas, the majority of which tax is now being borne by the local taxpayers. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby requests that this resolution be approved by the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities in order that it may be submitted for consideration at the League Annual Con- ference to be held on October 21-24, 1973, in San Francisco; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby request that State Senator Dennis E. Carpenter and Assemblyman Robert E. Badham introduce appropriate legislation into the California State Legislature which would alleviate the tax burden on coastal zone cities having regional public beach areas. ADOPTED this 30th day of July 1973 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Mailed to: Winston Updegraff League of California Cities Robert Burke Dennis Carpenter Andrew Hinshaw Craig Hosmer Ronald Reagan August 9, 1973 The City Council of- Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, August 6, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3745 urging the California State Legislature to enact legislation that will alleviate the tax burden on coastal zone cities having regional public beach areas. The resolution requests approval by the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities in order that it may be submitted for consideration at the League Annual Conference in San Francisco October 21-24. Council also requests that its state legislators introduce ap- propriate legislation to alleviate said tax burden. A certified copy of said resolution is enclosed for your support and information. Sincerely yours, David D. Rowlands City Administrator DDR:AW:pj Encl. I i RESOLUTION NO. . 3745 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WILL ALLEVIATE THE TAX BURDEN ON COASTAL ZONE CITIES HAVING REGIONAL PUBLIC BEACH AREAS WHEREAS, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 has declared the California coastal zone to be a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all the people; and The California coastal zone is defined to include all lands extending seaward to the outer limits of the state jurisdiction, and extending inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range , or in certain areas five miles . from the mean high tide line; and The properties contained within the coastal zone have traditionally served as the main tax base to support the services provided by the numerous local governmental entities having jurisdiction within this zone; and The recent passage of the Property .Tax Relief Act of 1972 (S.B. 90) restricts local jurisdictions from increasing their property tax levels on the property remaining on the tax rolls, which must continue to support the required level of services ; and The extent and nature of many of the local public services provided within the coast zone are required to accommodate the influx . of the state ' s people who visit the coast, but who are not presently required to pay taxes to support these services, such as road maintenance, police protection, traffic control, fire protection, rescue operations , ambulance services , litter control, sanitary facilities, etc . ; and A recent report prepared for the City of Huntington Beach concludes that of the 11 ,500,000 persons visiting this City' s local beach each year, 85 percent were residents from areas other than the City of Huntington Beach; and . '4,M: lm 1. r` There is a deficit of approximately $700,000 a year in the revenues attributed to the beach operations in Huntington Beach . Said deficit is being borne solely by the local tax- payers ; and The operation, improvement and maintenance of public recreational beaches and the expenditure of funds for such purposes is in the interest and for the benefit of all the people of the state and accordingly constitutes a matter of state-wide interest; and There are other coastal zone cities which, like the City of Huntington Beach, operate public beaches and other regional recreational areas with maintenance costs being borne by local taxpayers ; and It appears that there is a need and ample justification for the state to assist local communities charged with the responsibility of operating and maintaining public beaches and other regional recreational areas . N0W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the 4 City of Huntington Beach that all the people in the State of California be afforded the opportunity of sharing in the cost of coastal preservation and maintenance for their pleasure, through a state-wide tax subsidy to the governmental agencies within the coastal zone . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach respectfully urges the California State legislature to enact legislation that will alleviate the tax burden on coastal zone cities having regional public beach areas , the majority of which tax is now being borne by the local taxpayers . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby requests that this resolution be approved by the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities in order that it may be submitted for consideration at the League Annual Conference to be held on October 21-214, 1973, in San Francisco; and i 2 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby requests that their state legis- lators introduce appropriate legislation into the California State Legislature which would alleviate the tax burden on coastal zone cities. having regional public beach areas . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to send copies of this resolution to the appropriate state legis- . lators . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of August, 1973 . ✓Iay o ATTEST: City Clerk . APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON IP. BONFA, City Attorney h y By i d '�' MEVIS ssistant City Attorney { 3 . Res. No. 3745 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 th day Of - AiiZiist- 19_Z3r, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: )� None l ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley j City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California he toregu,rg instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. Attest.„_AU G .81973 ._..... 19 ALICIA M. WENTWOR?11 City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the City I Gounoll of the City of Huntington Beach,Cal. By _..... DPn„fip 0 w s� June 27 , 1973 TO : City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT : Resolution Urging the California Legislature to Enact Legislation That Will Equalize the Tax Burden Within the Coastal Zone At the request of the City Administrator, we transmit here- with a resolution urging the state legislature to enact legislation which will equalize the tax burden within the coastal zone . This tax is presently being borne solely by the local taxpayers although the recreational facilities of this natural resource are available to all the people within the state . Respe tfully submitted, DON ONFA, City Attorney B S MEVIS Assis nt City Attorney WM: lm Attachment 1 n I? r' �ryt RESOLUTION NO . 3�2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WILL EQUALIZE THE TAX BURDEN WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE WHICH IS NOW BEING BORNE SOLELY BY THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS 1 r 1 1. f May 31 , 1973 TO: All .Cities and Counties in the Southern California Coastal Zone FROM: City of Seal Beach, County of Orange c Forwarded herewith is City of Seal Beach Aesolution. Number 2213 adopted May 29, 1973 urging the California State Legislature to enact legislation that will equalize the tax burden within the Coastal Zone which is now being borne..solely by the local taxpayers and encouraging cities and counties of the Coastal Zone to join with the City of Seal Beach in urging such legislation. DYS ;f1R, City .Clerk City of Seal Beach cc: Congressinan .Craig Hosmer Senator Dennis E. Carpen'Cer Assemblyman Robert H. -Burke Chairman, Senate Committee, Revenue h Taxation Chairman, Assembly Committee, Revenue & Taxation •S /0G t APR 2 31973 ''ITY uF HALF w U,j OA y 0 F F UN T 0 M- t., iJ U DoX 6ALF I 100il AY, LALIFOR,.'IA jj OFIFTE DATE: April 20, 1973 TO: All Cities and Counties of the California Coastal Zone. FROiql: The City of it if Moon Bay, San :Mateo County SUBJECT: Tax Equalization to Support Coastal Zone ,Local Governments. Enclosed herewith is Resolution No. 10-73 from the City of Half 1-iloon Bay. The City Council has directed that this resolution be sent to all cities and counties concerned, encouraging them to adopt similar resolutions in support of a tax equalization measure on behalf of coastal local governments. The problems enumerated in the resolution are serious to Half 1vioon Bay. If you face the same problems , you are requested to so indicate in return correspondence to this City so that an assessment of the general need can be made up and down the State. Half lvloon Bay intends to bring this matter to the attention of the legislature in Sacramento. Your assistance is urgently needed to support a successful movement in this area. Please give serious consideration to this matter and ..respond promptly. .T4ank you. r WIC D A ED �rkd d M o e n s ein ity Manager -------------- L-------------------------------- RESOLUTION No.. 10-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY URGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WILL EQUALIZE THE TAX BURDEN WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE WHICH IS NOW BEING BORNE SOLELY BY THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS. WHEREAS: the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 has declared the California coastal zone to be a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all the people, and WHEREAS: the California coastal zone is defined to include all lands extending seaward to the outer limits of the State jurisdiction, and extending inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range, or in certain areas five miles from the mean high tide line, and WHEREAS: the properties contained within the coastal zone have tradition- ally served as the main tax base to support the services provided by the numerous local governmental entities having jurisdiction within this zone, and WHEREAS: as a result of the passage of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, property values within the coastal zone are being reassessed downwards, thus causing a negative effect on the tax base for many local governmental agencies, and WHEREAS: there are presently strong pressures by the people of the State to use public tax monies and state surpluses to purchase large tracts of park and open space lands within the coastal zone, thus totally removing them from the local tax rolls, and WHEREAS: the recent passage of the Property Tax Relief Act of 1972 restricts local jurisdictions from increasing their property tax levels on the property remaining on the tax rolls, which must continue to support the required level of services, and WHEREAS: the extent and nature of many of the local public services provided within the coastal zone are required to accommodate the influx of the State' s people who visit the coast, but who are not presently required to pay taxes to support these services, such as road maintenance, police protection, traffic control, fire protection, rescue operations, ambulance services, litter control, sanitary facilities, etc. , and WHEREAS: because it is in the interest and for the benefit of the people of the State as a whole to maintain the coastal zone for their pleasure and recreational use, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that all the people of the State of California be afforded the opportunity of sharing in the cost of coastal preservation and maintenance for their pleasure, through a state-wide tax subsidy to the governmental agencies within the coastal zone, and be it further RESOLVED: that the cities and counties of the ,coastal zone are hereby encouraged to join with the "City of Half Moon Bay in urging the legislature of the State of California to enact legislation that will equalize the tax burden within the coastal zone which is now being borne solely by the local taxpayers. c- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Half Moon Bay, California, on April 17, 19731 at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES, and in favor thereof: Councilmen Cardoni; Marmont, Mello, Para NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Adreveno s/ Gerald .Do Pere Mayor of the City of Half Moon Bay ATTEST: s/ Barbara K. Driscoll Deputy Clerk of the City of Half Moon Bay I hereby approve the foregoing resolution this 17th day of April, 1973. s/ Gerald Do Pere Mayor of the City of Half Moon Say I, the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Half Moon Bay, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above date. s/ Barbara K. Driscoll Deputy Clerk of the City of Half Moon Say - = I C 1 CITY OF IRVINE POST OFFICE BOX DZ IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92664 TELEPHONE (714) 833-3840 J April 19, 1973 � • �- _ J� l TO: All Cities in Orange County At its regular meeting of March 27 , 1973, the Irvine City Council went on record opposing any change in the present method of apportionment of sales and use tax under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law. The basis for the City Council's position in this matter is the Council's belief that there should be a continuing relationship between the collection of sales tax moneys and the services provided by the City to those businesses collecting sales tax. In addition, the City Council feels that a City should be returned those sales tax moneys which are collected within its own boundaries. Your support of the Council's position on this matter is requested. Sincerely, - CAROL J. FLYNN Deputy City Clerk CJF:lcg j �Y � f March 10, 1973 City Clerk, Paul Jones Huntington Beach City Hall 412 Main St. Huntington Beach, Calif. - 92648 Dear Mr. Jones: This is to request a place on the agenda for the next meeting of the City Council for - Sensible Taxation (C.O.S .T. ) , March 19. Our Council wishes to present to the CCity Council, a Resolution on the Computerized Address File System proposed for Huntington Beach. Mr. Jones, if you can possibly place it early on the agenda (in the evening) I would be MOST appreciative, as I have early appointments the following day and it' s going to be ' rough' if I have to stay there until 1: 00 A.M. or so. Manny thanks, C afire Kelley(, Chairma C.O.S .T. P.O. Box 734 Huntington Beach, Calif. - 92648 (846-0525) tGQ,UNCIL ON SENSIBLE TAXATION RESOLUTION Against the ComputeriOed Address File System ,-Proposed for'.Huntington Bea ch WHEREAS: The United States Constitution - the supreme law of the land - in the Fourth Amendment there-of proclaims, "The right of the people to be securein their persons:; houses, papers, and effects - - - 11 and, WHEREAS: The pro,posal to set up a computerized address file as outlined, would involve the' accumulation of information that is an invasion of privacy, and would, in effect., place each -iiin& every --pitiz-"o-hit' wi thin hin Huntington"Beach under police ! --surveillance, whether innocent of crime, or and, WHEREAS:. ' Surveillance to the exten,t".Of:.1noting.--.--e.verly":,,-,,..-"., -I move made by its citizens is 'typical of a "police state", and, WHEREAS: The initial fund, for setting up this system has been 'appropriated without the consent of the people', and, WHEREAS: The Constitution - Article IV, Section -4 - guarantees to every state a republican form of government, of which separation. oT powers is the basic principal, wherein one branch of government may not -exercise the f powers o , another branch, which guarantee hag been nullified by the present form, of government in Huntington Beach wherein the executive branch (the mayor) exercises. legislative power by sitting with the council, and thA major authority is vested in a city manager not _, elected by the people; therefore, the power of the people to control their goverijqeA*.-_.. ty' has been usurped, by said council and th6`_qJ` admini s tra!t.or. ­BEI:-.'I.T, THEREFORE RESOLVED TVIIIT: 'Ordinances adopted by said council, being unconstitutionally in- stigated, are null and void, and the funds, appropriated without the consent of the governed, to place ,the citizens under oppressive govern vent surveillance; are misappropriated, and the whole situation should be rev- ik;--gMd,, that we, in Huntington Beach, may enjoy the freedoms and liberties that government was established ta­ ' protect through the Constitution of the United States. I6 Am Jtir 2d .CONSTIT U71C).%'AL LAW §2 / (� ✓VIII. DEPARTMENTAL SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENTAL A. IN GENERAL 1210. Principle of separation, generally. In considering the nature of any government, it must be remembered that the power existing in every body politic is an absolute despotism; in constituting a government, the body politic distributes that power as it pleases and in the quantity it pleases, and imposes what check it pleases upon its public func- tionaries. The natural and necessary distribution of that power, with res ct to individual sccunty, is into e,�is ativc, execuffm and JuElicial ac-fp-a-rfnicest', Tr is o vious, however, t at every community may Make a perfect or imperfect separation and distribution of that power at its will.' A characteristic feature,'and one of the cardinal` and fundamental principles, of the American constitutional s stem is that thegovernmentalpower-, ar, i i ed aniong the three departments o o%crnment, the legislative, executive and judicial and that cacti of these is scoaratc from the others. The princip[t of separation of the powers of government operates in a broad manner to con- AM legislative powers tote legislature, executive powers to the executive department,and those which are judicial in character to the judiciary.')We are not a parliamentary government in which e executive branch is also part of the legislature.7 f S. Trybulski v Bellows Falls Hydro-Electric wa in o.s Norlk Street R. C ' A C6rp. 112 Vt 1,20 A2d 117. Appeal, 69 Conn 6- 37 A 1080, 38 A 708; State v Warmnth. 4. Bloemer v Turner, 281 Ky 832, 137 SW 22 La Ann 1; McCrea v Roberts. 89 Md 2d 387. 238, 43 A 39; Wiir ht v Wright, 2 Md 429; Wenham v. State,. 65 Neb 394, 91 NW 421; S. O'Donoghue • United States, 289 US Henry v Cherry, 30 RI 13, 73 A 97; State 516, 77 L ed 1356, 53 S Ct 740• Springer v v Fleming,7 Humph (Tenn) 152. Philippine Islands, 277 US 189, 72 L ed 045, Annolation: 69 ALR 266. 48 S Ct 480; J. W. Hampton Jr., & Co. v \ United States, 276 US 394, 72 L ed 624, 48 Neither the le islative, executive, nor ju- S Ct 348; Evans v Gore, 253 US 245, 64 dicta c rtment eiienI ovemmrnf L ed 887.40 S Ct 550, 11 ALR 519;Kilbourn can w u, exc�cise anyaut,err .t v Thompson, 103 US 168, 26 L ed 377; it marxc outby the Constitution. Fox-v McDonald, 101 Ala 51, 13 So 4. - Scott vlandlord, ow Hawkins v Governor, 1-Ark 570; Denver v 691. Lynch, 92 Colo 102, 18 P2d 907, 86 ALR 907; Stockman v Leddy, 55 Colo 24. 129 P 7. People v Tremaine, 281 NY 1, 21 NE2d 220;Norwalk Street R. Co.'s Appeal,69 Conn 891. 576, 37 A 1080, 38 A 708; Florida Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v Simpson (Fla) 59 So 2d 751, 33 ALR2d 581;Burnett v Green,97 Fla 1007, 8.j Martin v Hunter, 1 Wheat (US) 304 122 So 570, 69 ALR 244; Re Speer, 53 Idaho cd 97. ' 293, 23 P2d 239, 88 ALR ]086; People v The difference between the departments Kelly, 347 Ill 221, 179 NE 898, 80 ALR 890; that the legislature makes, the executive exef People ex rel. Rusch v White, 334 111 465, 166 NE 100, 64 ALR 1006;Greenfield v Rus- eutes, and th udicia construes thelaw; . sel, 292 Ill 392, 127 NE 102, 9 ALR 1334; but the maker of the law may commit some- Ellingham v Dye, 178 Ind 336,99 NE 1,error thing to the discretion of the other depart- dismd 231 US 250, 58 L ed 206, 34 S Ct 9 ments. WayTr.=v Southard, 10 Wheat (US) Ovenhiner v State, 156 Ind 187, 59 NE 468; 1,6 L ed 253. Parker v State, 135 Ind 534, 35 NE 179; State v Barker, 116 Iowa 96. 89 NW 204• 9-"Hale v State,55 Ohio St 210.45 NE 199; Harris v Allegany County, 130 Rid 488, 100 Blalock v Johnston, 100 SC 40. 1115 SE 61. A 733;Opinion of Justices,279 Mass 607, 180 105 ALR 1115. NE 725, 81 ALR 1059; Anway v Grnnd Rapids R. Co. 211 Mich 592, 179 NW 350, 1 213, infra. 12 ALR 26; People v Dickerson, 164 Mich ge United.States Su reme Court has said 148, 129 NW 199• Veto Cam, 69 Mont 325, that so far as their powers are cnvc rom 222 P 428, 35 ALR 592;Searle v Yensen, 118 the Constitution the departments may be re- Nth 835, 226 NW 464, 69 ALR 257• Tyson garded as independent of each other, but be- v Washington County, 78 Neb 211, 110 NW yond that all are 52 le to re ulations b law 634; Saratoga Springs v Saratoga Gas, E. L. touching upon t e tscct arge.1 Outscs require dr.-P. Co. 191 NY 123, 83 NE 693• State ex to be performed. Ev..ns v Gcre, 253 US 245, rel. Atty.-Gen. v Knight, 169 NC 333, 85 64 L ed 837, 40 S Ct 550, 11 ALR 519; SE 418; Re Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Sic. M. Kendall. v United States, 12 Pet (US) 524. R. Co. 30 ND 221, 152 NW 513; State v 9 L ed 1181, People v McCullough, 254 1 Blaisdell, 22 NO 86, 132 NW 769; Riley v 9.98 NE 156. llf Carter, 165 Okla 262, 25,P2d 666, 88 ALR 11. Humphrey v United States, 295 US 1018; Simpson v Hill, 128 Okla 269, 263 P 602, 79 L ed 1611, 55 S Ct C69. 635. 56 ALR 706; Baskin v State, 107 011a 272, 232 P 311, 40 ALR 941; Wilson v Phila- 12. Per Marshall, Ch. J. Osborn v Bank. delphia School Dist. 328 Pa 225. 195 A 90,, of United States, 9 Wheat (US).738, 6 L ed 204. 113 ALR 1401•State ex rel. Richards v Whu- 13. Snodgrass v State, 67 Tess Crim 615. man, 36 SO 260, 154 NW 707. error dismd 1 SW 162. 241 US 643, GO Led 1218, 36 S Ct 449; B reason of the distribution of en un- Langever v Miller, 124 Tex 80, 76 SW2d 1025, 96 ALR 836; Trimmier v Carlton, 116 der a constitution, assigning to t egts a- Tex 572, 296 SW l070; Peterson v Grayce ture an t e ivatciary each its separate and Oil Co. (Tex Civ App) 37 SW2d 367, affd distinct functions, ot1C_cl� tment is not Der- 128 Tex 550.98 SW7.d 781;Kimball v Grants- misted to trench u on t e uncttota and w- ville City, 19 Utah 368, 57 P 1;Sabre v Rut• n o t e other tate ex rc. us man v land R. Co. 86 Vt 347, 85 A 693; State v Vandenberg, ZU3 Or 326, 276 P2d 432. 280 HLber, 129 W Va 198, 40 SE2d It. 168 ALR P2d 344. 608 State y Thompson, 149 Wit 488, 137 14. State ex ref. Du Frcsne v Lenlie, 100 A„notation: 3 ALR 451;69 ALR 266, NW•20. "Mont 449, 50 P2d 959, 101 ALR 1329;State y Fabbri,98 Wash 207, 167 P 133. The theory of our government is one o! 5 Any fundaiitental or basic power neces separation of twwtrs. Att.Gen.ex ref.Cook v O'Neill, 280 Mich 649, 274 NW 445. sa to government cannot br.cieDist. 32 erl. 25, son v Philadelt,hi� School Aist. 1_8 Pa 2-5, Our constitution and fabric of government 195 A 90, 113 ALR 1,01. divide governmental powers into three grand divisions and prohibit file assumption by those 16. As to whether the Federal Constitution exercising the powers of one of their of the requires departmental separation of state gov- just powers of another. Butler v Printing ernmental powers, set 1215, infra. Cnmrs. 68 W Va 493, 70 SE 119. See State v Bates, 96 Minn 110, 104 NW 709, for a good discussi.,n of the source of the doctrine of the separation of the powers of government, 16 Am Jur 2d CONSTITUTIONAL LAW §212 estahli hcd in the United 'states.' Tlic principle has also been referred to as r o t 1C c tC merits o tic , merican system of written Constitutions.ror t lsas horn declared that the disision of Governmenta powers into executive, it islative and iudicial rel2rescrits robahly tht mast im22rtant principle of _government declaring and guaranteeing --oples and that. Js a matter of fundamental nccess:t , ' and is cs-sentiai to the maintenanee_of.a . rc ublican-forrri of-overnmerit' One of America's most distinguished jurists has stated that no maxim as been more universally received and cherished as a vital principle of freedom.lm A11thou h there may be a blending of powers in certain respects,' in a broad sense the sae r-11FIsTRuElOYM depenIK observance of the independence of the !�!!F; , I 111 panm n i Eachconstatutes a check upon t e exercise of its power by any other spar ment," and, accord- ingly, a concentration of power in the hands of one person or class is prevented,3° and a commingling of essentially different powers in the same hands is pre- cluded." No arbitrary and unlimited power is vrsted in any department;80, such power is re arded as a condition subversive of the constitution,' and the c aracteristic and evil of tyrannic and despoti ores o l;ovcrnmcHL C'� G le 77 <&Z- IS" --0 SG 9. National Mut. Ins. Co. v Tidewater 496; Lincoln Federal Labor Union v North- Transfer Co. 337 US 582, 93 L ed 1556, 69 western Iron & Metal Co. 149 Neb 507, 31 S Ct 1173; Norwalk Street R. Co.'s Appeal, NW2c' 477; Wenham v State, 65 Neb 394, 91 69 Conn 576, 37 A 1080, 38 A 708; People ex NW 421; Ex parte Kair, 28 Nev 127,425, 80 rel. Leaf v Orvis, 374 111 536. 30 NE2d 28, P 40, 82 P 453; State ex rel. Schorr v Ken- 132 ALR 1382,cert den 312 US 705,65 L%ed nedy, 132 Ohio St 510, 9 NE2d 270, 110 1133, 61 S Ct 827; Tyson v Washington ALR 1428; State ex rel. Bushman v Vanden- County, 78 Neb 211, 110 NW 634; Enter- berg, 203 Or 326,276 P2d 432,280 P2d 344; prise v State, 156 Or 623, 69 P2d 953;Lang- Enterprise v State, 156 Or 623, 69 P2d 953; ever v Miller, 124 Tex 80, 76 SW2d 1025, U'Rcn v Bagley, 118 Or 77, 245 P 1074, 46 96 ALR 836. ALR 1173; State v Pecl Splint !goal Cs. 36 It is necessary, if government is to func- W Va 602, 15 SE 1000. tion constitutionally, for each of the reposi The preservation of the inhe_rent�er��of torics of constitutional power to keep within the tre-h- Granches of overo ment Errs from its power. Rescue Army v Municipal Court enc roacTiment or m nit ement one a,on¢ e of Los Angeles, 331 US 549, 91 L ed 1666, of ergs essentialto the sac ee m o t e 67 S Ct 1409. Americans stem ot constitutional rule. eons v tact, 1 6 U7. - 10.6, 7 L ed hue v United States, bo US As to the independence of the separate de- 77ho p Ltd 13 S 16 , Ct 740; 77; People e partrncnu, see 1213, infra. Thompson, 103 US 168, 26 L ed 377; Pcoplc v Brady, 40 Cal 198; State v Brill, 100 Minn 17. Greenwood Cemetery Land Co.v Routt, 499, 111 NW 294, 639; Searle v Yensen, 17 Colo 156, 28 P 1125; Re Davies, 168 NY 118 Neb 835, 226 NW 464, 69 ALR 257; 89,61 NE 118. Enterprise v State, 156 Or 623, 69 P2d 953. ®I Searle v Ytnscn, 118 Neb 835. 226 NW 18. State v Denny, 118 Ind 382, 21 NE 69 ALR 257; Enterprise 252; Enterprise v State, 156 Or 623, 69 46I Se rprise v State, 156 P2d 953; De Chastellux v Fairchild, 15 Pa / Or 623, 69 P2d 953 (quoting the famous 18. declaration of Montempiela that "there By the mutual checks and balances by surd he no liberty if the er o tau between the branches of government, dttnoc- sn not se rate roe d a taws an executive cren racy undertakes to preserve the liberties of the people from excessive concentrations of au- 12- Tucker v State, 218 Ind 614, 35 NE2d thority. United Public Workers v Mitchell, Y70. 330 US 75, 91 L ed 754, 67 S Ct 556. The rimary purpose of the doctrine ofVVV11 13. Tucker v State, supra; Dearborn Twp. senarat,ano owersatprevent the com-v Dail, 334 Mich 673, 55 NW2d 201. mation In t re iau s of as single person orl4. Dash v Van Kleeck, 7 Johna (NY) 477 asic or un amen (per Kent,Ch.J.). oT_V2_d tit. Parker vRile14 1 83, 11 873, 134 ALR 1405. 15. §214, infra. 19. O'Donoghue v United States, 289 US P6 McCray v United States, 195 49 77 I, ed 1356, 53 S Ct 740. ed 711, 21 S Ct 71i9; Powell v Pennsylvania, It is particularly essential that the respec- 127 US 678, 32 L cd 253, 3 S Ct 992, 1257; ti , branches of the government keep within Kilbourn v '1'Iromimon, 103 US 1011, 26 f, ed th, puorrs assigned to each by the constitu- 377;Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700, 25 L ed tion. Lichter v United States;. 334 US 742, 92 L ed 1694, 68 S Ct 1294, reh den 335 US 836, 93 L ed 389, 69 S Ct 11. Separation of powers is not a mere matter of eonvemence or oI overnmenta mcc.a- n_ S9rn, �i Ii8 o��ect is sic and vital, na_rnt!te{y, i0 pret ul de a commingling O 'he essentially .. ' ddl.-rent powers ot vernment in the same Iti aa. Tate ex re( ca v tare TO-BD NE2d 294, 560, 81 NE2d 850. 24 RESOLUTION - dated -March 10, 1973 COUNCIL ON SENSIBLE TAXATION 0 C sire Kelley, Chairman Pa.uline ,E. Moen, Secretary P.O. a° _f34 Huntington,_Beac'a,. C,. 92646 �j tV 7 n(/y^ SACRAMENTO 95814 1108 11011 STREET (916) 444-5790 Lcaquc OF caLIFORRia atics DIAMOND HOTEL L 94705 REMO ANNIVERSARY HOTEL CLAREMONT 1898 (415) 843-3083 "WESTERN CITY" OFFICIAL PUBLICATION 1973 LOS ANGELES 90017 ' 702 HILTON CENTER (213) 624-4934 OFFICERS PRESIDENT: THOMAS J. MELLON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SAN FRANC I SCO FIRST VICE PRESIDENT HAROLD M. HAYES MAYOR, MONTCLAIR SECOND VICE PRESIDENT-TREASURER Sacramento, Ca. 95814 LEE H. January 16, 1973 VIES MAYOR,, MODE9T0 PAST PRESIDENT RAY D. PRUETER MAYOR, PORT HUENEME EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DON BENNINGHOVEN DIRECTORS I RECREATION Paul C. Jones, CMC - ROBERT B. ATK DIRECTOR OF RECREATION 8 PARKS City Clerk REDONDO BEACH WAYNE BORNHOFT City of .Huntington Beach CHIEF OF POLICE, FULLERTON D. O• Box 190 WILLIAM EMMFZNS Huntington _Beach, Ca. 92648 LM CITY COUNCILMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS RAYMOND M. HILL FIRE CHIEF, LOB ANGELES Dear Mr. THOMAS M. JENKINS VICE MAYO R, SAN CARLOS NORMAN J. LIND The resoluti•n of your City Council recommending DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OAKLAND League support of .legislation providing for tax GERALD "JOE" LIVERMORE relief for industrially zoned property will be MAYOR, COLUSA JACK D. MALTESTER . brought to the attention of the League Board of MAYOR, SAN LEANDRO Directors when it meets later this week. Similar JAMES F. MARTINEK DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS resolutions with .respect to preferential. treatment RIVERSIDE of specified types of -real -property also have been WILLIAM M. Mr-CALL CITY COUNCILMAN, ALAMEDA .submitted and probably will be referred to the KEITH A. MURDOCH CITY MANAGER, ANAH EIM League Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Any ROBERT M. ODELL, JR. such legislation will require a constitutional DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/TREASURER OAKLAND amendment rather than a statute. ERNEST J. PAAUWE CITY COUNCILMAN, SALINAS HELEN PUTNAM Sincerely MAYOR, PETALUMA EDWARD H. RADEMACHER MAYOR, CALIPATRIA JOHN H. READING - MAYOR, OAKLAND EDOUARD E. ROBERT Do Beni hoven CITY ATTORNEY, PETALUMA Executive Director JAMES SNAPP - - MAYOR, EL CAJON EDWIN W. WADE MAYOR, LONG BEACH ROBERT N. WHITTEMORE VICE-MAYOR, BAKERSFIELD DB:mvb HOWARD H. WIEFELS 1/lJ U MAYOR, PALM SPRINGS - PETE WILSON MAYOR, SAN DIEGO DUANE WINTERS CITY COUNCILMAN, FULLERTON SAM YORTY MAYOR, LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA CITIES WORK TOGETHER—ACTION PLAN 1973 January 3, 1973 Winston Updegraff, Executive Secretary Orange County League of California Cities 282 Cajon Laguna Beach, CA 92651. Dear Mr. Updegraff. The City Council of Huntington Beach adopted Resolution No. 3549 on August 21, 1972, recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for industrial zoned property. D It was our intention at that time to forward a certified cop to you, but apparently it was over-looked. We are enclosing a copy of the resolution .at this time and urge your support for the enactment of state legislation to allow such tax relief. Copses were forwarded to Assemblymen Cory and Burke and Senators Whetmore and Carpenter in August. Sincerely yours, PAUL C, JOKES, CMC City. Clerk By Ass stant C ty Clerk PCJ:M:aw Enc. CC: City Administrator .3 City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 160 CALIFORNIA 62646 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 3, 1973 Mr. Don' Benninghoven, , Executive Director League of California Cities Hotel Claremont Berkeley, CA 94705 Dear Mr. Benninghoven: - The City Council of Huntington Beach adopted Resolution -No: 3549 on August 21, 1972, recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for industrial zoned property. It .was our intention at that time to forward a certified copyy to you, but apparently it was. over-.looked. We are enclosing a copy of the resolution at this time and urge your support for the enactment -of state legislation to allow such tax relief. Copies were forwarded to Assemblymen Cory and Burke and Senators Whetmore and Carpenter in August. Sincerely yours, PAUL C. JONES, CMC City Clerk By ss stant ty Clerk PCJ:ED:aw Enc. CC: City Administrator J� Huntington Beach Planning Commission [Oil P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 August 3, 1972 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission RE: Resolution No. 1095 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator Paul Jones, City Clerk Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 1095, a resolution of the City Planning Commission re- commending the creation of tax relief provisions for industrially zoned property. The Planning Commission approved said resolution on August 1, 1972 and recommends that your Honorable Body adopt a similar resolution. Respectfully submitted, K.A. Reynolds Secretary KAR:jh Encl: Resolution No 1095 v in { RESOLUTION NO 1095 r A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON '? BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CREATION OF TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS FOR INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY r s. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has determined that the demand for the sale and development ` of industrial property is less than the demand for res- idential property, and WHEREAS , this demand is a result of industrial property developing after a labor pool has been es- tablished and adequate facilities provided, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has been petitioned on numerous -occasions to reclassify in- dustrial property for residential use, and WHEREAS, such petitions , when approved, result in an erosion of the city's potential industrial base, and WHEREAS, such erosion upsets the balance of land use needed for a city to maintain an economically sound a=: fiscal plan, and WHEREAS, the City ' Planning Commission has determined that taxation of vacant .industrial property creates economic pressures .on property, and Resolution No 1095 WHEREAS, such economic pressures are often the reason for .property owners to seek relief through the sale of their property, and ' - WHEREAS, such relief cannot be realized until the demand for industrial property is increased, and M WHEREAS, the property tax has also been determined ' ={ to cause premature development of property. 1�G, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission *of the City of Huntington Beach, ;p California recommends that State legislation be enacted to allow tax relief for industrially zoned property in areas where development of such property is premature. :_- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t; Section 1. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of the City of E Huntington Beach, California, adopt a similar resolution. ' , Section 2. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council forward copies ' of this resolution to .Senator Carpenter, Senator Whetmore, Assemblyman Burke, Assemblyman Cory, the California League of Cities, and the California State r^" Legislature. rs=' REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the lst day of August, 1972, by the following roll call vote: _e. R%—olution No. 1095 AYES: Slates, Bazil, Porter, Kerins , Boyle, Higgins. �•� NOES: None. jt u. ABSENT: None. !`w- 1:3 f. ATTEST: VC G. �Nl. �,•Ye K.A. Reynold rcus M. Porte Secretary Chairman ..3 •:::t �Y 35 8 August 1972 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Recommending Creation of Tax Relief for Industrially Zoned Property At the request of the Planning Commission, the attached resolution is transmitted for adoption recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for industrially zoned property . The Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 1095 adopted August 1, 1972 determined that taxation on vacant industrial property creates economic pressures on property and is often the reason for property owners to seek relief through the sale of their property, and recommends state legislation be enacted to allow tax relief for industrially zoned property . Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:AHB:bc Attachment August 22, 1972 The Honorable Kenneth Cory Assembly Post Office Sacramento, CA 95801 n Dear Assemblyman Cory: LJ The City Council of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 21; 1972, adopted Resolution No. 3549, . recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for indus- trially zoned property. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:p Encl. 1 R August 22, 1972 a i The Honorable Robert H. Burke Assembly Post Office e Sacramento, CA 95801 Dear Assemblyman Burke: The City Council of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting D held Monday, August 21, 1972, adopted Resolution No. 3549, recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for indus- trially zoned property. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution for your consideration. Sincerely, f Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:p Encl. f i August 22, 1972 i The Honorable James E. Whetmore Senate Post Office Sacramento, CA 95801 Dear Senator Whetmore: D The City Council of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 21, 1972, adopted Resolution No. 3549, recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for indus- trially zoned property. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Y Paul C. Jones City Clerk, PCJ:p Encl. i August 22, 1972 The Honorable Dennis Carpenter Senate Post Office Sacramento, CA 95801 Dear .Senator Carpenter: The City Council of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 21, 1972, adopted Resolution No. 3549, recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for indus- triallyyzoned property. D Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Encl. • i RESOLUTION N0.. 3627 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION URGING THE CALI- FORNIA 'LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF SMALL TAXING DISTRICTS WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is concerned that there may be small taxing districts in exist- ence which serve no useful purpose and as such , every effort should be made to eliminate such districts where possible , NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach urges the League of California Cities to adopt a resolution urging the California legislature to provide enabling legis- lation for the elimination of small taxing districts which =' serve no useful purpose . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of January, 1973 . Mayor ATTEST : City Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM: CiTy Attorney • Res. No. 3627 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected , qualified and acting 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 January lg 73 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, Coen NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley City' Cam° a '"-c�t ficio Clerk. of the City C ncil of the City of Huntington Beach , California January 2, 1973 Winston Updegraff,_ Executive Secretary Orange County League of' California Cities 282 Capon Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Mr. Updegraff: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular ` meeting held Tuesday, January 2, 1973 adopted Resolu- D tion Mo. 3627 urging the League of Caiifornia Cities to adopt a resolution urging the California Legislature to provide enabling legislation for the elimination of small taxing districts. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution for your consideration. Sincerely yours, PAUL C. JONESt CMC City Clerk By Assistant City Mirk PCJ':EDaaw Enc. CC: City Administrator --City of Huntington Beach P.O. 60X 190 CALIFORNIA 6260 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 3, 1973 Mr. Don B_ enninghoven, . . Executive Director League of California Cities Hotel Claremont Berkeley, CA 94705 Dear Mr.. Benninghoven: The City. Council of Huntington Beach adopted Resolution No: 3549 on August 21, 1972, recommending the creation of tax relief provisions for industrial zoned property. It was our intention at. that time to fosward "a certified copy to you, but apparently it was over-looked. We are enclosing a copy of the resolution at this time and urge your support for the enactment of e.tate_ legislation to allow such tax relief. Copies were forwarded to Assemblymen .Cory and Burke and Senators Whetmore and Carpenter in August. Sincerely yours, PAUL C. JONES, CMC City Clerk By Bs stant City CLerkf- PCJ:ED:aw ` Enc. CC: City Administrator 1. .vt •�%yA���rn,,•� r August 22, 1972 Mr. Marcus Porter, Chairman Fur-tin ton Reach Planning Commission � --ovidence Lane '--intinvtor. !-each , California :.ear Mir. Porter: At the City Ccuneil meeting last nij;,.ht you made Inquiry co;;cerning whether or not the Council tiad adopted a re:-,olution urging, the consolidation , reorganisation and lissolution of some of the 138 srecial dl9tricts In "'rani,(-- "our t y . �ttached .s a co;y of a ss..Tple resolution which was v roposed .-'y this office , toi ether with a co;)y our let':er to the secretary of the OrAnp� County Division of t`ie LP,ijue of Call fnrnla Cities suvvestinr 1—!!option ..;e, rPsoluti_on if' the League deem C ,=1C' -action � ,,,,.,.:�..�•t .ate! . Very trily yours , :)ON P . BONFA City Attorney �,psy . art Attachments 1 ce : Pavid D. Powlands Cit.v Administrator I oatirdRnia uni ipat CilY uG. i;!INikPi��iuy gpCiiOctober 1972 CM 298 PROPOSITION 14 " (WATSON INITIATIVE) Taxation I By— -- (Initiative, Constitutional Amendment) ------------------ The following report on the Watson Initiative was written by the California Taxpayers' Association. CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE is reprinting the. entire_ article believing it contains an excellent basic analysis as well as listing the arguments pro and 'con on Proposition 14. The California Taxpayers' Association has made no recommendation to voters on this issue but instead has urged voters to measure the effect this Initiative will have on themselves and vote accordingly. ANALYSIS This Proposition, the controversial "Watson Initiative," would essentially restructure the State's system of taxation. It is designed to shift a good deal of the- burden of property*taxes to other taxes: sales tax, bank and corporation taxes, specific.consumer taxes, new mineral severance tax, and a restructured tax on insurance companies. Specifically, the proposition: .Limits property tax to 1.75% of market value ($7.00/100). .Prohibits the use of property tax to fund social welfare services. *Limits the use of property tax to fund education. .Prohibits the State from levying a property tax unless no other funds or tax sources are available, in which case such a tax could be levied only to satisfy debts or liabilities. •Sets tax rate limits for local taxing agencies, generally as follows: .Counties — $2.00 plus revenue needed to retire "debts and liabilities." Contains a grandfathering clause permitting existing rate less the tax rate equivalent of social welfare services and less the tax rate equivalent of county general levy for educational purposes (county superintendent of schools budget), but limit must be attained by 1976-77. *City and County (San Francisco) — $4.00, same grandfather consideration. .Cities — $2.00, same grandfathering clause. .Special districts wholly within county — $0.50, same grandfathering. Provides that Board of Supervisors shall allocate tax limits to special districts unless the Legislature does this. Would have a substantial effect on irrigation and similar agriculturally-oriented districts unless these districts convert to a water-sale or user fee basis of operation for bulk of their needs. Should not jeopardize repayment of loans for distribution systems, etc.; or bond payments. OjRi-[)RATED C�a. Special districts crossing county lines — $0.50, same grandfathering. Requires that the Legislature provide for allocation of rate limit if the limit exceeds 500 after the grandfathering period. Same concerns regarding irrigation, etc., districts, •Revamps school financing. Places community college financing entirely with state. Provides for total funding of kindergarten through 12th grade on a county-wide basis by requiring state general fund monies computed at $825.00 per pupil within the county less the amount which a county-wide $2.00 tax rate limit would raise. The gross amount allocated to a county for K-12 school operation would be allocated to school districts by the county Board of Supervisors. One county, possibly more, could raise more than the base amount with the $2.00 rate, or could furnish more than the base amount with a $2.00 rate. Legislature may pre-empt the Board of Supervisors authority to allocate the gross amount for the county. The base amount of $825 is to be adjusted annually by the Legislature by means of a cost-of-living index formula which they will establish, or may be changed by them from time to time. There appears to be no capability for local enhancement of the school dollar through any process, except possibly by the acceptance of gifts from individuals or by grants from Federal agencies. There would appear to be no grandfathering provision as to school rate limits except in the general override ability to raise funds needed to service debts. •Restricts future debt obligations by requiring that all proposals concerning general indebtedness be subject to 2/3 voter approval at a statewide primary or general election. All existing debts are grandfathered in to permit overrides in addition to the operational limits imposed. •Defines property tax to include all levies based on the value of property. This might require some change in terminology as to irrigation districts levying assessments on a per-acre basis, but utilizing a flat value per acre for the mechanics of processing the levy. Special assessments based on improvements (parking districts, curb and gutter assessments, etc.) are not affected. •Defines "assessed valuation of taxable property" as the value of property after.the deduction of the value of all exemptions. •Defines the cost of education as all operating costs including capital outlay associated with public schools, grades K-12, present and future. •Defines social welfare to include practically all present and future social services: general relief, aged, disabled, blind, children, medical aid to these and to the medically indigent, etc. •Defines debts and liabilities to include any obligation made in conjunction with acquiring capital assets which is financed in more., than: two_:years: This covers _lease-purchase and lease-option types of agreements, similar to those under joint exercise of power agreements or the use of employee retirement funds. •Increases the State sales tax rate from 4¢ to 60. The local rate of 10 continues. Rates may be increased by legislative action on a 2/3 vote, or may be decreased by a majority vote. •Prohibits application of the sales tax to prescription drugs or food products currently exempt. •Retains the present income tax structure unless the Legislature acts to increase rates by a 2/3 vote. •Increases the liquor tax from $2.00 to $2.50 per gallon. •Imposes a severance tax of 7%on all minerals(except for water and steam). This tax, levied at the time of extraction, is reduced by the amount of property taxes paid on the mineral "pool." •Provides for the taxation of all corporations at the same rate. At present, banks and insurance companies are covered by separate constitutional provisions. Corporations are taxed at 7%. This 1P Proposition would tax them all at 11%. This rate may be changed by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. *Requires approval by the electorate of future exemptions or classification of property which result in a tax less than the normal property tax. *Locks into the Constitution the total exemption of household personal property. .The operative date is July 1, 1973. FISCAL EFFECTS Since the day the voters qualified the Watson Initiative for the ballot, discussion on both sides of the issue has predominately centered on the precise amount of the tax shift between the property tax and other sources -of State revenue. This is an important consideration, but it must be recognized that every projection of the Initiative's fiscal-consequences is based on estimates of an extremely high order. In this respect the Watson Initiative is in no way different from any tax bill, whether it be sponsored by the people, as this one is, or by the Legislature. The type of economic forecasting, which accompanies any major tax reform proposal, cannot be done with precision. The proponents believe that the measure does provide for raising the revenue necessary to offset the reduction in property taxes of some $2.2 billion. Other analyses suggest that the Watson Initiative may be out of balance by $372 million. Uncertainties about the use of Federal funds for education and the allocation of increased cigarette tax revenues overshadow a deficit of this amount. Our own view is that the Initiative could easily be in balance depending on the general level of economic activity in the State and the resolution of some technical questions which have not been clarified. The measure was titled mentioning a probable deficit of $700 million. The same sources now suggest that the amount may only be $372 million. Our estimate was $235 million earlier this year. All recent work with the Initiative is showing the Initiative .to be much closer in balance than it was just a few weeks ago. The overall fiscal adjustments in the state and local tax structure caused by the Initiative amount to over $4 billion. To see estimates vary by $300—$400 million in a tax program .of this magnitude is quite understandable. The margin for error in the Watson Initiative is no greater than in this year's State budget. The Initiative will have a profound effect on realigning the fiscal responsibilities of both state and local government. This is especially true with respect to funding education and social welfare. The fundamental issue presented by the Initiative relates to whether:the..-major part: of these programs should be borne by the property tax as it is now, or shifted to a broader group of taxes such as sales, corporation, and other income-related taxes. We believe the voters should judge the Initiative in the light of this larger question rather than whether the tax increases and decreases balance to the penny. ARGUMENTS Pro: 1. The Legislature has consistently shown its inability to enact a comprehensive tax reform plan. While the initiative process is admittedly not the best way to implement legislation of this magnitude, at this time it is obviously the most practical. 2. Property taxes are increasing at an alarming rate. The time is long past due when the burden of property tax must be shifted to another tax source. Tax rates are now as high as $14 per 100. 3. The property tax is the one open-ended tax in our entire tax system. There is no limit to the extent the property tax can be used in financing local government. To correct this fundamental defect in the property tax the Initiative limits the use of the property tax for local government purposes to $7.00 for each $100 of a property's taxable value. The costs of education, welfare, etc. rise in relation to the amount that taxes can be increased. Imposing an absolute ceiling on the use of the property tax is the only way that public officials can be made to hold government spending in line with the true rate of economic growth. 4. A property tax as high as California's causes businesses to leave the State, is ruinous to agriculture, and makes the cost .of home ownership prohibitive to thousands of young families and the elderly. Any sustem of taxation which retards the growth of industry, housing, and agriculture cannot help but cause a decline in the State's economy generally. 5. Our present method of school taxation is not only expensive for certain taxpayers, but will probably be ruled unconstitutional as a result of "Serrano" and similar litigation. This proposal establishes a uniform tax rate for schools and a uniform cost per ADA, thus moving toward compliance with the supposed outcome of these cases. If it becomes necessary, for example, to make allowances above the specified level for the special education needs of the inner city, such an action could be taken far more easily under this proposal than under the present system. 6. Those opposed to this measure claim that the required cost per ADA of $825 is too low; tliat the present average expenditure is about $925. This line of reasoning is faulty. The $925 figure is an average which includes the expenditure figures for the highest and the lowest districts. The $825 figure in this proposal is based on the compiled costs of providing an adequate educational program. 7. The total costs of welfare should be shifted to the State because welfare is a program which has little relationship to local . government. County government has no control over the administration of welfare, yet it is required to share in a significant part of its funding. Welfare is a field that has been pre-empted entirely by the State and Federal government. All its costs, therefore, should be placed with those who dictate welfare policy. 8. The use of joint powers and leaseback financing is being increasingly used by local agencies to bypass voter approval of general obligation bonds. This tactic has done a great deal to increase the property tax burden. This proposal would require voter approval (by a 2/3 vote) of all debts or liabilities, removing from local government the ability to commit tax dollars without voter approval. 9. The multiplicity of small special districts is an old, nagging problem, another which the Legislature has been unable to solve. Cities and counties, in order to preserve their own tax rate, have encouraged this growth. It is possible that the imposition of a 500 limit will discourage such proliferation. 10. Opponents of this measure maintain that renters will receive no relief. This is not true. Renters would receive relief through the economic process of open market competition. Landlords will be relieved of property tax pressure, and when vacancies occur, this "savings" will probably be passed on to new renters in an effort to maintain occupancy. Con: 1. This is not a tax relief measure. It is a tax shift measure, requiring significant state tax increases. 2. This measure would severely limit the ability of the Legislature to respond to changing social and economic needs. Setting tax rate limits by Constitutional Amendment would leave few options open in time of need or crisis. �r 3. This measure is far too complex to have its major elements subject to change only by another vote of the people. It is grossly unfair to expect the electorate to decide on an issue of such complexity, when even the so-called experts are unable to agree as to its effect. 4. The education portion of this measure would provide a good deal less money for education than would the present system. Present expenditures average far in excess of the $825 per ADA required by this measure. 5. The cost of education is defined as being all operating costs, including capital outlay, associated with the K-12 school, present and future. There is a substantial question concerning whether the local taxing authority of school districts will be allowed for the construction of new facilities. There is a body of opinion which holds that future capital outlay costs for education will be borne by the State. 6. The term "social welfare services" is very broadly defined, raising some question as to the State's obligation to finance such "educational" operations as school lunch programs, preschool classes, etc. 7. Both special and general service local agencies will be unable to support themselves. They will be forced to turn to the State and Federal governments to shoulder the burden of needed services. The result will be a strongly centralized government, the antithesis of home rule. 8. Under this measure, the total of all special district rates within a county is limited to 500. This would force many districts to levy little more than a token rate. Many districts supplying essential services would be severely crippled. This is especially true in unincorporated areas where no other units of government are available to provide necessary services. 9. There is no guarantee that renters will benefit from this measure, although they will be called upon to pay their share of the new taxes required by the proposal. Dean Witter& Co. Incorporated Municipal Consulting Department 45 Montgomery Street 10/16/72 San Francisco, California 94106 A RESOLUTION OF THE RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING PROPOSITION 14 KNOWN AS THE WATSON INITIATIVE WHEREAS, Proposition 14 (Watson Initiative) imposes arbitrary tax rate limitations upon local agencies without providing any remedy to those agencies whose expenditures exceed the revenues generated by the maximum tax rates allowed; and WHEREAS, any property tax reductions provided by the initiative would benefit the business community at the expense of single family homeowners whose property tax reductions would be substantially more than offset by other increased taxes specified in the initiative needed to compensate for the massive statewide deficit the initiative would create; and WHEREAS, the passage of Proposition 14 would remove the majority of dunds now available for operation of the elementary, high school, and college districts which would result in the inability of these districts to meet their financial obligations after July 1, 1973; and WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach Recreation and Parks Department is dependent upon use of these school facilities in order to conduct a comprehensive recreational program for the citizens of the City; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the Recreation and Parks Commission of Huntington Beach, California on October 11, 1972, that they oppose this ill- conceived measure and urge all registered voters to vote against this potentially devastating initiative proposition in November. Norm Worthy, Sec tart' Recreation and Parks Commission Pa�.� CITY OF GARDEN GROVE , CALIFORNIA 13 w pit I A( ACIA,_-.1'Al.,KWAY, (,Akl)l N (JO)VI (-AJ-11 ()RN 1A 2040 gZ]Foo Nt. GARDEN GROVE October 26 , 1972 Dy ........... The Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach 520 Pecan Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: We are enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 4320-72 , adopted by the Garden Grove City Council at its wgular meeting of Octol-)or 17 , 1972 , supporting the modification of current tax assessment practices that discourage improvement and maintenance of residential properties , and urging the State Legislature to take action to correct this situation . The Garden Grove City Council urges your support by adopting a similar resolution and joining this effort to modify the current tax assessment practices . Very truly yours , CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, CJ'I"L" GLERK RKSIps Encl. y - RESOLUTION NO. 4 320-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE SUPPORTING ACTIONS TO MODIFY CURRENT TAX ASSESSMENT PRACTICES THAT DISCOURAGE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Garden Grove is a bedroom community with approximately 26,000 single family homes, most of which are owner occupied; and WHEREAS, the majority of Garden Grove's residences were constructed during the short span of the 1950's and 1960's and can be expected to deterio- rate in a similar time span; and WHEREAS, the City of Garden Grove has established a Residential Pro- tection and Improvement Program to encourage and facilitate home improvements. and maintenance; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City of Garden Grove to develop a satisfactory home and community environment for all persons residing in Garden" Grove; and WHEREAS, the current property tax assessment practices which assess improvements on the land is penalizing and discouraging homeowners to main- twin and improve their residences; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 1972, the Environmental Policy, Planning and Advisory Commission discussed the current assessment practices and adopted . a resolution that recommended to the City Council that all avenues be explored_ and action taken to modify existing property tax assessment policies so that homeowners will be encouraged to make physical improvements to their places of residences; and WHEREAS, the County Assessor conducts his assessment operations and practices in accordance with current State laws, thereby requiring any change in assessment policies to be originated with the State Legislature, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Garden Grove supports action to modify current tax assessment practices that discourage improvement and maintenance of residential, properties and urges the State Legislature to take actions to correct the situation. BE IT FURTIIL•'h RESOLVED, that the City Council. of. the City of Carden . Grove invites all Orange County cities to join in this effort and solicit support from State Legislator;, the League of California Cities, California Assessors', Association and any other organization interested in the modifica- tion of Vito current tax assessment practices. ADOPTED this 17th clay of: October, 1972. ZSZBERNARD C. ADAMS t�TTEST; 1AAY0R RUBY K . SII.VA CITY GLrram. STATE OF C;ALIFOl\'.M:A ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: CITY OF GART)EN GLOVE ) 1 , RtIBY K . SILVA, City (;Intl: of the City ot. C;,ndoii Co-ove do hereby cel-tiiy thlit flier, roroquinq l:eruolutic�n �� ��: (fitly ddoph,d by thy, Gotinc.i.l of tho City of C i .icn GI-OVe, CLIl.iiornirl , O t .t r0qu10u- 1110etinc1 thereof h( lel can the 17th clay of October, 1072 , by the follovving vc>te: AYES: C0UNCII.MEN: RUTTEltl'IELD, E)ONOVAN 1AKE, SCHN11T, 11D\ ,IS NOES: COUNCILMEN: 1\1ONE ABSENT: GOUNC1111.0LN: NONE S Rl I hY K. ;I l-VA CALIFORNi-A ROADSIDE COU N C I L 2636 OCEAN AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94132 (415) 681-6189 If no ans.call 333-9135 OFFICERS JOHN HARVEY CARTER,AIA MRS.RALPH A.REYNOLDS MRS.ANN DUNCA Vice President,Sacramento County President,San Francisco Secretary-Treasurer,Ala da Court EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE-AT-LARGE MRS.HOMER A.BOUSHEY JOHN W.BROAD WILLIAM C.DEAMER,M.D. ROBERT C.DONOVAN RENE GUILLOU RAYM D E. A. San hfateo County San Francisco San Francisco Santa Clara County Yolo County Lo An l BOARD MEMBERS Alameda County MRS.MARION S.BOTHWELL JEROME C.DRAPER III Butte County October 13, 1972 MRS.RUBY N.FALLON Contra Costa County _ DONALD E.ANDERSON ROBERT L.AUGENTHALER Fresno County { HAROLD TOKMAKIAN,AIP IX11OR,N`MM11 Kern County GEORGE ALLIN,M.D. Kings County ] �` per (f /7�/1 wM, Legal ��,] Legislative /� ROBERT E.GRUNWALD,AIP,ASLA - To members o1 CRC Executive and ++eg • and Cannittees .Los Angeles County MRS.EDMUND G.BROWN JOSEPH J.COHN MRS.FAYE S.HOVE �. /7 r1 DR.FRANK TYSEN J.'i o7a C' Morin County HUGH DOUGHERTY ALFRED HELLER JAMES R.MCCARTHY,AIP _ Mendocino County Shall we oppose this? It has been presented as a serious MRS.LUCIENNEBLOCHGRAD DIMI'I'AOFF threat to environmental projects and environme2ltal organizations. MRS.WILLIAM F.GRADER Monterey County DONALD GOODHUE,AIA AIMS MICHAUD Napa County - MRS.WARREN LEMMON Orange County ALVIN M.COEN.ATTORNEY MRS.HENRY T.READ Riverside County . ROY F.HUDSON MRS.JAMES D.McLEAN Sacramento County THOMAS E.ROSS San Diego County EUGENE GERITZ,AIA JERRY M.HOWELL J.J.J.KENNEDY,ASLA,AILA RUSSEL L.STOCKWELL,AIA San Francisco City d County MRS.KARL C.KORTUM ROY J.SCOLA San Mateo County RONALD L.CAMPBELL Santa Barbara County MRS.MILTON J.GEYMAN 0 Santa Clara County RICHARD ZLATUNICH,AIA Tulare County DONALD A.WOOLFE - Ventura County EARL PETERSON.AS LA October 18, 1972 Mrs. Gerald Finley, President League of Women Voter's 16161 Angler Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mrs. Finley: D The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, October 16, 1972, went`-on record in opposition to Proposition No. 14 - Watson Tax Limitation Initiative. Enclosed is a "Statement of Action of the City Council" for your information. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk ` PCJ:p f Encl. ; e October 1841 1972 Ralph Kiser, Executive Secretary Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 18582 Beach Blvd. , #224 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Sir: DThe City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, October 16, 1972, went on record in opposition to Proposition No. 14 .- Watson Tax Limitation Initiative. Enclosed is a "Statement of Action of the City Council" for your information. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:p Encl. r October 18, 1972 Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley Board of Realtors 17931 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Gentlemen: D The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, October 16, 1972, went on record in opposition to Proposition No. 14 - Watson Tax Ujiitation Initiative. Enclosed is a "Statement of Action of the City Council" for your information. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:p Encl. I „ October 18, 1972 10 Mrs. Ralph A. Reynolds, President California Roadside Council 2636 Ocean Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 Dear Mrs. Reynolds: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, October 16, 1972, gent on record in opposition to Proposition No. 14 - Watson Tax Limitation Initiative. Enclosed is a "Statement of Action of the City Council" for your information. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJtp Encl. ' t•Ft,1 STATEMENT OF THE ACTION- OF CITY COUNCIL , Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday. OCtnbAr 16. 1972 Mayor Coen called the regular meeting of the 'City Council of the City of Huntington. Beach to order at 7:00 P.M. Councilmen Present: Shipley., Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, Coen .ti. Councilmen Absent: None PROPOSITION NO. 14 - (WATSON AMENDMENT) - OPPOSED A motion was made by Councilman Matney, that Council go on record in opposition to Proposition No. 14 - Watson Tax Limitation Initiative and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, Coen ; -'h NOES: Councilmen: None +,- ABSENT: Councilmen: None ` The Council directed that copies of this action be forwarded to Mrs. Ralph A. Reynolds, President of the California Roadside Council, the Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters. 7t�F�t�k7k*yYick�Ar*7k�k*�kilcit�nfrolr*7k�k*�tkit�lt�ink�*k7k�nkAritY7k�fr�Ink7k�iroSr�k4tic�lr�Firk4r�lk'yk�inkinkk�r�c�frk�Vc �' On motion by Shipley the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned at 10:20 P.M. 4; to at in the = The motion was passed by the following vote: r` AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, Coen NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None Paul C_ Jones City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: .Paul C. Jones Alvin M. Coen City Clerk Mayor c r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true ' and correct Statement of Action of the City- Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 16th day of October,.-.r:"__ ' ` 19-72 WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington,Reach, this- the- `17th day of October 19 72. - - Paul C. •.Tones ' City `Clerk. and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntirgto Beach, California BY• Deputy STATEMENT OF THE ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Mnndgy, October 16, 1972 Mayor Coen called the regular meeting of then 'City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:00 P.M. • " Councilmen Present: Shipley., Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, .Coen k. s Councilmen Absent: None PROPOSITION NO. 14 - (WATSON AMENDMENT) - OPPOSED tt A motion was made by Councilman Matney, that Council go on record in opposition for i; Proposition No: 14 - Watson Tax Limitation Initiative and was passed by the following t ' roll call vote: ` AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, Coen NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None ' The Council directed that copies of this action be forwarded to Mrs. Ralph A. Reynolds, President of the California Roadside Council, the Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley _, Board of Realtors, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women4 Voters. F•. On motion by Shipley the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned at 10:20 P.M. to at in the The motion was passed by the following vote: ` AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Matney, Duke, Coen NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None Paul S_ _Tones City Clerk and. ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: Paul C. Jones Alvin M. Coen r City Clerk Mayor I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach } I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 16th day of October , 19 72. WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Bea�'!_h�"eh.is••the 17th day of October 19 72 Aaul' d".1 Jones" City�_Uerk and_,ex-officio Clerk of-t`6e=City Council--of the City of-Hunting-to. Beach, California BY Deputy Ic CITY HALL zn 119 WEST WALNUT AVENUE TELEPHONE REgent 6.1261 41?1 September 13 , 1972 O�pD�ITED AUGUSt13 Paul C.Jones" City Clerk 5th and Pecan Avenue Huntington Beach, -CA Dear Mr . Jones : The Community Development Department of our City is presently evaluating the numerous charges associated with new construction with the idea of recommending . a development tax in lieu of the present method of assessments:. It is my understanding that your City has such a tax. I would appreciate a copy of your ordinance establishing this tax as well as a copy of any supporting staff reports.. Thank you for your cooperation and if I may be of any assistance' in the future , please do not hesitate to contact me . Very truly yours , RICHARD E.REA -Administrative Aide INDEX AND ABSTRACT OF DELINQUENT TAXES ✓ COUNTY OF ORANGE ASSESSED VALUATIONS SALE NUMBER ASSVESAMRENT CODE AREA PARCEL NUMBER__ LAND AND/OR L IMPROVEMENTS PERSONAL PROPERTY TOTAL NET SOL-VENT 7- t MINERAL r--- 448316 1966 20-Q 4 EXEMPTION TANG CREDITS' 1 10 220-47 YR. BUILDING OTHER TREES-VINES HOUSEHOLD OTHER RIGHTS TAXABLE VALUE — --- SALE DATE 6 500 500 6-30-67 6-7 105� 1050 DATE DEEDED DATE RECORDED BOOK 7GE POSTPONEMENT ACCOUNT ASSESSEE: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1967 : Assessed value is 25% of full cash. value. U MAIL TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P 0 BOX 190 HUNTINGTN BCHP CAL 92648 .� YOUR RECEIPTDESCRIPTION: SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 NW1/4 AS PER DD 7343/702 OR- w � A 1 TAX AMOUNTS ' YEAR CODE SPECIAL DISTRICT TAXES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TAX FIRST AMOUNT REDEMPTION SOLVENT TOTAL COLLECTORS REDEMPTION - •NOTES AREA COSTS Is AMOUNT OF AMOUNT SECOND LAND AND LAND 91MPS. CREDITS STREET TAX DELINQUENT SALE TO STATE PENALTIES HAL/ TAX IMPROVEMENTS LAND EXCLUDING M.R. SANITARY LIGHTING WEEDS 5OTHER PENALTIES `J 66 44.69 2.46 3. 15 950 50.80 3.04 3.00 56.84 J7 ;79' 7Y ;42 67 90.86 5.09 6.61� .94 58.00w 161.50 9.68I 3.00 1�4.18 zz( m / - 68 PAID 12-10- 8 I I 69 PAID 12-10- 9 - ? 70 PAID I I I I CERTIFICATE OF REDEMPTION STATE REDEMPTION FEE I✓r'� 1 HEREBY CERTIF AT I HAVE RECEIVED OF TOTAL AMOUNT TO REDEEM I � � I THE SUM OF $ /y RECEIPT NO ' ACCRUED INT. @ 6% rJf REDEMPTION AMOUNT AND INT. 1 THE AMOUNT NECESSARY 3O REDEEM THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED CREDIT INSTALLMENTS PAID TO y ✓ �r''�1s:�S..' '17�=Y Robert L, I�BOW' Ciit70RI PRINCIPAL $ AND INT.$ ' ' COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR.REDEMPTION OFFICER UNPAID BALANCE cam` G _ 21 t9L `DATE pPR INTEREST ON UNPAID BALANCES PREPARED BY / ��� � i � �BY DE PLO FROM 19 TO +9 F.1104-7 - TOTAL AMOUNT OF REDEMPTION .-:..:._:_..�:a.�.__ w. _.__.. .�....,._,........�:,--.._.,__....-......._. __.Y.__-"___._. .._..��.........-...'.....,,............- �.M.,. _._..�,Ps.x...�w.,..r.-.,a..a ren •_ c n+��,....cvm-r—a.;-.�.,T--"-+---"- ^.w. -w_�:.•..,.—,.o.��--.r�r_-+:n�. a' ...- ��,s,..- HOME COUNCIL , [Jed "Home Owners Mutual and Executive Council" `\ P.O. BOX 1601, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92L7 Dear. Community Leader, Upon the request of HOME Council, there will be a letter before the Orange County Board of Supervisors during their 9:30 A.M. , Tuesday, November 2nd Session regardin a new property tax bill format used for the first time this M72 fiscal year. I believe the subject will be of interest to you. Enclosed you will find a .example of the new property tax bill . You will notice that all school district tax rates, which amount to almost two—thirds of the total property tax rate , are amalgamated under a single heading, education. HOME Council members do not think this new tax bill offers the tax— payer adequate information as to how his tax dollars will be spent., HOME Council members have gone on public record as opposed to the continued use of the new tax bill in an open letter to the Board of Supervisors, but unless there is significant public protest against the new abbreviated format, its use will undoubtably be continued in future years in the interest of economy. If you agree that the public deserves a more adequate breakdown of where school tax dollars are going, your supportive action is requested. The following are ways that you can help: (1 ) Attend the session on Tuesday, November 2nd, at 9:30 A.M. , on the fifth floor at 515 North Syca— more , Santa Ana. (2) Write the Board of Supervisors at the above address and send copies to the local press. (3) Telephone your comments to your district ' s repre— sentative. David L. Baker, District 2, 834-3220. Ronald Caspers, District 5, 834-3550. Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Sincerely yours R. E. Dingwall/ President HOME COUNCIL lie Home Owners Mutual and Ezecutiue Council' P.O. BOX 1601,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF.92647 (AN OPEN LETTER) October 14, 1971 Board of Supervisors County of _ Orange 515 N. Sycamore Santa Ana, California Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: It has been brought to our attention that the Orange County Tax Collector Mr. Citron has brought about certain changes to the property tax bill as sent out to property owners throughout Orange County. We understand that these changes were implemented in the interest of cost reduction and we congratulate Mr. Citron for his cost consciousness. It is our belief that there are certain secondary effects brought about by these changes that far outweigh any ad— vantage to the taxpayer. We believe that every level of government should exert the maximum effort to inform the taxpayer as to the disburse— ment of his tax dollar; that this information should be more than available at some distant office buried under a ton of legalistic terminology, and kept under lock and key during the evening hours when most taxpayers are avail— able for discussion of such matters. We believe that success of local government is directly proportional to the amount of citizen involvement and that no topic will stir citizen involvement more than taxes. With the above in mind, we ask your consideration of the following resolution adopted on July 28, 1971 . r 1, R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Orange County tax bills will have educational taxation combined under one heading (primary, secondary, community college) ; and WHEREAS, the present confusion over school finance has reached an all time high; and WHEREAS, it is the duty of all government officials both elected and appointed to make every effort to clarify such confusion; and WHEREAS, the itemized tax bill is the only official straight— forward source of information available to the majority of the property taxpayers of Orange County; NOW THEREFORE LET •IT BE RESOLVED that the Huntington Beach Homeowners Mutual and Executive Council urges the Orange County Board of Supervisors to direct the Orange County Tax Collector to render unto each and every property tax— payer an itemized tax bill that will .show each and every taxing agency by name , the taxing rate of each agency, and . the total amount rendered to that agency, as well as the overall total property tax rate and the total amount. LET IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED that the Huntington Beach Home— owners Mutual and Executive Council officially requests that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Tax Collector to render a copy of such tax bill to each and every property owner within the confines of the City of Huntington Beach, as well as to the holders of property tax escrow accounts , as many homeowners never see their property tax bill and do not understand how to go about obtaining same . Your written response as to the date this item will be placed on your agenda will be appreciated. Respectfully yours , R. E. ingwall President COUNTY OF ORANGE 1971-1197 2 STATEMENT OF SECURED PROPERTY TAXES Robert L."Bob"Citron,-County Tax Collector DESCRIPTION(SEE PARAGRAPH 9, TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR JULY 1 1971 -JUNE 30, 1972 P.O.Box 1438.Santa Ana,California 92702 CODE AREA PARCEL NUMBER I BOARD ORDER CUT NO. BATCH NO. I 4j Cam- to {, O OWNER OF RECORD AS OF 12:01 A.M.ON MARCH 1. 1971 MAIL � U TO. I IL1 0 j c� 1'-I {-1 >:1 0 I LLY ASSESSED PROPERTY IN ORANGE COUNTY INFORMATIONFOR 0 a) i; ;EBBED AT 25%OF FULL CASH VALUE. AREA • i4 V.-_JATIONS AS OF 12 01 A.M. ON MARCH 1• 1971 • • • • N ' REAL PROPERTY VALUATION PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUATION TOTAL P 4.3 LAND AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED - FULL CASH 0 Cd MINERAL RIGHTS BUILDINGS OTNEP INVENTORY OTHER VALUE - VALUE 0 0 S S S S S $ j 019 N TAXING AGENCY TAX RATE VALUE BASE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS EXEMPTIONS TOTAL NET TANG IBLEEDUCATION 7.0861 I 30%INVENTORY �( OTHER TAXABLE VALUE I b0� S S COUNTY 2.0400! Ild CITY 1.6200 SECOND FIRST -4j td TOTAL INSTALLMENT INSTALLMENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS S S S 1 0 • q OC TRANSIT DIST 0200 OC FLOOD CONT .24811 1 6%PENALTY 6%PENALTY 10 114 OC HARBOR .1247� 1 6% AFTER AFTER 1 a) td .,4 MOSQUITO ABATE .00881 ! 0 MMD OC MUN ORIG .2000 COSTS 41.0E205TS I o a iiWDCC ORIG AR NO RATE H 44 4L3ERT DRAINAGE .0101 TOTAL ,� 0 UC SANITATION # 3 4741 0 �, • VOL PAGE CK VOL PAGE CK IF YOU HAVE --! 0 �' � P. WATER DI ST .0800 SOLD THIS I 0 a, a) TAL @ERT WATER .0396 PROPERTY -- RETURN I C y THIS BILL WITH INDICATES PREVIOUS+ G .--I fd 11.9515 TOTAL EXPLANATION ORTT `S SALE TO STATE 0 3 td •C FpRWARC TIiIS El;LL SEE DESCRIPTION AND REVERSE SIDE I ry 0 b TO TIIF -EIN r( CODE FOR EXEMPTIONS 4 14 Ok1:N1.P. 1 -VETERAN 5-WELFARE 2 CHURCH 6 OTHER SEE REVERSE 3 ORPHANAGE HOMEOWNER .,r 0o 0 0 4 COLLEGE X WHOLLY EXEMPTSIDE FOR 1 1J IMPORTANT COMPLETE FOR YOUR RECORDS I 0 2ND INST. 1ST INST. 0 0 0 INFORMATION CHECKit YOUR CANCELLED CHECK oarE 1 IS YOUR BEST RECEIPT MAILED C,IF YOU NEED A RECEIPT CHECK HERE O AND RETURNENTIRE TAX BILL WITH YOUR PAYMENT KEEP THIS PORTION OF THE BILL FOR YOUR RECORDS F 07 GENERAL OFFICE BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90007 SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 95814 1240 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 3301 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE HOTEL SENATOR (415)347-3651 (213)747-5671 (916)442-1017 November 13, 1970 Dear City Clerk: For your convenience enclosed is a copy of the "Highway. Carriers ' Uniform Business License Tax Act". You will note that after December 31, 1970, this law prohibits cities from assessing, levy- ing or collecting business license taxes on the intercity trans- portation business of any express corporation, freight forwarder, transportation broker,-or-p-erson•-or- corporati-on;owning--or---=---------' operating motor vehicles in the transportation of property upon the public highways, under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission (Sec . 4303) . As of October 1, 1970, this legislation required such businesses to pay a fee of one tenth of one percent of their gross receipts to the f Public Utilities Commission (Sec. 4304) , which in turn is paid to the State Controller for quarterly distribution to .the cities on a population basis (Sec . 4306) . Taxpayers may take credit against the state tax for any excise or license tax (not prohibited by the Act ) paid to any city after December 31, 1970, and such credits will be j treated as distributions to the cities collecting such taxes (Sec . 4305 and 4306 (b) ) . Many of our members are receiving bills or notices for city business license taxes for periods extending beyond December 31, 1970. Our ' attorneys advise that these taxes are not properly levied for any 'I period after December 31, 1970, since cities are by this legislation specifically prohibited from levying any such taxes on and after January 1, 1971, on the intercity business of for hire carriers. -- If for-budgeta-ry reasons- you- -desi-re-to-be--ad-vised-of-t-he °amount you -- can expect to be distributed to your city under the new law, you should follow your normal procedures with the state. It is respectfully requested that you confer with your city attorney, city controller and city tax collector to insure compliance with the new law. Cordially, Qh Wade Sherrard Managing Director The Voice of the Trucking Industry in California I Assembly BiA No.1698 CHAPTER-------- -: do act to add Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 4301) to Division 2 of, and to repeal Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 4301) of Division 2 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to taxation of transportation, making an appropriate tion therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 4301) of Division 2 of the Public Utilities Code is repealed. SEc. 2. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 4301) is added to Division 2 of the Public Utilities Code, to read CHAPTER 3. HIGHWAY CARRIERS'UMMRM BUSINESS LICENSE TA% 4301. This chapter may be cited as the"Highway Carriers' Uniform Business License Tag Act." 4302. An adequate transportation system is essential to the welfare of the state, and an important part of that system is- service rendered by highway carriers. 4303. On and after January .1, 1971, no city or city and county shall assess, levy, or collect an excise or license tag of any kind, character, or description whatever upon the inter- city transportation business of any express corporation, freight forwarder, motor transportation broker, or person or corpora tion, owning or operating motor vehicles in the transportation of property for hire upon the public highways, under the ju- risdiction of the commission. For purposes of this chapter, intercity transportation business includes every service-per= formed in connection.with transportation of property by such.-' transportation companies where both the origin point and the. destination point of such transported property are not within' / the exterior boundaries of a single city or city and county. 4304. On and after October 1, 1970, there is imposed upon every express corporation, freight forwarder, motor trans- portation.broker, and every person or corporation, owning or operating-motor vehicles in the transportation of property for hire upon the public highways, under the jurisdiction of the commission, a license fee equal to one-tenth of 1 percent of - 4 — — 5 — gross operating revenue, which shall be payable to the com- taken pursuant to Section 4305, and determine the proportion mission in the manner and at the times provided for the pay of the special account as so increased to be disbursed to each ment of the fee provided in Section 5003.1. For purposes of city or each city and county, treating the amounts of such this section, "gross operating revenue":shall be the gross op- credits as distributions to those cities or cities and counties erating revenue defined in Section 5602. reported to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (a) of this The license fee imposed by this section is in lieu of all city section. or city and county excise or license taxes of any kind, char- (c) For purposes of this subdivision, the population of each acter, or description whatever, upon the.intercity transporta- city and each city and county shall be the population deter- tion business of any express corporation, freight forwarder, mined by the Controller pursuant to Section 11005 of the motor transportation broker, or person or corporation, owning Revenue and Taxation Code. or operating motor vehicles in the transportation of property (d) Funds disbursed by the Controller pursuant to this for hire upon the public highways, under the jurisdiction of section may be used for city or city and county purposes, as the commission. the case may be, or may, but need not necessarily, be used for This section does not prohibit the imposition by any city, state purposes. or city-and county, of any excise or license tax authorized 4307. This chapter shall remain in effect until three years under Division -2 (commencing with Section 6001) of the after its effective date, and shall have no force or effect after Revenue•and Taxation Code. that date. 4305. Any person or corporation, subject to the license fee SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the imposed by Section 4304, required to pay any excise or li- immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety cense tax of any kind, character, or description whatever im- within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall posed by any city, or city and county, other than an excise go into immediate effect. The facts constituting such necessity or license tax authorized under Division 2 (commencing with are: Section 6001) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, for the The present financial crisis of the cities is of critical im- privilege of doing business therein, on or after January 1, portance to the state, and since cities must make expenditures 1971, may credit the amount of such tax against the fee im- for state purposes, it is necessary that this act go into immedi- posed by Section 4304. ate effect. 4306. (a) All funds collected by the commission pursuant to this chapter, less all refunds and administrative costs in- curred by the commission, shall be deposited in the State Treasury to the credit of a special account in the General Fund to be known as the "Highway Carriers' Uniform Busi- ness License Tax Account." All such money in the special ac- count is hereby appropriated to the Controller, and the com- mission shall report to the Controller those cities and cities and counties imposing business license taxes for which credits have been taken as provided by Section 4305 and the amounts of such credits taken, reported for each city or city and county. The.Controller, after deducting the direct cost of administering the special account, shall disburse the balance of the account as provided in this section. (b) On or before the 15th day of February, May, August, and November of each year, the-balance of the funds appropri- ated by this section shall be disbursed to the cities, and cities and counties, of this state in the proportion that the population of each city and each city and county bears to the total,popu- lation of all cities and cities and counties .in ,this state. In. determining the amount of such disbursements the Controller shall increase the special account by the amount of the credits RESOLUTION NO. 3208 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1970 - 1971 WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as assessed by the County Assessor and fixed by the Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, California, for the fiscal year. 1970-1971 is $339,783,919; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds the amount of money necessary to be raised by taxation on property in said City of Huntington 'Beach, as means of providing revenue for the operation and support of the various city departments , offices .and activities, is. 1. General $ 2,870,359 2. Employee Retirement 5081554 3. Water Bond Fund--1955 Interest. d Red. 44,376 4. Capital Outlay Fund 3399784 5. Library Fund 4.15,794 6. Music and Promotion Fund 102,411 7. Recreation and Parks 645,589 and, $ 4,926,867 A tax rate of One and 45/100ths Dollars ($1.45) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of ASSESSED VALUE OF property in said city, as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Board of Supervisors, sitting as a Board of Equalization of the County of Orange, is sufficient to raise the aforesaid amount of money, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of. Huntington Beach that the rate of taxation for said city for the fiscal . year 1970-1971 be fixed at One and 45/100ths Dollars ($ 1.45) upon each One Hundred and no/100ths Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value in said city. The. said rate shall be applied as follows; I f 1. Y� r 1. General Fund .84476 2. Employee Retirement .14967 3. Water Bond Fund--1955 Interest & Red. .01306 4• Capital Outlay Fund .10000 5. Library Fund .12237 6. Music and Promotion Fund .03014 7. Recreation and Parks .19000 Total 1.45000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington gal qurned Beach at a re u meeting thereof held on the I8t h day of August 91970. Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: City, erk APPROVED AS TO FORM: I .. t City Attor ey 2. 3 Res. No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected , qualified and acting 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 they"eof held on the 18th day of August , 19 70 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Green, Bartlett, McCracken, Matney, Coen NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs, Shipley City Clerk and -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , California T." IN THE OFr �} =- - - -- Cl y ' o #4ae fat �arnci! Oarej f H664wa Dc r , fob 59a 11 June 1970 TO: City Council FROM: City -Attorney SUBJECT : Ordinance Regulating City 's Transient Tax At the direction of the City Council, we hereby submit the attached ordinance for approval, which establishes the tax determination for transients . Respectfully submitted, .DON P. BONFA City Attor DPB:mc Attachment --.�FF10E MEMORANDUM Lv� From In Re �.�-1��, .�-�-,. �'.�f��" �/`..'"r�z-x' C,.,a'.�.�l..ot�.�.-e'er-.•--�� 11 June 1970 TO : City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT : Resolution Setting Rate of Transient Tax At the direction of the City Council, we hereby submit for the Councils approval, resolution setting rate of transient tax. Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA (/ ` City Attorne DPB :mc Attachment �- 1. Y A 4r 8 October 1969 TO : City Council f 07 FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT : Real Property Transfer Tax Upon advice from the office of the County Counsel, the attached amendment to the ordinance code must be incorporated and passed by November 10, 1969 . This amendment exempts public entities acquir- ing title from the documentary transfer tax . Respectfully submitted, DON P. F City Attorney DPB:AHB:bc Attachment . � 3 ADRIAN KUYPCR - COUNTY COUN�EE OFFICES OF CLA1 TON H. PARKER �/1��{A? �f � r ��'��.�+ ��jf CHIEF ASSISTANT r{{�{���J ``./` ILT4- Jl7Y (r \(�..i' MNSE! . ROBERT F. NUTTMAN County- �f-111,o.11�LLL ll`/. iC*. �. WILLIA A J.SSISTANTS OURT �� ® �{ TJ •{7�}� t y 0� (kD ran one - - ASSISTANTS lL/ l�.fL J111 N`V ��i JOHN M. PATTERSON P. O. BOX 1379 ARTHUR C. WAHLSTEDT. JR. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING JOHN W. ANDERSON ° 'r: : Ola�7 • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 834.3300 TIMOTHY L. STRADER RICHARD J. RANGER BARRY S. MICHAELSON RAGNAR R. ENGEBRETSEN October 1, 1969 LAURENCE M. WATSON THOMAS P. CONROY IN REPLY REFER TO: VICTOR T. BELLERUE - JOHN R. G R I S E T JOHN F. POW ELL /TGV✓ �`�• �y///\//,Iy�./. /(J( �t �DEPUTIES (//' � C��C�W � '/b'o•T••../`n'y//C//V iWn/ � y,C7//C•CW 4F HUNr,N 010 2 Oct- Mr. Don Bonfa 8' City Attorney of Huntington Beach A, Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Real Property Transfer Tax Dear Sir: During the 1969 Regular. Session of the Legislature, cer- tain amendments to the Documentary Transfer Tax were made which will have to be reflected in your city ordinance imposing this tax. We are of the opinion that the Section which reads : "The United States or any agency or instrumen- tality thereof, any state or territory, or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia shall not be liable for any tax imposed pursuant to this Article with respect to any deed, instrument or writing to which it is a party, but the tax may be collected by assessment from any other party liable therefor ." should b amended to read as follows : 3 "Any deed, instrument or writing to which the i/ United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, any state or territory, or political subdivision thereof - is a party .shall be exempt from the tax imposed pursuant to this Article when the exempt agency is acquiring title." Since this provision will become effective on November 10 , 1969 , we would suggest that you take early action to amend your_ ordinance so that the proposed change will be effective on that date . Upon approval of the amendment by your City Council, please forward a certified copy thereof to the Orange County Auditor- Controller, 630 North Broadway, Santa Ana. Very tru y ours, ADRIAN KUY 14M. County Cc'11 Ise1 RJR:kls V LAUE OF CALIFORmA cAES MEMBER NATIONAL LEAGUE OF_CITIES (Formerly—American Municipal Association) "WESTERN CITY" OFFICIAL PUBLICATION Berkeley 94705 . Hotel Claremont . . 843-3083 . . Area Code 415 Los Angeles 90017 . . 702 Hilton Center . . 624-4934 . . Area Code 213 Sacramento 95814 . . 1108 "O" Street . . 444-5790 . . Area Code 916- OFFICERS President: JACK RYERSEN Sacramento, Ca. 95814 Mayor,Santa Rosa September 11, 1969 First Vice President: EDWIN W. WADE Mayor,Long Beach Second Vice President•Treasurer: CLIFFORD F. LOADER Mayor,Delano Past President: EDWARD H.RADEMACHER Mayor,Colipatria Executive Director General Counsel: -Mr. Paul C. Jones RICHARD CARPENTER City Clerk DIRECTORS City Hall FELIX CHIALVO Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 City Councilman, Oakland JOHN J. COLLIER Parks and Recreation Director, Anaheim .Dear Mr. Jones: JAMES F. CULBERTSON City Councilman, Lodi FRANK CURRAN Thank you for -providing..us with a copy .of your .Resolution Mayor,San Diego No. 3044 relating to tax exempt interest on.state and G. SID GADSBY local bonds. The .resolution will be considered, together Salinas HAROLD M. HAYES y with several others on the same subject, b the .General Mayor,Montclair Resolutions Committee which will have before it a similar T. WILLIAM HEIDNER resolution previously adopted by the -League's Board of Fire Chief,Pasadena - H. K. HUNTER Directors. - City Manager,Ontario RONALD R. JAMES Mayor,San Jose JACK D. MALTESTER - Very truly yours, Mayor,San Leandro THOMAS J. MELLON wC'4 'i/" /�% /•` , t Chief Administrative Officer, Son Francisco ROBERT H. am MULLEN Willi G. Holliman City Attorney,Lodi , Jr.. JOSEPH OVERTON Assistant .Legal Counsel City Councilman,Coronado FRANCIS P. PACELLI Vice-Mayor,Daly City RAY D. PRUETER Mayor,Port Hueneme WGH:pc JOHN H. READING Mayor,Oakland WILLIAM R. RUGG Community Development Director, San Leandro ALLEN W. SILL Chief of Po ice,West Covina HERBERT A. SPURGIN Muyo r,Santa Monica ALBERT J. TALKIN INFORMATION ONLY Vice-Mayor,Sacramento i ROBERT M. WIISON �/ Vice-Mayor,Costa Mesa - COPIES TO. COUNCI SAM YORTY - - Mayor,Los Angeles FRITZ ZAPF - Director of Public Works, _ Pasadena ROBERT K. ZELLERS City Treasurer,El Cerrito Cable Address— LEAGUECAL, Berkeley, U.S.A. O�r�a�RgT�Oe�q� C_/7I(/ �C.��iG1�� CITY OF - ----------------- ------------------ CALIFORNIA yc 119 Ty August 1, 1969 0 Mr. William S . Pitt, City Clerk City of Pacific Grove, City Hall Forest and Laurel Streets Pacific Grove, California , 93959 Dear Mr. Pitt : I understand that in August , 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Muni- cipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appre- ciated if you would send me a copy of this ordi- nance, as the City of Huntington Beach is con- sidering the adoption of a similar revenue measure . Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb --------��NSINGTpN RA?-, CITY OF Z3 c-� � c�vC/����r�!/ p- 6.1------ - ------- ---- 7 CALIFORNIA COUNTY CPS August 1, 1969 C (a 1P y Mrs. Jody Weir, City Clerk City of Seal Beach, City Hall _ 201 8tb Street Seal Beach, California, 90740 Dear Jody: I understand that your City Council has adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. it would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance , as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adopting of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ING CITY OF ---------- --- ----01- ----------------- CALIFORNIA NTY August 1, 1969 0 Mr. John E. Dever, City Clerk City of Sunnyvale, City Hall 665 W. Olive Avenue Sunnyvale, California Dear Mr, Dever: I understand that in July, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the ad8ption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours, B&ul C. J6nes City Clerk PCJ-.cb RA CITY OF J�/M'W&4M.4v twmcx ---- --------------- -------- ----- CALIFORNIA V1* COUNTY August 1, 1969 Mrs . Constance Miller, City Clerk City of Stockton, City Hall Lindsay and El Dorado Streets Stockton, California Dear Mrs . Miller: I understand that in July, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Muni- cipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appre- ciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure, Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb CITY OF ------ -- -- --- ---- - --------- -------- CALIFORNIA �CNUN August 1, 1969 0 Mr. R. M. Carpenter, City Clerk City of Oroville, City Hall 1735 Montgomery Street Oroville, California Dear Mr. Carpenter: I understfi#d that in July, 1069, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb �GNTING R 0 CITY OF ------------- --- ---------------- CALIFORNIA yC 09, y August 1, 1969 Mr. Vernon Coil, City Clerk City of Torrance, City Hall 3031 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, ,California, 90503 Dear Vern: I understand that in July 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk FCJ:cb ING RA CITY OF ------ -- -- --- - --- - -- -------- ------ -�7 CALIFORNIA NTY August 1, 1969 Mrs. Edith Campbell, City Clerk City of Berkeley, City Hall Grove and Allston Way Berkeley, California Dear Edye: I understand that in July, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones, City Clerk PCJ:cb ���TINGrpy RA CITY OF -------- --- ------ - ---- --- ---- ---- CALIFORNIA NTY August 1, 1969 Mrs. Gladys Murphy, City Clerk City of Oakland , City Hall 14tb and Washington Streets Oakland , Cali6ornia Dear Gladys : I understand that in September, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk E!CJ:cb ING RA7-, CITY OF jrMa&4'&VV twmd CALIFORNIA NTY CPS August 1, 1969 Mrs . Jacqueline Ryle , City Clerk City of Fresno City Hall, 2326 Fresno St. Fresno, California , 93721 Dear Jackie: I understnad that in September, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the a adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ����INGrpN CITY OF ------- - --------- - - - ----- ---- ---- CALIFORNIA 1909, NTY August 1, 1969 Mr. Kenneth Grubb, City Clerk City of Santa Monica City Hall, 1625 Main Street Santa Monica, California , 90401 Dear Ken: I understand that on June 24, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. it would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure . Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb CITY OF - --- --- -- -- ---- --- ----- --- ---- ---- CALIFORNIA �CDUN TY August 1, 1969 LS Mr , Jack T. Felton, City Clerk City Hall, 426 Third St. San Bernardin&, California, 92401 Dear Jack: I understand that 6n 1968, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering- the adoption of a similar revenue meaaure . Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ING-" CITY OF --- ------- --- - CALIFORNIA �CQ"NTY August 1, 1969 Mr. Larry B. Thomas , City Clerk City Hall, 505 S . Garey Ave. P.O. Box 660 Pomona, Calif. 91769 Dear Mr. Thomas : I understand that in July, 1969 , your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City Of Huntington Beach is condidering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. S6ncerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ,���1tINGTpy CITY OF < ------ ---- --- - --- -- ------------ ---- CALIFORNIA -9. COUNTY CPS Auggst 1, 1969 Mr. Fred Arnold , City Clerk City of Redondo Beach City Hall, 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, Calif. 90277 Dear Mr. Arnold : I understand that on June 23, 1969, your City Council adopted an or dinance creating a Muni- cipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreci- ated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure . Sincerelynyours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ,�G�TINGTpN RA CITY OF - - --- -- ------ IR, CALIFORNIA C3, COUNTY August 1, 1969 C Uj rr-,)) P y Mrs . Harriett C. Jenkins , City Clerk City of Pasadena City Hall, 100 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena, California, 91109 Dear Harriett: I understand that on June 27, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. it would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance , as the City of Huntington Beach is consi(Mering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb r ING CITY OF ------ -- --------- --- ---- --- -------- o TF e, o Q CALIFORNIA NTY August 1, 1969 C P yMrs. Laura Lagios , City Clerk City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd . Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Dear Laura : I understand that bn July, 1969 , your City Council adopted an or dinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure . Sincerely nyours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ,��NSi�croN RATFoe�4C e�%'C�E�G�C��I/t; S CITY OF �rma&4&vv p -A- CALIFORNIA August 1, 1969 a Mrs . Helen Rieck, City Clerk City of Inglewood City Hall, 105 E. Queen St . Inglewood , Calif. 90301 Dear Helen: I understand that on May 6, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Muni- cipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appre- ciated if you would send me a copy of this or dinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure . Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ING RA71"'_ CITY OF ------ -- - - -- - ------------------ CALIFORNIA "VI/NTY August 1, 1969 Mr. Jack Walters , City Clerk City of Glendale 613 East Broadway Glendale, Calif. 91205 Dear Jack: I understand that on June 10, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Muni- cipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appre- ciated if you would send me a copy of this or- dinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is con- sidering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ING RAji7'1"- o®Fq�, � �%�EC�c�� CITY OF ------ -- - - ----- --- ---------- -- ------ CALIFORNIA 190 NTY August 1, 1969 Mrs .Agnes V. Christensen, City Clark City Hill, 9770 Culver Boulevard Culver City, California, 90230 Dear Agnes : I understand that &n April, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Muni- cipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appre- ciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance , as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:cb ��NTINGrpH RA CITY OF --------- ---- --- --- -- -- ---- --- ----- CALIFORNIA NTY cPJ July 31, 1969 Mrs . Doris A . Davis, City Clerk City of Compton City Hall, 005 S. Willowbrook Ave . Compton, California , 90220 Dear Doris : I understand that on May 27, 1969, your City Council adopted an ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance, as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of a similar revenue measure . Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones, City Clerk PCJ:cb ����INGTpy RA CITY OF ------ -- - - ---- ---6--- ------------- ---- CALIFORNIA 'NTY GPI July 31 , 1969 Mrs, Marion Marshall, City Clerk City of Burbank City Hall , 275 East Olive Avenue Burbank, Califurnia , 91503 Dear Marion: I understand that on June 17, 1969, your City Council adopted an Ordinance creating a Municipal Utilities Users Tax. It would be appreciated if you would send me a copy of this ordinance , as the City of Huntington Beach is considering the adoption of this revenue measure . Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ*6cb •. /D 7 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 2 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 June 10 1969 4 On motion of Supervisor Phillips duly seconded and 6 carried, the following Resolution was adopted : 6 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 25643 , the 7 following named cities presented resolutions and petitions to this 8 Board during 1968 requesting the exclusion of all properties within the 9 limits of said cities from the levy of any tax levied for the purpose 10 of providing structural fire protection by the County of Orange for the 11 fiscal year 1968-1969 ; and 12 WHEREAS, this Board finds that each of the following -named 13 cities continues to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 14 25643 and the elements of their respective resolutions and petitions J yin 15 filed with this Board during 1968; °" is NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that� , , � pursuant to P er Wa < QZ 0017 Government Code Section 25643 , all properties within the limits of the U 18 following named cities are exempt from the levy of any tax levied for 19 the fiscal year 1969-1970 by the County of Orange for structural fire 20 protection purposes : 21 Anaheim Newport Beach Brea Orange 22 Buena Park Placentia Costa Mesa San Clemente 23 Fountain Valley Santa Ana Fullerton . Seal Beach 24� Garden Grove Stanton Huntington Beach Tustin - 25 Laguna Beach Westminster 26 La Habra 27 28 29 j . . AYES : SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, DAVID L. BAKER, ROBER`1" W. 30 BAT^lIN, ALTON E. ALLEN AND :•;'PSI. HIRSTEIN 311 NOES : SUPERVISORS NONE 32I ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE L14W:cm Resolution No. 69-562 Exemption of Property­7 thin Cities from County' s Tax Levy 1 . For Structural Fire Protection . I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 3 I,- W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board 4 of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the 5 above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the 6 said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the loth day of ? June , 1969 , and passed by a unanimous vote 8 of said Board, 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 10 loth day of June , 1969 . 11 12 W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk 13 of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California 14 15 y 0=105 26Z o WuU 16 Deputy. oz< 0 0 17 _ i 18 19 .-.. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2 . THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220 ASSISTANT SECRETARY MAY 2 8 1969 Dear Mr. Jones: The President has asked me to reply to your letter and council resolution of May 7, 1969, concerning the Administration's tax reform program. We appreciate your thoughtful comments. As you know, state and municipal bond interest was not treated as a tax preference for purposes of our Limit on Tax Preferences pro- posal. In testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, Dr. Charls E. Walker, Under Secretary of the Treasury, explained that such interest was not included because of doubts whether its inclusion would be constitutional and because of the importance of avoiding any sub- stantial adverse effect on the ability of the states and local govern- ments to achieve their financing requirements, at least until some viable alternative to the tax exemption factor has been developed. State and local bond interest was, however, included as a tax preference, along with the excluded portion of long-term capital gains and four other special tax benefits, for purposes of our Allo- cation of Deductions proposal. Under this proposal, the non-business itemized deductions of individuals would be allocated between the taxable and tax-preferred portions of their income. Only the portion allocable to the taxable portion of the income would be allowed as personal deductions to reduce such income subject to tax. Tax pref- erences would be taken into account as a group for this purpose only to the extent they exceed $10,000. This proposal would apply only to individual:,taxpayers, not to corporate taxpayers. There are direct precedents under present law for this treatment as it relates to tax-exempt interest. Section 265 of the Internal Revenue Code disallows any deduction for interest incurred or continued to purchase or carry tax-exempt bonds. Similarly, investment expenses allocable to exempt income, including tax-exempt interest, are disallowed. This principle is also applied to require life insurance companies to allocate deductions between taxable and tax-exempt income. Thus Congress has acted along these same lines several times in the past, and apparently without substantial adverse effect on the financing abilities of state and local governments. The Allocation of Deductions proposal is a logical and equitable extension of those present law provisions. INFORMATION ONLY+ COPIES TO COUNCI 2 - . This allocation of deductions is not a tax on the tax-exempt interest itself to any extent. It is merely a disallowance of a part of an individualts deductions for personal expenses. Deductions are, of course, a matter of legislative grace, as has been stated many times by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of the allocation of deductions of life insurance companies between taxable ,income and tax-exempt interest on state and local bonds. The data available to us indicate that the inclusion of tax-exempt interest in the Allocation of Deductions proposal will not seriously affect the financing abilities of state and local governments. As pre- viously explained, corporate taxpayers would not be subject to the rule, and in 1968 corporate financial institutions purchased approximately 90 percent of tax-exempt issues. Moreover, in the four-year period from 1965 through 1968, they absorbed about 80 percent "of net issues. It is worth noting again that the Allocation of Deductions proposal has an exemption of $10,000. Thus, an individual could receive $10,000 of tax-exempt interest and would not be affected. . The Allocation of Deductions proposal, as it relates to all the major items of tax-preferred exclusions and deductions, is an essential element of this Administration's efforts to achieve fairness and equity in the tax laws. Since it operates only on itemized non-business de- ductions, and since for this purpose. it treats all major items of tax preference alike, we feel it is a reasonable rule designed to prevent a duplicate tax benefit that exists under present law. I hope this is helpful in presenting the views of the Administration on this important matter. Please be assured that we will give careful study to your resolution and that we appreciate your submitting it to us. Sincerely yours, ohn S. Nolan Dep ty Assistant Secretary Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH SALES TAX SOURCES (BY TYPE OF OUTLET) 1967 1967 1968 OUTLETS PERIOD NO. OF OUTLETS TOTAL DOLLAR NO. OF OUTLETS TOTAL DO1JAR APPAREL lot Q. 43 $1,039,000.00 58 $1,749,000.00 STORES 2nd Q. 1,175,000.00 2,296,000.00 3rd Q. 53 1,961,000.00 58 2,575,000.00 4%h Q. 2,945,000.00 (Available 4/69) GENERAL lot Q. 17 a $3,344,000.00 18 $4,666,000.00 MMCHANDIEE 2nd Q. 4,039,000.00 5,696,000.00 STORES 3rd Q. 16 3,869,000.00 19 5,790,000.00 4th Q. 8,072,000.00 (Available 4/69) DRUG lot Q. 9 $ 850,000.00 11 $1,138,000.00 STORES 2nd Q. 981,000.00 1,393,000.00 3rd Q. 10 1,064,000.00 13 1,401,000.00 4th Q. 1,560,000.00 (Available 4/69) FOOD lot Q -43 1,614,000.00 46 1,425,000.00 STORES 2nd Q. 1,681,000.00 2,430,000.00 3rd Q. 44 1,920,000.00 47 2,453,000.00 . 4th Q. 2,180,000.00 4/69 PACKAGED lot Q. 18 $ 659,000.00 17 $ 801,000.00 LIQUOR 2nd Q. 714,000.00 891,000.00 STORES 3rd Q. 17 874,000.00 17 996,000.00 4th Q. 927,000.00 4/69 EATING b lot Q. 92 $1,746,000.00 98 $2,116,000.00 DaIDRtING 2nd Q. 2,085,000.00 2,565,000.00 `4 PLACES 3rd Q. 97 2,473,000.00 102 2,855,000.00 sA= 4th Q. 2,033,000.00 4/69 S TAX SOCOM Page t i i967 .1968 O NO, o! OUTLI= TOTAL DOLLAR M. 0! OUTLETS TOTAL DOIJ" HINS lot Q. 26 $ 813,000.00 28 $. 767 006.00 . FURNISHINGS & Ind Q. - 772,000.00 980.000.00 APPLIANCES 3rd Q. 26 N. A, 30 1,165,000.00 4th Q• N. A. . 4/69 BUILDING lot Q. 16 . $ 445,000:00 16 $ 519,000.00 . MA1�S8IAL3 b 2nd Q. 495,000.00 298,000.00 - FAR14 3rd Q. 1S N. A. 16 656,000.00 IHPLDZNTS 4th Q. N. A. 4/69 AUTO lot Q. 24 $2,537.000.00 24 $4,392,000.00 DEALERS 2nd Q. 2,836,000.00 5,674,000.00 i AUTO 3rd Q. 23 2,811,000.00 28 6,418,000.00 SUPPLIES 4th Q. 3,188,000.00 4/69 , NW= lot Q. 80 $1,I91,000.00 84 $ 47.3,000.00 8�4`LONS 2nd Q. 610,000.00 439,000.00 3rd Q. 81 , 448,000.00 84 432,000.00. 4th Q. 685,000.00 4169 . OTHER 1st Q. 60 $ 507,000.00 72 $ 920,000.00 1 BETAII. 2nd jQ• 584,000.00 1;549,000.00 SAIa8 3rd Q. 65 1,071,000.00 .82 1,675,000.00.. 4th Q. 1,683,000.00 4/69 BETAII. lot Z. 428 014,745,000.00 472 $18,916,000.00 STMES tad Q. 15,972:000.00 24,565,000.00 TOTALS 3rd Q. 447 N. A. 496 26,466,000.00 4th Q. N. A. 4/69 ALL OTHER lot Q. .431 $2.622,000.00 490 $3,119,000.00 SALES tad Q. 2,629,000.00 2,979,000.00 OvrL9TS 3rd Q. 460 N. A. 507 3,501,000.00 ={.,.. 4th Q. N. A. 4/69 TOTAL ALL lot Q. 8S9 $17,367,000400 963 $22,035,000.00 Ourum tad Q. 18,601,000.00 27,544,000:00 3rd Q. 907 N. .A. 1,003 29,967,000.00 4/69 Q. "Trade Oatlets and ?actable Detail Salsa," State Ord of Egaa�lisatten O-Al 7x October 24, 1968 Board of Supervisors County of Orange 515 No. Sycamore Santa Ana, California 92701 Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition lA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners ,,,and renters . i A copy of. Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , I I Paul C . Jones City Clerk. PCJ:ED:pa Enclosure F, 1 i i i i October 24, 1968 i Mr. Winston Updegraff 635-A Ramona Avenue Laguna Beach, California 92651 Dear Mr. Updegraff: i The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21 , 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition lA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . ® A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C . Jones City Clerk PCJ:ED:pa Enclosure 7-7 October 24, 1968 League of California Cities Hotel Claremont Berkeley, California 94705 gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition lA ' on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:ED:pa Enclosure f r October 24, 1968 Honorable Kenneth Cory P.O. Box 3067 Anaheim, California 92801 Dear Assemblyman Cory: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at . their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition IA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your infor- mation. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:ED:pa Enclosure October 24, 1968 Honorable Robert H. Burke 17732 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, California 92647 Dear Assemblyman Burke : The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition IA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . ® A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C . Jones City Clerk PCJ:ED:pa Enclosure i October 24, 1968 Honorable John G. Schmitz 520 E. 4th Street Tustin, California 92680 Dear Senator Whetmoee : The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition lAk on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . ® A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C . Jones City Clerk PCJ:ED:pa Enclosure October 24, 1968 Honorable James E. Whetmore 13131 Brookhurst Garden Grove, California 92640 Dear Senator Whetmore : The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition IA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . ® A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:edbpa Enclosure i October 24 , 1968 Huntington Beach Independent 17955 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California 92647 Gentlemen: The C&dy Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition lA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . ® A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C . Jones City Clerk PCJ:ed:pa Enclosure October 24, 1968 Huntington Beach Daily Pilot 309 5th Street Huntington Beach, California 92646 Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition 1A on the November 5., 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . ® A co of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for our PY Y information. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:ed:pa Enclosure i i October 24 , 1968 Huntington Beach News 208 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92666 %j Gentlemen: I The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition LA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and renters . ® A copy of Resolution No. 2859is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C . Jones City Clerk. PCJ:ed:pa Enclosure October 24, 1968 Mr. Steve Emmons Los Angeles Times Editorial Department P.O. Box 2008 Costa Mesa, California 92700 Dear Mr. Emmons : The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition IA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to ® homeowners and rentors . A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:ed:pa Enclosure i I r-- I October 24, 1968 Santa Ana Register 310 5th Street Huntington Beach, California 92646 Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held On October 21, 1968, passed and adopted Resolution No. 2859 supporting Proposition IA on the November 5, 1968 ballot, providing tax relief to homeowners and ren.tQrs . ® A copy of Resolution No. 2859 is attached for your information. Sincerely yours , Paul C . Jones City Clerk PCJ:ed:pa Enclosure i I l PRO ESS CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 ORANGE AVENUE, CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 90630 AREA CODE (714) 828-2200 September 13, 1968 Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Jones : This is to acknowledge receipt of your communication of September 6, 1968 transmitting Resolution No. 2830 of the Huntington Beach City Council expressing its opposition to the "Watson`Amendment." Please be advised that the Cypress City Council at its regular meeting of August 26, 1968 went on record in oppo- sition to the "Watson Amendment" and has offered to assist the League of California Cities in any campaign which may be undertaken in opposition to this measure. Thank you for expressing your position in this matter. Very truly yours, I ' arrel Essex City Manager/City Clerk cf S UP E R V ISO R, S.E CON D D I S T R I CT V DAVID L. BAKER ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 515 NORTH SYCAMORE, P.O. BOX 838, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 0 , PHONE: 834-3220 (AREA CODE 714) March 20,- 1968 Donald D. Shipley, Mayor City of Huntington Beach City Hall P. 0. Boxcl90 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Don: The Governor's property tax relief program which we discussed at our last meeting has now been submitted by Assemblyman Veneman. It is, designated as AB 149 - Veneman and it is sched- uled to meet its first crucial test on March 27, 1968 when it is slated to be heard by the Assembly Revenue & Taxation Com- mittee. If it fails to pass the committee, the bill is effective- ly killed. Passage of the bill would bring about a meaningful reduction in property taxes. Best estimates at present suggest a 33q% re- duction in the County tax rate. I am enclosing information relative to AB 149 and its impact on Orange County. Success or failure of AB 149 depends upon the amount of grass roots support that can be generated for it; but we need help now. Assemblyman Ken Cory is a member of the Revenue & Taxation Committee and we need to move the bill to the Assembly for full discussion. It would be extremely helpful if you conveyed your views to him prior to March 27. Coridally, David L. Baker DLB:nw cc: Doyle Miller � , 3 i COUNTY SUPERVISORS ' A S Si O C I A T 1 0 N 1100 ELKS BUILDING, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE 441-4011, AREA CODE 916 O F C A L I F O R N I A i CSACIS NEW TAX i'tf.CTS An Effective County Approach To Meaningful Property Tax Relief March, 1968 ROBERT W. BOLES. PRESIDENT .HATHAVAY PINES. CALAVERAS COUNTY ¢ - WARREN M. DORN. FIRST VICE PRESIDENT 6^' LA CANADA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY t SIG SANCHEZ. SECOND VICE PRESIDENT GILROY, SANTA CLARA COUNTY WM. R..MAcDOUGALL 'MARRY P. SCHMIDT. TREASURER GENERAL COUNSEL AND MANAGER GUSTINE. MiRCED COUNTY i March, 1968 j CSAC'S NEW TAX. FACTS j IThis is "CSAC's New Tax Facts!" It replaces the first Tax Facts which was distributed to California counties in December of. 1967. The "New Tax Facts" is designed to explain the details of Assembly Bill 149 - Veneman, fully supported by Governor Reagan. It also docu- rnents, again, the case for county property tax relief. Part I desc%•ibes the specific provisions of AB` 149 as it reflects the Governol'S and CSAC's program and provides a county-by-county breakdown of: the distribution of the $191 million as provided by one-hall; cent of the State sales tax-; the. county-by=county cost of the nine partnership programs which.'are to be assumed by the counties; the net amount of property tax relief that will be realized by each county; and the tax rate equivalent of that relief. Part II documents"the case for county property tax relief past, present, and future. It sho,:rs tl:e overall property tax picture for loc al government in California, recent property ta:> relief, the growtli of county. property taxes as compared to other indicators, and the potential "Revenue Gap" that may e.cist if present conditions continue. "CSAC's Now Tax Facts". will be helpful to you in understanding every aspect Oi: tha county property tax reduction program_ _.nd in e_-plaininJ and demonstrating the program to your legislators and tie ge::-- eral public. -1- PART I ' LEGISLATION FOR COUNTY PROPERTY TAX RELIEF AB 149 - VENEMAN , !History of Property Tax Relief for 196E-69 , Provisions in the Governor's Tax Program of 1967 (SB 5.56- Deuk.mejia.n) and Assemblyman Unruli's school bill of 1967 (AB 272) directed the 1968 Legislature to appropriate $155 million for 1.)rop- erty tax relief for the 1933-69 fiscal year. The source of revenue for this relief is part of the 1 cent increase in the State sales tax. The provisions also stated that if the Legislature did not appropriate these funds for property tax relief by June 15, 1968, then the State sales tax would be reduced by 1/2 cent on July 1, 1968. The $155 million is in addition to the $145 million which has been pr onn- ised for school support for 1968-6.9.• It has been left to the. discretion of the Legislature (in AB 272) as to how the additional $155 million :viil be used for property taxi relief. - Amended AB 149 of'196.8. provides just such relief. The provisions of this bill are discussed below. Provisions of AB 149. - Veneman AB 149, as amended, now has the following provisions: 1. On and after July 1, 1960, the counties of California-shall -re- ceive an amount equal to the net -revenue from the statewide sales'�_.x of one-half of one percent.(. 53%) for the purpose of providing property tax relief to the taxpayers in each county. "- Vet revenue" is tl-le total pro- ceeds minus the cost of collect`.n!,T the sales tax (about 170). For the fis- cal year 1950-69, it is estimated that 1/2 cent sales tax will produce net revenues of $191 million. 2. . The proceeds of the 1/2 cent sales taxi ($191 million) will be distributed by the state to the counties in the following manner: a. $4.0, 000 will be allocated to each county as a basic mini- mum-- $2, 320, 000 -statewide. b. O-re-half of the remainder (-fter the $2. 32 million is sub- tracted) will be distributed on the basis of population -- i, e. ; in accordance with the ratio t'ha.t the total population of a county bears to the total population of the State. The popula- tion base to be used each fiscal year will be the January 1 pop-. ulation estimates published by the State Department of. Financ:: for the preceding calendar year. -2- e, she other one-;calf o; tlhe i•cma?ndecr t�,ill be distribu-ed on the basis of sales tax receipts -- i, e. , accordin, to the ratio of sales tax collections iri a county clu_ing the preced- ing calendar year bears .to the total sales tax collections throughout the State. 3. Each county will be required to deposit the new sales tars funds lin the County Property Tax Reduction Fund. 4. In exchange for the $191 million in new sales tax funds, the State shall no longer (after July 1, 1968) be required to provide subventions to the counties for the following programs: i. BUDGETED FIGURES PROGRAM FOR 1968-69 F. Y. 1. Salaries for County Agricultural Commissioners $ 171, 600 2. Assistance to County Delinquency Prevention Commissioners 13, 000 3. Assistance to Counties for Care of Crippled Children 100 80,1, 273 4. Assistance to Counties for Tuberculosis Sanatoria 2, e--99, 997 5. Assistance to Counties Without Local Health Departments 605, 223 6. Assistance to Local Health Depa-rtmentsl 4, 701, 076 7. Cost of Administering the Adoptions Program2 10, 072, 681 8. First $25, 000 of Annual. Salary of Superior Court3 Judges 6, 3J3, 000 9. Assistance to Counties for Public Defenders 375, 000 TOTAL $36, 155, 850 Inherent in the assumption of these prograrn costs is the provision that the counties will continue the programs without any reduction in pro- gram level. 1. Includes subsidies to city health departments and health districts. 2. Does not include private adoption. programs. 3. Any Superior Court Judge salary increases 'above $25, 000 will be picked-up by the State. -3- school r 5. Eolfective July 1, 19G9, no count, ,. city, sc, district or spe- cial district may assess, or levy a p-!-o1,:)(--rty 'Lax for h6uselaold furniture or personal effects. In the curll•cnt 1937-HI fiscal year, it is estimated that ;this tax will produce revenues of $54. 5 inilliori fo,r all local governments 4 land $14. 2 million for counties alone. The county-by-county breakdown of the basic allocation, the 501/o pop- :ulation and 5016 sales tax receipts allocation, the total allocation of the '$191 million, the additional county expense of assuming. the cost of the nine. partnership programs, and the net amount of property rty tax relig.f for 1968-60 . is shown in Table I. TABLE I DISTRIEUTION OTC' iL'E T PROPERTY TAX RELIEF TO COUNTIES AS PROVIDED FOR IN AB 149 -- VENEMAN (Total Allocation of $191 Million Less 9 Partner- ship Programs Equals Net Property Tax Relief) 196E-69 Estimates Less Cost of 9 Partnership. Alloc. Based On: Programs to Net Property Basic 50% Population, Total be Assumed Tax Relief to Tax Rate Couaties Allocation 50% Sales Tat Rec. Allocation by Counties Counties Equivalent Alameda $ 40, 0100 $ 10, 973,'711 $ 110 013, 711 $ 1, 351, 417 $ 9, 662, 294 460 _mil -e 40 000 3 "199 43, 199 21 586 21 613 59 i-- - , , , �',.nnador 40, 000 93, 364 133, 364 52, G03 -0, 761 15 13utte 40, 000 94--9, 960 939, 960 144, 415 845, 545 33 Calave-r•as 40, 000 93, 018 133, 018 62, 796 70, 222 14 Colusa 40, 000 123, 041 163, 041 40, 047. 122, 994 16 Co::t:•a Costa 40, 000 4, 689,783 K 4; 729, 788 976, 213 3, 753, 575 26 Norte 40, 000 146, 990 186, 990 58, 166 123, 0 24 39 _i D-orado 40, 000 376, 935 416, 935 159, 203 257, 732 1.5 Fresno 40, 000 3, 938, 756 3, 978, 756 799, 178 3, 179, 578 32 Glenn 40, 000 163, 789 203, 789 89, 3803 114, 406 16 Humbaldt 40, 000 .939, 934 979, 934 227, 936 751, 998 3I Imperial 40, 000 729, 264 769, 264 231, 45 7 537, 807 29 Inyo 40, 000 154, 199 194, 199 49, 163 145, 036 . 26 Xern 40, 000 3, 162, 571 3, 202, 571 394, 355 .2, 808, 216 27 Kings 4-0, 000 - 54�7, 923 537, 928 171, 102 416, 826 25 ------ Lal e ------ - 40, 000 154, 600 194, 600 112, 999 81, C,01 11 Lassen 40, 000 136; 937 176, 937 72, 5552 104, 385 33 Los Angeles 40, 000 72, 125, 238 72, 1.65, 233 13, 884, 322 500, 280, 0616 35 TABLE I (continued) Less Cost of 9 Partnership Alloc. Based On: Pro rams to Net Property Basic 50°b Population, Total be Assumed Tax Relief to Ta,c Rate C ounties . Allocation 50%o Sales Tax Rec. Al.locatio-i. by Counties Counties Equivalent 11^d e r a $ 40, 000 $ 369, 991 $ 409, 991 $ 102, 529 $ 307, 462 22� Alarm 40, 000 1, 723, 507 1, 763, 507. 343, GG2 1, 419, 845 27 -All ariposa 40, 000 59, 507 99, 507 49, 148 50, 359 22 lle::uociro 40, 000 439, 489 479, 489 145, 536 3-03, 953 30 -ced 40, 000 871, 924 911, 924 1971 520 714, 404 29 llodoc 40, 000 61, 013 101, 013 59, 428 41, 535 13 l;lono 40, 000 45, 558 85, 558 49, 570 - 35, 988 9 n1onterey 40, 000 2, 122, 299 2, 162, 299 3G3, 153 1, 799, 14G 32 Na 40, 000 675, 702 715, 702• 119, 050 596, 642 41 ?7evada 40, 000 222, 174 262, 174 123, 405 138, 769 20 Oran-se 40, 000 11, 672, 374 11, 712, 874 1, 7,19, 542 9, 963, 332 33 I'la.cer 40, 000 641-, 320 681, 320 182, 917 498, 403 23 Plumas 40, 000 95' 721 135, 721 54, 082 81, 0639 10 R`varside 40, 000 3, . 11, 723 3, 851, 723 830, 455 3, 021, 260 2S -- Sac-arnen to 40, 000 5, 927, 455 5, 967, 455 1, 221, 524 41 745, 931 40 S2Ci iJelllt0 40, 000 146, 423 186, 423 49, 440 136, 983 21 v C.la Bernardino 40, 000 5, 663, 504 5, 708, 504 1, 170, 231 4, 53-3, 273 32 San Diego 40, 000 11; 000, 364 11,040, 8G4 2, 225, 854 8, 315, 010 39 'n Francisco 40, 000 9, 547, 242 9, 587, 242 1, 633, 313 7, 953, 929 37 .a Joaquin 40, 000 2, 691, 066 2, 731, 066 440, 994 2, 290, 072 37 Sa.n Luis Obispo 40, 000 838, 762 878, 762 247, 307 630, 955 25 San Ail ateo 40.1000 5, 604, 102 5, 644, 102 693, 214 4, 950, 886 32 Santa-Barbara 40, 000 2, 3i6, 286 2, 356, 236 408, 617 1, 947, 669 . 31 Santa Clara 40, 000 9, 357, 185 9, 397, 185 1, 703, 934 7, 608, 251 34 Sanca Cruz 40, 000 1, 020, G23 1, 060, 623 171, 627 Us 88), 996 31 Shasta 40, 000 7 52, 133 792.1 133 193, 049 599, 084 24. Sierra 40, 000 18, 409 58, 409 48, 919 9, 490 11 Sis:•ciyou -- -- -- 40, 000 295, 323 335, 323 liks, 109 217, 214 25 Solano 40, 000 1, 383, -005 1, 972 3, 3 05 310, ^-_-SO 1, 118, 325 39 Sonoma a, 000 1, 679, 640 1, 719, 6i1.0 270, 498 1, 449, 142 35 anislaus 4-0, 000 1, 730, OG3 1, 770, 063 401, 637 1, 368, 376 40 Sutter 40, 000 360, 631 400, 631 113, 178 287, 453 20 TADL�. ' TAD LE- I (co:�ti:�ue:� . • Less Cost of 9 Par tners;lip Alloc. Based-On: Pro raimi to Net Property Baz;ic 500,'o Population, Total be Assumed Ta::Relief to Tax Rate Counties Allocation 50% Sales Tax Rec. Allocation by Counties Counties Equivalent I ehama $ 40, 000 $ 233, 837 $ 273, 887 $ 139, 443 $ 134, 444 154 Trinity 40, 000 v2, 963 102, 963 62, 717 40, 246 22 Tulare 40, 000 1, 607., 420 1, 647, 420 354, 653 1, 292, 762 28 Tuolumne 40, 000 136, 574 226, 574 92, 319 134, 255 21 ::tura 40, 000 2, 754, 386 2, 794, 386 579, 554 21214, 802 24 J10 40, 000 773, 621 81-3, 621 117, 528 696, 093 31 t%uba 40, 000 401, 409 441, 409 111, 754 329, 655 40 TOTALS $2, 320,-000 $188, 680, 000 $191, 000, 000 $36, 155, 850 $154,'844, 150 34� -7- o . PART II THE CASE FOR COUNTY PROPERTY TAX RELIEF Part II of "CSAC'.s New Tax Facts" presents the property ta,: pic- ture for California counties -- past, present, and future. It shows the overall property tax pictui e for local government, recent property tax relief, the grovrth of county property taxes as compared to other indica- J. tors, and the potential "Revenue Gap" if present conditions continue. A brief explanation of each Table follows: Table II - California's Property TaL�l Picture: This table shoves the distribution of property tax-es among tl-,e various local units of govern- ment for the last five years. It demonstrates that counties levied 28. 2% of the total property taxes in California in 1967-63, and that the current growth rate of county ,property tares is 7. 7ofo per year. Table III - Property Tax Relief in 1967: Property tax relief in 1967 totalled $211 million. Of this amount, county government received $25. 2 million, which equals only 30",✓o of the normal annual increase in county property tax levies. Ta:'lle IV - Growth of Property Taxes Per Capita: Table IV charts the grov,th of property taxes per capita over the last sixteen years as compared to personal income per capita and assessed valuation per capita. It s:zows that while an individual's income has risen 76. 770 during this period and the assessed valuation of his property has increased 72. 2%, his property taxes have increased at the much faster rate of 97. 2%o. This in- crease in property taxes has been especially sharp since 1956-57. Per- sonal income, ho•:rever, has been gro-:-;inS at a fairly constant rate, v✓izile assessed valu tion is ro,,� beginning to level-off. .Tile chart seems to in- dicate that the sap between property taxes, on the one hand, and personal income and a.ssessecl valuation, on the other, Neill continue-to widen if present trendis are maintained. Table V - "The Revenue Gap": A projection of county- expenditures and revenue needs for the neat five years shows that if present -revenue sources of counties rema .n basically constant, we will have to raise, on a states.dde :oasis, over $246 million in nevi property tax money for the fiscal year 1971-72 alone. These estimates were developed for an Assem- bly Interim study in the Fall of 1967, and are based on projections :Wade from a survey of 13 California counties. The $246 million is the "Revenue Gap, " or the amount. counties W411 e:.tiler have to receive .from new revenue sources or from increases in property ta:: levies. The total for all five years that rni jilt have to be raised from property tax levies is almost $502 million. -6- Otizur E•z tirf atc-s made by tho- CSAC staff and based on a straifht In-_e pro;ection inc;-.catc that the "Revenue Cap" could reach the amazing total of over $1 billion for the 1911-72 fiscal year alone, and over $2. 4 billion for all five years. This, tnen, is the property ta-; picture for California.counties. County property taxes. nave grown rapidly in the past and there is every indication that the,, will continue to growat an even faster pace in the fu- ture, unless a rneaningful�and lasting form of property tax relief or re- fo_ra can be obtained. f J INGr �4. _`BcoEroE„�t F9 -- -_ Cityof Huntington Beach K;r�DATEOBUSH g C RE � PAUL C. JONES 9y6+ '9 itas- �sl P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 CITY CLERK P BETTY DIEKOFF F�DUNTY � TREASURER DOYLE MILLER COUNCILMEN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OR. DONALD D. SHIPLEY, MAYOR JAKE R. STEWART BRANDER D. CASTLE ASSISTANT TED W. BARTLETT ADMINISTRATOR ALVIN M. COEN ERNEST H. GISLER N. JOHN V. V. GREEN DR. HENRY S. KAUFMAN March 26, 1968 Assemblyman John G. Veneman, Chairman Revenue and Taxation Committee State Capitol Sacramento, California The Governor's property tax relief program as outlined in Assembly Bill 149 (Veneman) was unanimously approved by the Huntington Beach City Council at their March 25 meeting. It is our feeling that this proposed legislation, can bring about a meaningful reduction in the Orange County tax rate. We urge your continued support and will be available to testify at your invitation. iCi oy Miller t Administrator DM:bwo enc. CC: Members, Assembly Committee Revenue and Taxation Assemblyman Robert H. Burke Supervisor David L. Baker, County of Orange JAMES R. WHEELER RAYMOND PICARD DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC.WORKS /IRE CNI[I, KENNETH A. REYNOLDS FRANK B. ARGUELLO PLANNING DIRECTOR VINCENT G MOORHO USE FINANCE DIRECTOR HARBORS l BEACHES DIRECTOR NORM WORTHY JOHN SELTZER RECREATION a OLLIN C CLEVELAND a/] POLICE CHIEF _ _ PARKS DIRECTOR BUILDING DIRECTOR "VM"! EXCE-eT FROM MINUTES OF CITY CO..:CIL "MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California J Monday. March 25. 1968 Green called .the regular adinti skA meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to -order- at 30 o 'clock P.M. Councilmen Present : : Coen, Bartlett. Gisler, Kaufman. Steward_, Crean Councilmen Absent: Shipley (Councilman Shiolev arrived at 8:45 P_li_) i ASSEMBLY BILL 149 - SUPPORT The City Administrator presented a letter from Supervisor David L. Baker transmitting information and requesting support for Assembly Bill 149. This Bill concerns the allocation of one-half cent of the State sales tax revenues to the counties for property tax relief. ' On motion by Bartlett, Council directed the support of Assembly Bill 149, and instructed the City Administrator to forward this support to our legis- lators and each member of the Revenue and Taxation Committee. Motion carried. i On motion by Gisler the regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the i y of HuntiNgton Beach adjourned. otion carriedi, i aul "City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk l of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: Donald D. Shipley Mayor -Paul C Jones " City Clerk ` 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of -Huntington Beach ) i , PAUL_C. 'JQNES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and fore- going is, a trine and correct excerpt from minutes f the City Council of said ;.Ci.ty.,at their regular ad ourned meeting heed on the 25th day of • March 1�_. WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this. the 26th day of March ,19 68 Paul C. Jones 17 City Clerk and ex-officioClerk ' of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California f Deputy J. WYLIE CARLYLE e e N� O COUNTY RECORDER V TELEPHONE: 834-2300 ,r AREA CODE 714 ~ ^J AN G E HALL OF RECORDS / 212 WEST EIGHTH STREET P. O. BOX 238 0 - _ SANTA ANAL CALIFORNIA 92702 - OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER June 13, 1968 TO ALL CITY MANAGERS AND CITY CLERKS: This is to advise you that SB No. 78, now Chapter 17, of the 1968 Legislative Session becomes effective July 1, 1968. This amendment to the Revenue and Taxation Code deletes the use of denominational stamps from the Documentary Transfer Tax Act. After careful analysis and consideration, I feel that the most efficient and economical manner to administer the Property Transfer Taxis by the use of a metered tax stamp. Accordingly, I have placed an order for a Pitney-Bowes Tax Meter Machine and Base. Delivery of this machine cannot be made under 90 days. It will Se necessary, therefore, for the Recorder to continue the use of our supply of denominational stamps pending the arrival of this equipment. I will advise you of the date when the new procedure will be inaugurated. Sinc rely . W 1 e'Carl le J Y i- Y Recorder, County of Orange DISTRICT OFFIC' COMMITTEES 17732 BEACH BOULEb.._.i Elections and HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF, Reapportionment 92647 Municipal and County PHONE:714-842-1494 � p r Government State Personn I and SACRAMENTO ADDRESS l Veterans Affairs STATE CAPITOL (� �� � � �(`E$tSXM �tXE 95814 `l1 ROBERT H. BURKE 1 ASSEMBLYMAN,SEVENTIETH DISTRICT June ll, .-1968 Mr. Paul C. Jones, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Jones: Thank you for sending me a copy of your Resolution No. 2769 regarding A.B. 1474 and A.B. 1604. I appreciate knowing of your support of these bills and will keep your position in mind when these bills come before the Assembly. Sincerely, . I ROBERT BURKE RHB:jk R June 4, 1968 The Honorable James E. Whetmore Senate Chamber Sacramento, California 95807 Dear Senator Whetmore: We notice from the League of California Cities' Bulletin that Assembly Bill 684 pertaining to the reapportionment of the ":cigarette tax, has been passed by the Assembly and has gone to Senate Committee. ® The City Council of Huntington Beach have gone on record as being in support of this bill and sincerely urge you to do everything you can to assure passage by the Committee. We are enclosing herewith, certified copies of minute action of the Council in regard to this bill, taken on May 6, 1968. W&; will appreciate any assistance you might give the Council on this matter. i Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. i i i i I. � June 4, 1968 The Honorable G. Schmitz Senate Chamber Sacramento, California 95807 Dear Senator Whetmore: We notice from the League of California Cities' Bulletin that Assembly Bill 684 pertaining to the reapportionment of the cigarette tax, has been passed by the Assembly ® and has gone to Sete Committee. The City Council of Huntington Beach have gone on record as being in support of this bill and sincerely urge you to do everything you can to assure passage by the Committee. We are enclosing herewith, certified copies of minute action of the Council in regard to this bill, taken on May 6, 1968. We will appreciate any assistance you might give the Council on this matter. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJeaw Enc. i 4 10 May 1968 � v . TO: City Council FROM: Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Structural Fire Tax The attached resolution requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to delete all areas of the city from the structural fire tax requirement for the fiscal year 1968-1969. Respectfully submitted, LOU ANN MARSHALL Assistant City Attorney LAM:a,hb Attachment MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: City Administrator APPROVED BY .CITY COUNCIL DATE: April19, 1968 "_._.Y............... :� MAY $ .�8------------- ------- - SUBJECT e TIDELANDS REVENUE .-- --- ......... We anticipate that Assemblyman Burke will introduce a bill providing for an increase in tidelands oil revenue to cities from 1 per cent to 1-1/2 per cent commencing July 1, 1968. Legislative Counsel has approved the bill in its present form It seems desirable that the Council, by minute action, indicate their support of this bill inasmuch as an Assembly Committee hearing will, no doubt, be set in the near future. 0 Doyl er Cit dministrator DM:bwo (1 J CITY OF C O M M E R C E THE MODEL CITY-INCCAPORATED JANUARY 28,1960 [�coM�i 2535 COMMERCE WAY-.COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA 90022 MAURICE H. QUIGLEY-MAYOR �Vr./ r ip PA. 2-4605 OV. 5-7363 JAMES W.BRISTOW-MAYOR PRO TEM GEORGE H. CHAVEZ-COUNCILMAN ~V PHILIP P. LA UTTENBACH•COUNCILMAN CITY HALL ALEX O.PEREZ-COUNCILMAN LAWRENCE W. O'ROURKE-CITY ADMINISTRATOR WILLIAM CAMIL-CITY ATTORNEY LAWRENCE W. O'ROURKE-CITY CLERK JAMES J.VALDEZ-CITY TREASURER January 8, 1968 TO: State Senators and Assemblymen, Mayors, Managers and Clerks (for the attention of the City Council) SUBJECT: Distribution of CigaretteeaCities On December 29, 19679 the Executive Director of the League of California Cities distributed to you a letter on the above subject. That letter set forth a recommendation of a committee of the League of California Cities. The Board of Directors of the League has taken no action on the subject, but will consider the subject at a meeting on January 24-26, 1968. It is the position of the City of Commerce that it would be inappropriate for the League to take any official action on the subject of distribution of cigarette taxes to cities. Any formula utilized for such distribution will affect every city in the State in a different manner. By urging any particular formula, the League will inevitably be taking action detrimental to the interests of at me least so of its member cities. It has been traditional for the League to -advance legislatively only those positions favorable to the interests of .cities generally. It would be contrary to the interests of the League, and its member cities, for the League to begin to advocate the interests of some of its member cities as against the interests of other member cities. Where different cities have different interests, each should be left to advance its own position through the legislative process, without. feeling that it had as an adversary an- organization whose motto is "California Cities Work Together". The long range effectiveness of the League of California Cities should not be endangered by hasty and divisive action. Cities in receipt of this letter are urged to impress upon the Board of Directors of the League the necessity of taking no action on this issue. Such cities are further urged to make known to their legislators their own positions on the issue. In the meantime, I know that the legislator-recipients of this letter will realize that the League has taken no official position on the issue, and I am certain they will thoroughly consider all relevant points of view before taking action on the issue. MAURICE H. QUIGLEY, Mayor J. WYLIE CARLYLE COUNTY RECORDER U N TY O F' TELEPHONE: 834-2500 AREA CODE 714 ry HALL OF RECORDS I�AN G E 212 WEST EIGHTH STREET P. O. BOX 238 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 6 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER November 8. 1967 TO ALL CITY CL"nM This is to remind you that Chapter #1332, Property Transfer Tax, becomes affective January 1. 1968, The County of Orange is preparing an ordinance to impose this tax. Under section 11911b of this section, any city which is within a county which has imposed a tax pursuant to this section, may, by ordinance adopted pursuant to this part, rzceive a credit . against the tax imposed by a county ordinance. A Joint committee of CSAC and the League of Cities has prepared a model ordinance which, by this time, should be in-your possession. If your city adopts this ordinance, will you please forward a certified copy of it to this office and one to V. A. Heim, Auditor- Controller, County of Orange. This will authorize the allocation of funds collected. . w Onrlyle County ecorder M� DO G um a w7-z . y �i�X •sde- 0-y aa.� 0isr14 - - - - INGRA TpN D CITY OF -�--- -- Q --- --- -- -- --- - --- - ---- -- -- ---- CALIFORNIA yc e/,'1909, �O �CppNTY GP�� November 29, 1967 0 V. A. Heim, Auditor-Controller County of Orange 630 N. Broadway Santa Ana, California Dear Mr. Heim: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at their regular adjourned meeting held November 27, 1967, passed and adopted Ordinance No. 1369 imposing the documentary stamp tax on the sale of real prop- erty. Said Ordinance will become effective thirty days from the date of adoption. Enclosed herewith is a copy of Ordinance No. 1369 for your records. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. i INGRA Tpy - - � CITY OF ------ ---- --- - --- - -- ------- ---- --- - CALIFORNIA NTY GPI, November 29, 1967 O J. Wylie Carlyle Orange county Recorder P. O. box 238 Santa Ana, California 92702 Hear Yr. Carlyle: The City Council of the City of Huntington beach, at their regular adjourned meeting held November 27, 1967, passed and adopted Ordinance No. 1369 imposing the doctuuentary stamp tax on the sale of real property. Said Ordinance will become effective thirty days from the date of adoption. Enclosed herewith are two copies of Ordinance No. 1369 for your records. Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:AW:st Enc. 9 l o V CLA, - ANDREW J. HIN HAS W U NTY O F COUNTY ASSESSOR 1 TELEPHONE: 834-2727 AREA CODE 714 FLANGE 630 NORTH BROADWAY - P. O. BOX 149 O SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR .March 14, 1967 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92"648 Attention: Mr. Paul C. Jones .:City. Clerk .Subject: Unsecured Property Tax Bill 6147-9 (Assessee - Maj )r, Michael J.) Gentlemen: In our opinion, the subject tax .bill is a valid assessment and cannot. be cancelled. We are returning. this tax .bill to Mr. Michael Major of 1811 .Main Street, Huntington Beach. Very truly yours, ANDREW J. HINSHAW, County Assessor by '� Elmer G mmer :Chief -Appraiser FF`:ms -CC: Mr. Don S- Mozley, Orange _County Tax Collector Mr. Michael J. Major .1811 Main St. , Huntington Beach r Ar ..ay 22, 1967. .` HONORABLE 14AYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. GENTLEMEN: This is a letter in regards to the Possessory Interest Tax on the Pavalon Building presented to me by the County Assessor, for the fiscal year beginning July 1 , 1966 to June 30, 1967. Mr.. Paul Jones, City Clerk and I talked to the County Counsel regarding this bill, we were told that being-. in possession of the Pavalon on the First Monday in March, which is the date for assessments for the following Jp�V Y year, that I was liable for the taxes. I have paid these taxes in full plus the penalties, which I am enclosing the cppies. Now, in as much that the majority of you Gentlemen on this Council cancelled my Lease om jq`^ June 27,. 1966, I would think it very appropiate for cra you Gentlemen to pick up this Tax Bill and collect it from the people .that you in turn leased to. I do not think it is fair for me to pay this bill as I was not in .possession of the .Pavalon Building during the period which these taxes apply. Thank You, Sind Mike Major, 1811 Main St. Huntington Beach, CAL. i j'. Ty /M Rockwil MUSIC & CIGARETTE VENDING COMPANY 1301 EAST WFADDEN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 PHONE (714) 547-0656 August 29, 196 \ 0 City Council�_ _�� �_____- City Hall Huntington Beach, California Re: City of Huntington Beach Cigarette Tax Gentlemen: The adoption of an additional three cents cigarette tax by the State of California, effective October 1, 1967, has caused some cities to whom we have been paying these taxes in the past, to repeal their ordinance covering the imposition of this leavy. The hardships caused by these various city taxes have been a heavy burden on our business, particularly since we, as a vending firm, operate in some fifty five cities in this area. The necessity of maintaining separate records for reporting to each municipality has been a time consuming, and expensive, mandatory procedure. We urge the City Council of Huntington Beach to repeal the local tax in your city. Very truly yours, ROCKWELL MUSIC & CIGARETTE VENDING CO. Divn. Silco Automatic Vending Co., Inc. Andrew Johnso Vice President AJ/rw �� F4o Cf 4 i a ' ORDINANCE NO o PON ORD7NA1 s E OF Ti E ..CITY CC"- CIL OF THE CITY OF HiJITPIiV;aTOi'v FS ACH SUSPENDING 1'i=E CITY CIGAdj3ETTE A. AR` I,­LE 74 and all sect- ions thereof) DURING T :E EFFECT 117E y EiilOD OF THE STATE CIGARETTE TAX 11111POSED BY CHAPTEaI 963 OF THE S' ATUSVES of 1967 The City Co'_,ncll of the City of Huntington Pach does tidaln as fo' lowse Sec•t_on 1. an order to comply with the requirements of those ,-roe;is'_o-f.s of 'Chapter 963 of the .�:ts- tutes of 1967 which p,_"o•vide '.'::=?t 3t.: to c l!;arette tax revenues 'may not be al- located. to any (;ity a selective local tax on, or with res ,ect to, thf, sale$ its �.r;auti�n, use, consumption, or hold- lr7 o`' ^ir8ret -es >;^ a-ay other tobfaCeo pr oduce, _, f ter October 1, 19672 -.he i.:rov is' f;nf= of Article 174 and all sections ther-:off' of ,,_u In,J Noah �,i�a ch Ord l?,iance Code, relating t"o the im.pos i t- Ian,, _,c . ante;•JI, : ;a olkif r ce"•ent- of a cigarette y��/ Sa)il—1J. ..14.). yJj,l,�i, 1:! tax shall ��� r6 L,er.c: f� on. a�� . rter October 1, 19o;?y and shall remain suspended ta.r;< f:iat't•.`-'i be of no force and effect so font; as tl-ie provis- ions of the Revenue and. Taxation Code of the State of malifor- ' tag .as ..:fDdif ied by said Chapter 963 and pursuant to whieb the ity is entitled to receives the allocation specified therein of the _­:tate cigarette tax revenues;, are effective; provided, however,, t :at in the event said Revenge and Taxation Code ahall be -furt, er amended so 1--hat the City is not entitled to receive ; allocation of' the State cigarette tax revenues specified lit said chapter 963, then the said provisions of Article 174 Ord ail sections thereof of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code s7a11 upon L' e effective date of such amendment become opera- Live and el­fectivea and further provided that in the event the provis`..!ns of said BevenUe and Taxation Code, as added by said hapt^ 963 and pursuant to which the City is entitled to re- ceit,e the; allocation specified therein of the State cigarette tax revenues, are for axiy reason declared invalid, then and In that, :vent t;he said provisions of Article 174 and all sect- lons t ereof of the Huntingtor, Beach. Ordinance Code shall not be deemed to have been suspended but shall be deemed to have been in iu 1 ford: and effect continuously from and after October 1, 1967, Nothing in thie ordinance shall be construed as relieves any person of the obligation to pay the City of Huntington Beach any c 9Qrette tax accrued and oaring by reason of said provis- ions of Article 174 and all sections thereof in force and effect prior to and I eluding September 30, 1967, Section 2, The City Clerk stall certify to the pass-. x® A/_ /: 1350 doi ordi.,Eince an sl a I i L.e rie same. t Q 0 -bl'i-shed. 'by c),*te 1, U �L -each Newsy a Ansert ir)-r, in the Hiuir,lrq-tiun� --lub"L .1shed axid. circ�i,-.'_'Latee In the City 0',C Bea%ch, Celil'orniag and thirty 130) days after &ie e -t and be In for(�,ea �.ND by t!ie City Co,,lllacil of thE. CItv _ichp t a rg e rn o-eet;jn held on the 18th Y 9r September Donald D. Shipley Via o r Paul C . Jones ALP TIR UV-'-'D , 'PORel T I K y A-',"torney 2,, Ord. N,o1350 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss : 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 4 I , PAUL C.' JONES, The duly elected, qualified, and 5 acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex- 6 officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby 7 certify that the whole number of members. of the City Council 8 of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that .the foregoing 9 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular 10 meeting thereof held .on the - 5th day of September 11 19 67 and was again read to said City Council at a regular . 12 meeting thereof held on the 18th day of September , 13 .19 67 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of 14 more than a majority _ of all the members of -said .City Council. 15 16 AYES: Councilmen: 17 Coen, Bartlett, Gisler, Kaufman, Stewart, Green, S ipley 18 .NOES: Councilmen: 19 None 20 ABSENT: Councilmen: 21 None 22 23 Paul C. Jones 24 City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City 25 of Huntington Beach, California 26 27 28 29 30 7� 10 RESOLUTIONFM `S WHEREAS The HOME Council through an independent study has determined that serious assessment inequities exist in the city of Huntington Beach, County of Orange; WHEREAS Orange County Assessor Andrew Hinshaw has publicly recog- nized the existence of these assessment inequities; WHEREAS the Orange County Assessor has an established "Assessment Program" to correct these assessment inequities; WHEREAS the County Assessor' s program requires public support to ex- peditiously resolve the recognized inequities; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the HOME Council hereby endorses said program and solicits support from the City Council and all civic organizations and public-minded citizens of the City of Hunt- ington Beach, County of Orange. . PROPOSED BY: e P z. cv R.E. DINGWA Chairman, Tax Assessment Committee; HOME Council. ENDORSED BY: W. K. OLSON President, HOME Council. JERRY A. MATNEY Vice President, HOME Council. BEN LONDEREE Secretary-Treasurer, HOME Council. 1 �/ DON S. MOZLEY U N-I- T O FC - _TAX COLLECTOR 0 TELEPHONE 834-3411 AREA CODE 714 RANGE 110 FINANCE BUILDING 630 NORTH BROADWAY P. O. BOX 1438 O SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, 92702 OFFICE OF THE TAX COLLECTOR July 5, 1966 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO: 4-007 429 R&T 4986 David W. Lyon 19130 Nordhoff #,61 Northridge, California De We have observed your- note on the face of the enclosed tax bill which reads "Property transferred in 1963, send bill to present owner" . This request is in conflict with California law which provides that the seller shall pay the pro rats share of the taxes on the property for the number of days it was in his possession. If you had some special agreement with the City of Huntington Beach to pay your tax, ,we ask that you kindly forward the bill to them. We occasionally find there are agreements between the cities and pro- perty owner and they are holding funds . Very truly yours, DON S. MOZLEY County Tax Collector By C. C. Bowman, Deputy DSM:CCB :bs Encl. NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE CODE AREA BILL NUMBER CODE AREA BILL NUMBER Lyon, David W. 1:9130 Nordhoff #61 STATEMENT OF UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES i GIVE THIS NUUBE THIS SHEN INQUIRING ABONorthridge, Cal. COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE TO DON S. MOZLEY, ORANGE COUNTY TAX COLL TOR P.O. BOX 1438, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT INFORMATION OFFICE: 630 N. Broadway PHONE: Kimberly 7-3311 LOCATION THIS BILL IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE RETURN THIS STATEMENT WHEN MAKING PAYMENT 1962 Pro Rata Share 93 days on AP 142-241-15 Asse.ssm%tl Acquired by City Huntington ]Beach I�Bd 14 D O NOT DETACH. AcceptanceJA te3 -63 Order #65437 011 by "¢I �; the THIS STUB SOLD TO S 1624, 6-28-63 so of Sup®CIS $ Added to ASseSsment 4VETERANS—IMPORTANT N ICE AGRAPH 9 ON R �IDE�BEFORE PAYING THIS �p�� �# the . � c 'sots v A T LE TAX RATE TYPE A Y S ; PAY THIS R 100. OF TAX AIL T AMOUNT LAND IMPROVEM T P a NT EXEMPTION L E LUE TAX s 90 s I s s s " 90 C S 2.01 $ 2.17 A 3 R 3 E TI NSA T ASSESOM N S, TND F TAX CODES i Y )) VA ES AND EX PTIONS SHOULD ODELUE BASE 0 A 12 8% PENALTY .12 BE DIRECTED TO THE COUNTY C B VALU Y A VE S VAL p?, 9 TAX + PENALTY ASSESSOR IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THIS BILL. L LAND VAL X t , v E SOLVENT C I S V UE BECOME RY D I YMENT ENT OF P AIRCRAFT MA KET VA E TAXES O - OP S W ON. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE REVERSE SIDE OF BILL AND TAX RATE ENCLOSURE i IMPORTANT INFORMATION --I-. -ASSESSMENT DATE: Annually the Assessor shall assess all the taxable property in the county to the persons owning, claiming, possessing or controlling it at 12 o'clock meridian of the first Monday in March. (Sec. 405 R. & T. Code.) . 2. TAXES DUE: All fax liens attach annually as of noon on the first Monday in March, preceding the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied. i (Sec. 2192 R. & T. Code.) 3. Ownership on the Lien Date Determines the Obligation to Pay Taxes. The disposal of property after the lien date does not relieve the assessee of his tax liability. 4. The fiscal year for which this tax is levied is July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1963. S. TAXES PAYABLE: The Tax Collector may enforce the collection of unsecured property taxes at any time subsequent to the entry of the tax lien on the assessment roll. (Sec. 2902 R. & T. Code.) i 6. ESCROWS: The transfer of title of unsecured property is fraudulent and void as against existing creditors, if the notice of the intended sale is not recorded and advertised, pursuant.to.Section .3440 of the Civil Code.The Tax Collector will pursue the collection of all tax liens covering property so advertised, and will issue-wrifs of Seizure 'and Sale against the assessed property if.said liens are not paid by the escrow officer on or prior to the closing date of the escrow. 7. DtLINQUENCY DATE: Taxes on the Unsecured Roll are delinquent AUGUST, 31, 5 P.M:, regardless of when the property is discovered and assessed and THEREUPON A DELINQUENT PENALTY OF EIGHT PERCENT ATTACH.�S. When August 31 falls on Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday the hour of delinquency is 5:00 p.m. of the next business day. MAIL PAYMENTS EARLY to avoid• possibility of a postmark after delinquent date. Allow time for the post office to process. Their cancellation may ,be several hours after the time of pickup from mail } State law requires that it be treated as if it had been received on the date shown by the post office cancellation mark stamped on the envell B. ENFORCEMENT OF PAYMENT: TAXES ON THE"UNSECURED ROLL MAY BE COLLECTED BY SEIZURE AND SALE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY BELONGING OR ASSESSED TO THE ASSESSEE: (a) PERSONAL PROPERTY; (b) IMPROVEMENTS; (c) POSSES- SORY INTERESTS. (Sec. 2914 R. & T. Code.) . 9. EXEMPTION FOR MILITARY.SERVICE: Residents of California must file their claim for veteran's exemption with the County Assessor EACH ' x " YEAR between the first Monday in March and the first Monday in May.-If you have filed for exemption on this assessment, and no value of exemption appears hereon, return the bill at once to the COUNTY ASSESSOR.-If you intend to file for exemption ON THIS ASSESSMENT within the prescribed period DO NOT PAY THIS BILL BEFORE FILING but return it at the time of filing to the Orange County Assessor, Veteran's-Division, 630 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, California. Any Veteran filing for exemption in Orange County for the first time must submit his or her service record and military release in the office of the Orange.County Assessor (spouse may file for veteran). Military personnel who are non-residents of California must file their claim with'the County Assessor each year to secure the benefits of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. ' 10. REMITTANCES: Payments by mail should be made by check, cashier's check or money order payable to DON S. MOZLEY, ORANGE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR. Do not send currency, coin or stamps. A self-addressed envelope with correct zone number will facilitate the return of the receipt. DO NOT detach stub from this statement as it is needed for accounting purposes. [I. ASSESSMENT VALUATIONS: Any questions concerning the property values appearing on this bill should be directed to the County Asse;tor. 12. A tax of one-tenth of l -per cent is hereby levied on the actual value of solvent credits and any interest therein. (Sec. 2153 R. & T. Code.) 13. A tax of 11/z per cent is levied on the market value of airplanes by legislation effective Sept. 15, 1961. Market value is determined p;, fax ..lien date by the County Assessor. DON S. MOZLEY, Orange County Tax Collector i r Agenda 8-1 (o INS RA CITY OF oQ ----------------- ------------------ 7D o' Q CALIFORNIA CUUNTY Jul aox City Council AVG---11g6fi . City of Huntington Beach Subject: Assessment Practices Study 600 acres - Robert Dingwall Gentlemen: As a result of Mr. Dingwall ' s communication at the July 11 meeting, the Finance Department has checked the assessment roll in Santa Ana, and finds Mr. Dingwall ' s figures to be correct. The Administrator will attempt to arrange several dates when Mr. Hinshaw could be present to discuss assessment practices with the City Council, and the Council can select the time most convenient to them. oyl Miller City Administrator DM:bwo J.L. Knapp 10191 Pua Dive Huntington-Beach,, Calif. 92646 Mayor Jake Stewart & Councilmen City Hall Huntington Beach, California . � 06 5 August 1966 oil A- Dear Mayor Stewart and Councilmen: 1�d'" It is very admirable of you to consider new ways in which to bring revenue into the city of Huntington Beach to further develop the programs from which the taxed revenue is the main support; and we all know that there are many ways to stimulate this means. May we look for a moment at your proposal to increase cigarette taxes. I feel that the money is much needed to offer the residents of our city a more productive program. However, I feel that in this endeavor we will be defeating the purpose for which we have felt an increase necessary. As we know, the Southern California area is of transient nature and in order for a family or families to identify with a growing community as Huntington Beach, and to be urged to purchase their material needs here, we must constantly convey to these people that we would like their constant support of businesses within our city limits. At the present time I am aware of a "Buy in Huntington Beach" campaign currently being formulated to encourage our residents to fully participate in patronising our businessmen. I feel that if the increased sales tau on cigarettes is pub into effect we will be defeating this purpose in two ways. Nct only will we lose part of the revenue that would have normally been brought in through the sales of cigarettes r _2_ at our own stores, but we will also lose the revenue from sales on smaller items that would also be purchased with the cigarettes from other neighboring communities. Thus, we will have lost the 30 tax increase, plus the 4¢ sales tax per dollar. I would like to request that this proposal be reconsidered in view of the points made above. Sincerely you , ohn L. Knapp 10191 Pus, Drive Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 � : 1 - �a c S,A,V, —A ("YA . ......... 13— c J-0 QA l t �y ,dUL 27 T cap �y 196b an' 10 hsvnr /06 TREASURY DEPARTMENT WASH I NGTON ASSISTANT SECRETARY SEP 14 1965 Dear Mr. Jones: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 19 to President Johnson forwarding a copy of Resolution No. 2226, adopted August 16, 1965, by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach supporting California Assembly Joint Resolution No. 38. While the revenues from certain Federal excises, such as that on gasoline, are earmarked for grants to States, in no case are the grants to individual States based on the amount collected or paid. in the State. A number of studies of the possibility. of returning excise revenues to States on the basis of amounts col- lected or paid in individual States have clearly pointed*up the fact that such an approach would not meet the problem of differ- ences in State revenue capacities relative to needs. . Consequently, where Federal excise revenues are earmarked for distribution to the States, distributions are based upon formulas designed. to take into account State needs. Over the years, there have been a number of suggestions that the Federal Government return to the States a certain proportion of its revenue from the taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes. In most cases, the proposals were designed merely to provide an overall increase in State revenues. The Congress, however, has not taken any action to set aside Federal revenues from alcoholic beverages and tobacco products for use by the States. The problem that State and local governments have in obtaining adequate revenues to finance the varied social and-economic problems facing them has, of course, been of concern to this Administration. Additional grant programs have been set up in a number of instances. In the tax area, however, emphasis has been placed upon tax reductions, which not only have the effect of stimulating the growth of the whole economy, but, at the same time, increase State and local tax receipts. President Johnson recently signed the Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1965 which will reduce excise taxes by $4.7 billion over a three-year period. The Revenue Act of 1964 reduced. individual and corporate taxes by $11.5 billion. The excise reductions will further add to our economic growth, and, judging by the results already shown by the 1964 tax reduction program, will be of significant help to State and local tax receipts. Increased State and local tax receipts then can be. allocated by the appropriate governmental bodies as they best deem fit to competing social and economic needs. Alcoholism, of course, is one problem which the State and local governmental bodies may deem necessary to provide funds for. S' cer ly yours, . Lawrence M. Stone Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 IN y � � City of Huntington Beach i Cali f Omia R ��C41lMTY `�`�o . September 1, 1964 V. A. Heim, County Auditor County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Attention: Mr. Dale Johnson Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2033, -:..,:,.v..: 'fixing the tax 'rate for the City of Huntington Beach for the Fiscal ,Year 1964-1965, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their Sppcial Called Meeting held Monday, August. 31, 1964. Sincerely, yours, Paul C. Jones City Cleric PCJ:tr Enc: (1) Res. #2033 July 21, 1964 The Honorable -David L. . Bak.er Supervisor, Second District. Civic Center,, County of Orange Santa Ana, California i Dear Mr. Bakers We have enclosed a copy of the City of Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 1068, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Imposing a Tax Upon .the .Privilege of Transient Occupancy and Providing for. ;the Collection thereof; Adding Article 173 and Sections of said Article to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code." This .Ordinance generally follows the model ordinance furnished by the California League _of ..Cities f and its effective date was ,July 16, 1964. The Huntington Beach City Council appreciates your July 17, 1964 k letter expressing a concern. that the Cities of Orange County not lose, this revenue producing potential. Sincerely, Doyle Miller City Administrator DK:bwo enc. -Fl Y � . i _ s S U P E R V I S O R, SECOND DISTRICT DAVI D L. BAKER CIVIC C E N T E R, COUNTY O F O R A N G E SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA P H O N E : 5 4 7 - 0 5 4 7 ( AREA C O D E 7 1 4 ) July 17, 19-64 Huntington Beach City Counc l City Hall P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: From time to time, this office has been asked to comment on the support of a room tax for unincorporated areas of the County. Since there are very few overnight accommodations in the unincor- porated area, it would seem unnecessary for the County to adopt such a law. However, I offer this to you for your consideration and point out to you the possibility of losing certain revenues through lack of adoption of this tax. I do not take a stand one way or the other because I feel this is an internal matter for the Cities. This does, however, indicate a trend of the state's interest in all means of revenue. Very truly yours, DAVID L. BAKER Supervisor Second District DLB:ij enc1E i ` COUNTY SUPERVISORS A S S O C I A T 1 O N 1100 ELKS BUILDING, SACRAMENTO 14, CALIFORNIA PHONE 441-4011, AREA CODE 916 a. r July 9, 1964 OF CALIFORNIA To: All County Supervisors County Administrative Cfficers From: Wm. R. MacDougall Subject: THE RCCM TAX y The 1963 California Legislature enacted Chapter 2111 of the Statutes of 1963 £ adding a chapter to the Government Code authorizing cities and counties to levy a room occupancy tax on transient rentals. This new law was supported by its course through the Legislature by the League of California Cities and by this Association. Without it, counties and general law cities would not have the authority .to levy a room occupancy tax. ' The new law specifies no rate of tax (any rate actually levied by ordinance is legal) but the universal opinion throughout the state has led to consideration of a 4%D rate as a proper one. Some counties and some cities have already begun collecting this tax and it is under consideration in many other counties and cities. We have had numerous requests recently to comment on the possibility of the State of California levying such a tax statewide by 1965 legislation as a part of r. the state sales and use tax plan. If this were to happen, local government would not receive the full amount levied (as with a local room tax) but would receive only 25016 of the amount collected with the remaining 7576 going into the State Treasury. If the general picture at the beginning of 1965 is one of general inaction on the part of cities and counties in the activation of this new source of needed revenues, then it is proper that the state will mcve in and pre-empt the entire field by state law. ED R. LEVIN. PRESIDENT -• - - - - - SAN JOSE,SANTA CLARA COUNTY JAMES G.STEEARNS, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT TULELAKE.MODOC COUNTY PAUL J. ANDERSON.SECOND VICE PRESIDENT RIVERSIDE. RIVERSIDE COUNTY WM. R. MACDOUGALL - DAVID W. BIRD,TREASURER ,i GENERAL COUNSEL AND MANAGER - NATIONAL CITY,SAN DIEGO COUNTY i t 3 All County Supervisors County Administrative Officers July 9, 1964 Page 2 Governor Brown has already publicly stated that he favors such a state tax. We feel that he would not press this matter if this tax were, at the time, in more or less general use by the cities and counties of California. The League of California Cities has previously called this matter to the attention of all cities. This office concurs in the statements made by the League of Cities t to its member cities. A suggested uniform ordinance is available from this office. `f S i We continue to urge that the levy of this tax be given serious consideration and that such consideration be joint on the part of the county and all of its cities. { In fact, area consideration by two or more counties and their cities is indicated in some instances. Wm. R. MacDougall General Counsel and Manager WRM/r i 1 �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The document you are viewing contains additional information that is not possible to produce electronically. For information on how to locate this document for viewing , please contact or visit the City Clerk's Office for assistance . 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor — City Hall Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 536-5227