HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Position on Two State Ballot Meaures as Recomme )eL?;O�"�"EW& D Ite-771-7dA) A'
' DFAAED .2-5
City of Huntington Beach ;'PAW -z&LF1zF loy,
ND A7776 A! 7?7-�
File #: 20-1923 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
Subiect:
City Council Position on Two State Ballot Measures as Recommended by the City Council
Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC)
Statement of Issue:
On September 16, 2020, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC), comprised of Mayor Lyn
Semeta and Council Member Patrick Brenden, met to discuss the upcoming State ballot propositions
and pending State and Federal legislation. The IRC is recommending that the City Council consider
and adopt Resolution No. 2020-63 to oppose Proposition 15 and Resolution No. 2020-64 to support
Proposition 22.
In order to adopt one or more of the proposed Resolutions, the City Council must vote to set aside
Resolution No. 4344 which currently prevents the City Council from taking a stand on any statewide
ballot proposition.
Financial Impact:
None
Recommended Action:
A) Approve to temporarily set aside Resolution No. 4344, Section 1.01 .08 Statewide Ballot
Propositions; and
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-63, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Opposing Proposition 15;" and/or
C) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-64, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
in Support of Proposition 22."
Alternative Action(s):
Do not set aside Resolution No. 4344 and do not adopt the proposed Resolutions. Direct staff
accordingly.
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/30/2020
powered LegistarTl
File #: 20-1923 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2020
Analysis:
On September 16, 2020, the IRC met to review pending State and Federal legislation and the
upcoming State ballot propositions. The following is an analysis of the ballots that the Committee
chose to take positions on:
OPPOSE - Proposition 15 - Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community
Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and
Industrial Property. (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
Originally submitted as the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2018, the ballot
measure would amend the 1978 initiative, Prop 13, by changing the tax assessment of certain
commercial and industrial property and basing it on current market value instead of the purchase price.
Proposition 15 exempts residential properties, commercial agricultural properties, and commercial and
industrial properties with a combined value of $3 million or less, creating a "split roll" tax system.
Additionally, the measure exempts small businesses from personal property tax and provides a $500,000
exemption.
Under Prop 13, tax is limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of
purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is
lower. According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, market values in California tend to
increase faster than 2 percent per year, meaning the taxable value of commercial and
industrial properties is often lower than the market value. This initiative would alter the
conditions for that reassessment to every three years for commercial property while keeping
the residential and qualified small-business properties under the current system.
If approved, this change to the assessment of commercial property taxes would be phased in
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and is projected to result in an additional $6.5 to 11.5 billion in annual
revenues across the state, of which 40% would go to education and 60% would go to local
agencies (cities, counties, and special districts).
SUPPORT - Proposition 22 - Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies
From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. (Initiative Statute)
Proposition 22 would consider app-based drivers (i.e. Uber, DoorDash, Lyft) to be independent
contractors and not employees or agents, unless a company sets drivers' hours, requires acceptance of
specific ride or delivery requests, or restricts working for other companies. As a result, recent state
changes enacted through AB 5 signed in September 2019, to decide a worker's status as an independent
contractors would not affect these drivers; various state employment-related labor laws would not
cover app-based drivers.
However, the measure would require app-based transportation and delivery companies to provide
certain new benefits to these drivers including: pay drivers at least 120 percent of the minimum wage
for each hour spent driving (not including wait time); provide a $400 a month health stipend for drivers
who work more than 25 hours per week and $200 a month stipend for those that drive between 15 and
25 hours a week (also not including wait time); maintain insurance to cover drivers who are injured on
the job; prohibit drivers from working more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period; and establish sexual
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/30/2020
powered LegistarTM
File #: 20-1923 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2020
harassment prevention policies, criminal background checks, and safety training for all drivers.
This proposed initiative is the industry-sponsored response to the changes in state law related to
independent contractors contained in AB 5 (Gonzalez), which was signed into law in 2019. The key
backers of the initiative, Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash, are expected to contribute tens of millions of
additional dollars to advance the effort. Given recent legislative activity in California and other states, as
well as recent court decisions regarding independent contractors, it is believed that, if successful, this
initiative could serve as a blueprint for further action at the federal level or in other states.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Proposition 15 Analysis
2. Proposition 22 Analysis
3. Resolution No. 2020-63, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Opposing Proposition 15;" and,
4. Resolution No. 2020-64, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in
Support of Proposition 22."
5. Resolution 4344
City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/30/2020
powered LegistarT"
PROPOSITION INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
15LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State's website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Increases funding sources for K-12 public Exempts small businesses from personal
schools, community colleges, and local property tax; for other businesses, provides
governments by requiring commercial and $500,000 exemption.
industrial real property be taxed based on
current market value, instead of purchase SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE
price. OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
• Exempts from taxation changes: residential FISCAL IMPACT:
properties; agricultural land; and owners of
commercial and industrial properties with Increased property taxes on commercial
combined value of $3 million or less. properties worth more than $3 million
providing $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new
• Any additional education funding will funding to local governments and schools.
supplement existing school funding
guarantees.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND land or a building is purchased, its taxable value
typically is its purchase price. Each year after
Local Governments Tax Property. California cities, that, the property's taxable value is adjusted for
counties, schools, and special districts (such as inflation by up to 2 percent. When a property
a fire protection district) collect property taxes is sold again, its taxable value is reset to its
from property owners based on the value of their new purchase price. The taxable value of most
property. Property taxes raise around $65 billion land and buildings is less than what they could
each year for these local governments. Overall, be sold for. This is because the price most
about 60 percent of property taxes go to cities, properties could be sold for grows faster than
counties, and special districts. The other 2 percent per year.
40 percent goes to schools and community
colleges. These shares are different in different Taxable Value of Business Equipment Is Based on
counties. How Much It Could Be Sold for. Unlike land and
Property Includes Land, Buildings, Machinery, buildings, business equipment is taxed based on
and Equipment. Property taxes apply to many how much it could be sold for today.
kinds of property. Land and buildings are taxed. Counties Manage the Property Tax. County
Businesses also pay property taxes on most assessors determine the taxable value of
other things they own. This includes equipment, property. County tax collectors bill property
machinery, computers, and furniture. We call owners. County auditors distribute tax revenue
these things "business equipment." to local governments. Statewide, counties spend
How Is a Property Tax Bill Calculated? Each about $800 million each year on these activities.
property owner's annual property tax bill is equal
to the taxable value of their property multiplied PROPOSAL
by their property tax rate. The typical property Tax Commercial and Industrial Land and Buildings
owner's property tax rate is 1.1 percent. Based on How Much They Could Be Sold for. The
Taxable Value of Land and Buildings Is Based on measure requires commercial and industrial
Original Purchase Price. In the year a piece of (after this referred to simply as "commercial")
22 1 Title and Summary/Analysis 166
INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS,COMMUNITY COLLEGES,AND PROPOSITION
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL 15
AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
land and buildings to be taxed based on how costs created by the measure. This includes
much they could be sold for instead of their giving several hundred million dollars per year to
original purchase price. This change is put in counties to pay for their costs of carrying out
place over time starting in 2022. The change the measure. The measure would increase the
does not start before 2025 for properties used amount of work county assessors do and could
by California businesses that meet certain rules require changes in how they do their work.
and have 50 or fewer employees. Housing and Counties could have costs from the measure
agricultural land continues to be taxed based on before new money is available to cover these
its original purchase price. costs. The state would loan money to counties
Some Lower Value Properties Not Included. to cover these initial costs until new property tax
This change does not apply if the owner has revenue is available.
$3 million or less worth of commercial land and New Funding for Local Governments and Schools.
buildings in California (adjusted for inflation Overall, $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion per
every two years). These properties continue to be year in new property taxes would go to local
taxed based on original purchase price. governments. 60 percent would go to cities,
Reduce Taxes on Business Equipment. The counties, and special districts. Each city,
measure reduces the taxable value of each county, or special district's share of the money
business's equipment by $500,000 starting depends on several things including the amount
in 2024. Businesses with less than $500,000 of new taxes paid by commercial properties in
of equipment pay no taxes on those items. that community. Not all governments would be
All property taxes on business equipment are guaranteed new money. Some in rural areas may
eliminated for California businesses that meet end up losing money because of lower taxes on
certain rules and have 50 or fewer employees. business equipment. The other 40 percent would
increase funding for schools and community
FISCAL EFFECTS colleges. Each school or community college's
share of the money is mostly based on how many
Increased Taxes on Commercial Land and Buildings. students they have.
Most owners of commercial land and buildings
worth more than $3 million would pay higher Visit http://Cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
property taxes. Only some of these property measures/for a list of committees primarily
owners would start to pay higher taxes in formed to support or oppose this measure.
2022. By 2025, most of these property owners
would pay higher taxes. Beginning in 2025, Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
total property taxes from commercial land transparency/top-contributors.html
and buildings probably would be $8 billion to to access the committee's top 10 contributors.
$12.5 billion higher in most years. The value of
commercial property can change a lot from year If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
to year. This means the amount of increased measure, please call the Secretary of State
property taxes also could change a lot from year at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
to year.
Decreased Taxes on Business Equipment. Property vigfeedback@sos.Ca.govand a copy will
taxes on business equipment probably would be be mailed at no cost to you.
several hundred million dollars lower each year.
Money Set Aside to Pay Costs of the Measure.
The measure sets aside money for various
Analysis16� 23
PROPOSITION EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES
22FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State's website at
voterguide.sos.ca.go v.
• Classifies drivers for app-based transportation • Restricts certain local regulation of app-based
(rideshare) and delivery companies as drivers.
"independent contractors," not "employees," . Criminalizes impersonation of drivers.
unless company: sets drivers' hours, requires
acceptance of specific ride or delivery requests, SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF
or restricts working for other companies. NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Independent contractors are not covered by
various state employment laws—including Minor increase in state income taxes paid by
minimum wage, overtime, unemployment rideshare and delivery company drivers and
insurance, and workers' compensation. investors.
• Instead, independent-contractor drivers would
be entitled to other compensation—including
minimum earnings, healthcare subsidies, and
vehicle insurance.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND The State Says Rideshare and Delivery Companies
App-Based Rides and Delivery. Some companies Must Hire Drivers as Employees. The state recently
allow customers to hire rides or order food for passed a law that limits the ability of companies
delivery on a phone app. These companies are to hire workers as independent contractors.
often called rideshare and delivery companies. The state Attorney General says the law means
Most large rideshare and delivery companies rideshare and delivery companies must hire
are headquartered in California. In total, these drivers as employees. The rideshare and delivery
companies are worth about as much as Ford, companies do not agree that the new state law
General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler combined. makes their drivers employees. The companies
Rideshare and Delivery Companies Hire Drivers as continue to hire drivers as independent contractors.
Independent Contractors. An independent contractor The state Attorney General recently sued two
is someone who does work for a business but is not rideshare companies to force them to hire
an employee of the business. Drivers for rideshare drivers as employees. If the courts agree with the
and delivery companies choose when, where, and Attorney General, the companies will have to hire
how much to work. Drivers use their own cars and
pay their own expenses. drivers as employees.
Most Drivers Work Part Time. Most drivers work As Employees, Drivers Would Get Standard Benefits
part time and many drivers only work for a short and Protections. As employees, drivers would
time or only drive occasionally. Rideshare and get standard job benefits and protections that
delivery companies pay drivers a share of the fare independent contractors do not get. For example,
or delivery charge customers pay for app-based employees must be paid at least a minimum wage
services. Drivers spend about one-third of their plus extra pay for overtime. Employees also must
time waiting for rides and deliveries and are not be allowed to take breaks and take paid time off
paid during this time. Most drivers probably make if they are sick. At the same time, as employees,
between $11 and $16 per hour, after accounting drivers would have less choice about when, where,
for waiting time and driving expenses. and how much to work.
56 1 Title and Summary/Analysis 168
EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES PROPOSITION
FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS. ��
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
PROPOSAL Lower Costs and Higher Profits for Rideshare
and Delivery Companies. This measure allows
Makes Drivers Independent Contractors. This measure rideshare and delivery companies to hire drivers
makes app-based rideshare and delivery drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.
independent contractors. The new state law that The companies would not have to pay the costs
limits the ability of companies to hire independent of providing standard employee benefits and
contractors would not apply to drivers. protections, which usually make up 20 percent of
Gives Drivers Certain Benefits. This measure requires employee costs. This would allow the companies
rideshare and delivery companies to provide certain to charge lower fares and delivery fees. With
benefits: lower prices, customers would take more rides
and place more orders. This could increase the
• Earnings Minimum. This measure requires companies' profits. Higher profits would increase
companies to pay 120 percent of the local the companies' stock prices.
minimum wage for each hour a driver spends
driving, but not time spent waiting. Drivers and Stockholders Would Pay More Income
• Health Insurance Stipend. For drivers who Taxes. Because people would take more rides and
normally work more than 15 hours per week place more orders, drivers as a group would earn
(not including waiting time), this measure more income. This means state income taxes paid
requires that companies help pay for health by drivers would increase. Californians who own
insurance. rideshare and delivery company stock also may
earn more when they sell the stock. They would pay
• Pay For Costs When a Driver Gets Hurt on the state income taxes on these increased gains. The
Job. This measure requires that companies amount of increased state personal income taxes
pay medical costs and replace some lost paid by drivers and stockholders is unknown, but
income when a driver is injured while driving likely minor.
or waiting.
• Rest Policy. This measure prohibits drivers SUMMARY OF FISCAL EFFECTS
from working more than 12 hours in a
24-hour period for a single rideshare or This measure would have the following fiscal effect:
delivery company. Minor increase in state income taxes paid by
• Other Requirements. This measure prohibits rideshare and delivery company drivers and
workplace discrimination and requires that investors.
companies: (1) develop sexual harassment
policies, (2) conduct criminal background Visit http://Cal-aCCESS.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
checks, and (3) mandate safety training for measures/for a list of committees primarily
drivers. formed to support or oppose this measure.
Limits Local Government Ability to Set Additional
Rules. This measure limits the ability of cities and Visit http://Www.fppc.ca.govl
counties to place additional rules on rideshare and transparency/top-ContributorS.html
delivery companies. to access the committee's top 10 contributors.
FISCAL EFFECTS If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
Whether rideshare and delivery drivers are measure, please call the Secretary of State
employees or independent contractors is still being at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
decided in the courts. The fiscal effects below vigfeedback@sos.Ca.govand a copy will
assume that the courts agree with the state that
drivers are employees under the new state law. be mailed at no cost to you.
Analysisl6b 57
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING PROPOSITION 15
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1978, Proposition 13, officially titled the "People's Initiative to
Limit Property Taxation"was approved by California's voters, reducing property tax rates on
residential, commercial and industrial properties and capping the rate of increases in the future;
and
WHEREAS, Proposition 13 capped property tax to no more th one percent of the
purchase price (at the time of purchase) with an annual adjustment f two percent, providing
taxpayers with a new measure of certainly with respect to their ual property tax payments;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reaffirmed its suppo of Proposition 13 with the adoption of
Resolution No. 2015-31 on July 6, 2015; and
WHEREAS, a proposed statewide Propositi 15, if approved by California voters on
November 3, 2020, would amend Proposition 1 o base the tax assessment of commercial and
industrial properties worth more than $3 milli on the current market value, not the purchase
price; and
WHEREAS, this new split roll t ystem would increase property taxes for commercial
and industrial property owners, placi an undue economic burden on owners and potentially
lessees.
NOW, THEREFORE, the ity Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
In recognition of the ositive impact that Proposition 13 continues to have for property
owners, the City Counc' formally opposes Proposition 15 which will raise property taxes for our
commercial and indus 'al property owners and place an undue burden on local businesses and
our economy.
PASSED D ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeti thereof held on the day of , 20
20-9019/235219 NO ACTION TAKEN
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-63
Mayor /
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Manager Assistant City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
T,Ci Attorney
NO ACTION TAKEN
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 22
WHEREAS, in September 2019,the State approved Assembly Bill 5 which limited the
ability of app-based rideshare and delivery companies to hire workers as dependent contractors
and not employees; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 5 restricts the flexibility of drivers from choosing their
employment classification. Those who are classified as employees would have less choice about
when, where, and how much to work; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 5 places a financial burden on app-based rideshare and delivery
companies to reclassify thousands of independent contractors as employees; these impacts may
result in service disruptions, reduced access, and higher rates for the many Californians who rely
on these app-based services daily; and
WHEREAS, statewide Proposition 22, if approved by California's voters on November 3,
2020 would restore flexibility by allowing app-based rideshare and delivery companies to
reclassify drivers as independent contracto7, not employees, unless a company sets the drivers'
hours, requires them to accept certain rides and deliveries, or restricts working for other
companies; and
WHEREAS, independent contactors would receive certain benefits from app-based
rideshare and delivery companies der Proposition 22, including 120 percent of the hourly
minimum wage, health stipends nsurance coverage for injuries on the job, limiting the daily
number of hours worked, safe training, and other policies to protect drivers on the job.
NOW, THEREFO , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
In recognition the need for app-based rideshare and delivery companies to manage their
operations and prov de flexibility in employment classifications,the City Council formally
supports Proposit' n 22,which will ensure that app-based rideshare and delivery services
continue to rem in accessible and uninterrupted for all Californians.
PASS AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
/20-90191235'217
ing thereof held on the day of , 20
NO ACTION TAKEN
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-64
Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Manager Assistant City,Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1 ,r ity Attorney A1J
NO ACTION TAKEN
RESOLUTION NO. '4344
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE COUNCIL MANUAL BY
ADDING THERETO SECTION 1.01.08, STATEWIDE BALLOT
PROPOSITIONS, AND SECTION 1 .01. 09, APPEALS AND
CHALLENGES TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach that the Council Manual is hereby amended by adding thereto
Sections 1.01. 08 and 1. 01. 09 to read as follows:
1. 01. 08 Statewide ballot propositions . The City Council
shall take no stand, neither pro nor con, with respect to any
statewide ballot proposition. (Minute action, 19 April 1976)
1._01. 09 Council appeals and challenges . Decisions of
subordinate bodies , or persons, may be appealed as set out in
the following:
(a) PARADES: the Council may appeal any decision of the
city administrator to issue , deny, suspend or revoke any parade
permit (Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 9 . 48.230) .
(b ) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: the Council, or any member
thereof, may appeal any decision or determination of th en-
vironmental review committee or department of environmental re-
sources (Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9726) .
(c) MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: any member of the Council
may appeal to the planning commission any decision of the board
of zoning adjustments to revoke or approve an application for
administrative review to permit the operation of a home for the
care of nonrelated persons (Huntington Beach Ordinance Code
Section 9730 .27. 7) .
(d) SIGN CODE: the Council or any member thereof may ap-
peal any decision or requirement of the board of zoning adjust-
ments or planning commission to revoke or suspend a sign permit
(Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9761.16 .5) .
(e) BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS: the City Council or any
member thereof may appeal any decision or requirement of the
board of zoning adjustments or planning commission to grant
DPB :ahb 1.
or deny applications for conditional exceptions or use permits
(Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9815. 5) .
(f) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: the City Council or any
member thereof may appeal a decision of the planning commission
to grant, modify or deny an application for a conditional use
permit (Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9842) .
(g) APPEAL: the City Council or any member thereof may
appeal any decision or requirement of the planning commission
(Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9881) .
(h) SITE PLAN: the City Council or any member thereof
may appeal or challenge any decision, determination or require-
ment of the planning commission to approve conditionally or
deny an application for a site plan (Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code Section 9892) .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held
on the 26th day of October, 1976 .
a
May
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City At orney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AND
AS INITIATING DEPARTMENT:
;?.4. AL Aw. A - tdA
Mayor
2.
175
Res. No. 4344
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 dinur„Pd meeting thereof held on the 26th day
of October , 1976 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Bartlett, Pattinson, Gibbs, Siebert, Wieder
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Coen, Shenkman
,ram
'l J
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
176
Estanislau, Robin
From: pacj <pacj_03@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 8:41 PM
To: Estanislau, Robin; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Upcoming council meeting: Resolution on Civility/Decorum;Agenda item on temporary
set aside of resolution re ballot measures
Dear Council members:
Please vote in favor of the resolution on civility and decorum at HB public meetings.
Please DO NOT approve the temporary set aside regarding taking a position on statewide ballot measures. The job of
council member is designated as non partisan. Please do not overstep your NEUTRAL role.
Thank you,
Pat Quintana
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeft Date: - vJ` —o-'v a o
Agenda Ism No. / Q2 _ l 9 a g9
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Diane Bentley <dfgbentley@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:37 AM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: DON'T take a stand on state propositions!
As a resident of Huntington Beach, I urge the City Council NOT to take a stand on any state propositions! We don't need
more divisions created in our city.
Diane Bentley
92646
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: /0Z6-1201-70
Agenda item No.:
Switzer, Donna
From: Lynne Deakers <lcdeakers@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 8:57 AM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: HBcity council position on prop 15
1 urge you not to adopt a resolution regarding a no vote on prop 15. . I believe strongly in the 1976
resolution. Let the voters decide!l.
The ballot initiative would make an exception for properties whose business owners have $3 million
or less in holdings in California; these properties would continue to be taxed based on their purchase
price. The ballot initiative would exempt a small business's tangible personal property from taxes and
$500,000 in value for a non-small business's tangible personal property.
Lynne Deakers
39 year resident of Huntington Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mw*V Dalls: /0/s/-00�ZU
Agenda hem No.• /3(.20
Switzer, Donna
From: Alice Haddock <alichadd@icloud.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 1:59 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: resolutions
You must be kidding! The council is considering telling me how I should vote in the next General Election! Here's a
message for the members of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee: go back to Civics class. If you want to
represent me, first ask me my opinion, please.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meedng Date:
Agenda Item No.: 13
Switzer, Donna
From: Don Johnson <1229donj@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:48 AM
To: supplementaIcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Stance on Ballot Propositions
THANK YOU,THANK YOU,THANK YOU,for considering opposing Prop 15 and supporting Prop 22! COVID-19 has made
these times financially stressful for individuals and businesses (which also directly effects individuals). The last thing we
should do is deprive people of income, and take money out of their pockets by increasing taxes.
The California Taxpayers Association reminds us that we have the highest combined state/federal tax rates in the nation.
Two other propositions insidiously and deceptively take money from individuals and businesses(and therefore
individuals):
Prop 19,Taxation of Family Property Transfers, will impose taxes in the "10s of Millions per year,growing to a few
Hundred Millions per year over time", according to the County Voter Information Guide.
Prop 21, Rent Control, deprives income to property owners, while also REDUCING state and local tax revenues "in the
high 10s of Millions per year overtime". Talk about a lose-lose situation, and massive dis-incentive to build housing and
own property!
Rent control has failed wherever it has been tried.
Respectively,
Don Johnson
8761 Sailport Drive
Huntington Beach
Sent from my Wad
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mee#ng Date:
3l °2D '
Agenda H*m No.: ����
Switzer, Donna
From: Francine Karuntzos <francine_karuntzos@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:30 AM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Props 15 and 22
Huntington Beach City Council should not take a stand on either Propositions 15 or 22. We can read and
decide for ourselves. Please let the citizens speak through their vote.
Francine Karuntzos
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meefng Date: zD1�0-W
Agenda Item No.: 13 l?y -
1
Switzer, Donna
From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 1:49 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Re: Comment on Oct 5 HB Council Item 14 (<-- should be 13)
Please note the subject line of my previous email was wrong: it was a comment on Item 13, not 14.
On Sunday, October 4, 2020, 01:46:20 PM PDT, Jim Mosher<jimmosher@yahoo.com>wrote:
As a resident of Newport Beach, I was disturbed at my council's recent action to take positions for
and against two of the November 3 ballot measures (see Items 5 & 6 from September 22). 1 was
therefore, surprised to read in the Daily Pilot that the Huntington Beach City Council is considering
similar action (although, in one case, on a different measure).
I have these comments on your agenda Item 13:
1. Since Huntington Beach claims to value transparency, I was surprised it posts agenda materials,
including the two proposed resolutions, in a non-searchable PDF image format. This appears contrary
to Section 6253.10 of California's Public Records Act.
2. 1 think your Resolution 4344, eschewing the Council taking a position on statewide ballot
measures, was wisely enacted, and I would recommend the Council not set it aside.
3. Should the Council set it aside, then, as was the case in Newport Beach, I find it disturbing to see
resolutions taking a position proposed for adoption on a consent calendar, where a full discussion of
that position is unlikely.
4. It is also disturbing to see city councils taking positions not bolstered by an impartial analysis of a
proposition's impact on the city government itself, as would seem to be required by Gov. Code Sec.
54964. For example, while Proposition 15 may have a negative impact on commercial property
owners, would it be expected to increase revenue to the City of Huntington Beach? I think an
accurate answer to the latter is what residents would expect to hear from their council.
5. Finally, to ensure compliance with Gov. Code Sec. 54964, it would seem wise to include in both
resolutions, if adopted, a statement that no public funds will be spent supporting or advertising the
Council's position.
-- Jim Mosher, Newport Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Moe*V Date:
Agenda I*n No- 13
Switzer, Donna
From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 1:46 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Comment on Oct 5 HB Council Item 13
As a resident of Newport Beach, I was disturbed at my council's recent action to take positions for
and against two of the November 3 ballot measures (see Items 5 & 6 from September 22). 1 was
therefore, surprised to read in the Daily Pilot that the Huntington Beach City Council is considering
similar action (although, in one case, on a different measure).
I have these comments on your agenda Item 13:
1. Since Huntington Beach claims to value transparency, I was surprised it posts agenda materials,
including the two proposed resolutions, in a non-searchable PDF image format. This appears contrary
to Section 6253.10 of California's Public Records Act.
2. 1 think your Resolution 4344, eschewing the Council taking a position on statewide ballot
measures, was wisely enacted, and I would recommend the Council not set it aside.
3. Should the Council set it aside, then, as was the case in Newport Beach, I find it disturbing to see
resolutions taking a position proposed for adoption on a consent calendar, where a full discussion of
that position is unlikely.
4. It is also disturbing to see city councils taking positions not bolstered by an impartial analysis of a
proposition's impact on the city government itself, as would seem to be required by Gov. Code Sec.
54964. For example, while Proposition 15 may have a negative impact on commercial property
owners, would it be expected to increase revenue to the City of Huntington Beach? I think an
accurate answer to the latter is what residents would expect to hear from their council.
5. Finally, to ensure compliance with Gov. Code Sec. 54964, it would seem wise to include in both
resolutions, if adopted, a statement that no public funds will be spent supporting or advertising the
Council's position.
-- Jim Mosher, Newport Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Date: /0 Z 5-%zD.20
Agenda Item No.* ``20 3
1
Switzer, Donna
From: carl.c.sorrell@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 3:05 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Prop 15 and 22
If the Council desides to advocate for either Proposition 15 or 22. We will take the appropriate action on Tuesday, 3
November, which incumbents might find unpleasant.
Carl & Beatrice Sorrell
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Date: /C/II�
Agenda hem No.; 13 .2 0 - PGJ.23
1
Switzer, Donna
From: Alice Haddock <alichadd@icloud.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:30 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: resolutions
The members of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee are free to vote as they wish in the Nov 3 elections. But
should not be telling me how to vote.
It is not the City Council's job to endorse either candidates or propositions in General Elections.That should be obvious!
The members of the IRC lack political maturity. Geoffrey Wulfe-Addoch, long-time Huntington Beach resident.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mm" Date:_ /ozos-J,20-z o
Agenda Item No.: /3 A2 0 — Le) .�
Switzer, Donna
From: Steven C. Shepherd, Architect <steve@shepherdarchitects.com>
Sent: Monday, October S, 2020 2:OS PM
To: Agenda Comment
Subject: OPPOSED TO AGENDA ITEM #13
Dear Council —
I write to offer my opinions on local issues and agenda items often. And while I follow some issues
more closely than others, I try to participate whenever possible. As you have a position of
responsibility in our city, I believe that as a resident, I, too, hold an important place in our community.
While I attempt to put forth my comments with an appropriate amount of deference to your positions
as my elected officials, this agenda item has me extremely upset. I apologize in advance if my anger
and contempt for even having this item on the agenda goes unveiled; I am a huge fan of effective
local governing and governance. And let's not mince words: Agenda Item #13 ain't it!
At a time when the Huntington Beach City Council has repeatedly struggled to act with constructive
purpose on any number of pressing local issues, it's almost laughable to think now is the ideal time
for setting aside a longstanding city precedent of abstaining for formally offering a city position on
statewide ballot propositions. You're not only wasting valuable council time, but you are also running
the very real risk of once again needlessly dividing the Huntington Beach community. You are
essentially wasting energy and fraying emotions on a matter that will ultimately be decided by the 40
million residents of California and not solely the residents of Huntington Beach.
Every Huntington Beach resident who is a registered voter will have the ability to weigh in on these
propositions. We have a statewide election in less than 30 days where every voter shall be heard.
The Huntington Beach City Council Members should remember that the primary purpose of the
Huntington Beach City Council is to serve city residents, not speak for them.
This item shouldn't even be on the agenda, but since it is, please vote NO on Agenda Item #13!
Steve Shepherd
P. 714 785 9404
SUPPLEMENTAL M,MUNICATION
Meeting Date,._,., 10 �� � 2�
Agenda Itpm No.: %3
Switzer, Donna
From: Ellen Riley <ellenlriley@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 3:51 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Fw: Trying again
Howard Jarvis created Prop.13 to protect/benefit HOMEOWNERS. Protecting large commercial interests had
nothing to do with Prop. 13. The result--unlike other states--school funding was and is denied millions of
dollars. We have to accept that fact, BUT we can help K-12 schools and continue to give small business tax
breaks with Prop. 15. Small businesses defined as those less than 3 million. Prop. 15 will also help fund
firefighters.
Please do NOT involve my city in fighting this statewide proposition that will only benefit us.
Ellen Riley
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 1l1&S
Agenda Item No.;
i