My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 40 - Refinancing City’s Pension Obligations with California Public Employees Retirement System
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2021
>
08/17/2021 Regular
>
Item 40 - Refinancing City’s Pension Obligations with California Public Employees Retirement System
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2023 4:15:55 PM
Creation date
8/17/2023 4:15:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
40
Date
8/17/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />54 <br />4826-7904-2280v7/200434-0005 <br />restricting the State’s ability to use motor vehicle fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on voter-approved <br />transportation bonds. Proposition 22 superseded certain provisions of Proposition 1A. See the captions “— <br />Proposition 1A” and “CITY FINANCIAL INFORMATION—Property Taxes.” <br />Proposition 26 <br />On November 2, 2010, State voters approved Proposition 26. Proposition 26 amended Article XIIIC of <br />the State Constitution to expand the definition of “tax” to include “any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind <br />imposed by a local government” except the following: (a) a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or <br />privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the <br />reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege; (b) a charge imposed <br />for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not <br />charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or <br />product; (c) a charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs of a local government for issuing licenses and <br />permits, performing investigations, inspections and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders and the <br />administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof; (d) a charge imposed for entrance to or use of local <br />government property, or the purchase, rental or lease of local government property; (e) a fine, penalty or other <br />monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government as a result of a violation <br />of law; (f) a charge imposed as a condition of property development; and (g) assessments and property-related <br />fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIIID. Proposition 26 provides that the local <br />government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction <br />is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, <br />and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the <br />payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. The City does not believe that <br />Proposition 26 will adversely affect its General Fund revenues. <br />Future Initiatives <br />Articles XIIIA and XIIIB and Propositions 62, 218, 1A, 22 and 26 were each adopted as measures that <br />qualified for the ballot pursuant to the State’s initiative process. The limitations imposed upon the City by these <br />provisions hinder the City’s ability to raise revenues through taxes or otherwise and may therefore prevent the <br />City from meeting increased expenditure requirements. From time to time other initiative measures could be <br />adopted, further affecting the City’s current revenues or its ability to raise and expend revenues. Any such future <br />initiatives could have a material adverse effect on the City’s financial condition. <br />TAX MATTERS <br />In the opinion of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, <br />California (“Bond Counsel”), under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, and assuming <br />the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants and requirements described <br />herein, interest on the Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section <br />103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), but is exempt from State of California <br />personal income tax. <br />With certain exceptions, the difference between the issue price of a Bond (the first price at which a <br />substantial amount of the Bonds of the same maturity is to be sold to the public) and the stated redemption price <br />at maturity with respect to such Bond (to the extent the redemption price at maturity is greater than the issue <br />price) constitutes original issue discount. Original issue discount accrues under a constant yield method. The <br />amount of original issue discount deemed received by the Beneficial Owner of a Bond will increase the <br />Beneficial Owner’s basis in the Bond. Beneficial Owners of the Bonds should consult their own tax advisors <br />with respect to taking into account any original issue discount on the Bonds.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.