In last week’s Letter to the Editor [“The debate continues…,” Oct. 5, 2012], Ms. Lorraine Gilbert asserted that the “Taxpayers Right to Know and Vote applies to all city assessments… and the petition is inconsistent with state law.”
As a former member of the [Signal Hill] City Council, I was a party to the negotiations for the California Crown (Kaufman and Broad) Assessment District.
This is how it works. City staff gets an annual estimate for landscape services and tells the homeowners what their share of cost will be. The City bases its charges on the “cost” it pays to provide the service. That is the sum total activity of the Assessment District.
Just a few months ago, City staff stated that the Homeowners Association in California Crown is far from active in management, notwithstanding the fact that a council member lives in the project.
To the point of Ms. Gilbert’s letter:
First, the Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote citizens’ initiative is consistent with existing State law.
This is the language in the current City Charter: “The City is specifically authorized to regulate municipal finance and adopt ordinances, resolutions and orders within the municipal affairs of the City, and to void enactments of the state of California contrary thereto, except as otherwise provided by the State Constitution.
The current City Charter voids enactments of the State of California. That means the City is not bound to follow State law.
The Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote Amendment modifies the language in the Charter to make the City Charter comply with State law.
Second, Proposition 218 exempts from taxpayer vote those assessment districts formed prior to 1997 and those formed “at the request of the property owners.”
Ms. Gilbert stated in her Letter to the Editor that California Crown was formed in 1992, so her district is exempt from voter approval.
Third, Proposition 218 also governs increases to assessments. So long as the City does not charge more than the actual cost of service, under Proposition 218, no voter approval is required.
Fourth, The Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote applies to new taxes, new property fees, new assessments and new bond issues.
The Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote is “forward-looking.” It applies to future revenue-raising measures the City may wish to adopt and pass on to taxpayers.
When the Council proposes a new tax, fee or assessment, the Charter amendment will require that the ballot going to all Signal Hill voters show: how much the new tax will be, who will pay it, how long they will pay the tax, and what the money will be used for.
Voters can decide if the Council’s proposed tax increase is a priority item they wish to fund.
The Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote lets the taxpayer establish their community priorities….“community first.”
Carol Churchill
Signal Hill
For Residents of California Crown / Kaufman and Broad ONLY
Dear Ms. Gilbert and Ms. Heller,
My friend Robert Mendoza stopped by the other day to ask that you consider placing a Citizen’s Initiative on the ballot. The purpose of my letter is not to solicit your signatures on the Initiative.
Here are some questions you may wish to pose to your City Council before deciding that this measure will not benefit you.
1. How will the City make up for the tens of millions of dollars it lost Redevelopment Revenues in February 2012 to cover the current costs of the city employees?
Redevelopment revenues funded at least 30% of the salaries, pensions, health care costs, and overhead expenses of the City, and with that revenue evaporating, there has to be another source of funding.
The 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury found that Signal Hill lost 21% in NET REVENUES in 2008, and those revenues have not recovered yet. In fact, the City took $2,250,000 from Redevelopment Funds to cover it cash flow deficit for the fiscal years 2010-2012.
2. Why did the City Council enact the Economic Development Ordinance only two months after losing Redevelopment funding?
Was the Council looking to this Ordinance as a way to give them access to new revenues for future development?
The Economic Development Ordinance gives the council members the power to raise taxes, fees, borrow bond funds, sell property for less than fair market value, and have residents pick up the responsibility for paying those costs.
3. If the City is doing so well financially, why isn’t the City using its “reserves†and “savings†and “revenues†to continue to pay for storm drain repairs and costs, INSTEAD OF TRANSFERRING that City Expense to homeowners?
Last year the City paid $1 Million for storm drain repairs. This year the Council voted to pass the cost on to property owners. The “Clean Water, Clean Beaches Initiative†will result in another “property tax assessment†that goes on indefinitely, with no maximum charge. By transferring these costs to homeowners, the City Council can take the $1 Million it was using for this purpose, and claim that it doing a great job by “accumulating reserves†— at your expense.
4. Why did the City transfers the Sewer Lines to Sanitation District 29, and increase our property tax assessments, instead of using the City’s revenue and reserves to pay for this City expense?
The “Clean Water†Measure is the SECOND major transfer of governmental costs to homeowners. Municipal government is responsible for maintaining systems that are used by the residents: sewers, storm drains, water lines, street trees, etc. By transferring ownership of the sewer lines to the Sanitation District (and Signal Hill is the ONLY city to do this), the cost to repair is shifted to the District. In fact, it is the City Council, who is paid to be SANITATION DISTRICT 29, that is raising your property assessments by transferring City Obligations to property owners.
5. Why did the City propose a new Utility User Tax when it had $10 Million in cash reserves?
These are some questions that your Council Members should have answered years ago.
The Council has an economic motive to keep control of taxation. This allows them the privilege of using taxpayer money to fund pet projects – like restaurants. Over the last few years, Delius restaurant has received $400,000 in property tax increment as subsidies because your City Council was embarrassed to invite elected officials from other cities to dine at Bob’s Big Boy and Curly’s. No “high-class†“white linen†restaurant would open in Signal Hill because it lacked the clientele. So the City Council used public funds to give the landlord rent subsidies of $8,000 a month to keep the restaurant operating, year after year.
Are you willing to take money out of your pocket for “pet projects†without getting the Right to Vote?
As a property owner since 1986, you and I share the same motive. That is why I proposed adding language to the City Charter that will require the Council to tell voters WHY they have to pay a new tax or fee or property assessment, WHERE the money is going, HOW LONG they have to pay, AND WHO GETS THE MONEY.
You may have been told that the Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote will REQUIRE California Crown to pay for an election each year because you have an assessments district. Your assessment district is NOW EXEMPT under Proposition 218, and it will be in the future because the Charter Amendment specifically states State law must be followed.
The City Attorney is not a JUDGE, so his opinion is not a statement of the law. His job is to articulate the City Council’s position, not the law. He serves “at the pleasure of the City Councilâ€. Unlike other cities, our City Attorney is NOT elected, so he has NO allegiance to taxpayers/voters. If he were to take a public position contrary to the wishes of the City Council, he would lose his $1,500,000 a year in legal fees. He wrote the Economic Development Ordinance giving the Council the new taxing and borrowing powers when Redevelopment was terminated.
California Crown’s Best Option: Terminate Your Assessment District and guarantee that no election is required AND You Get the Right to Vote Before New Taxes are Imposed. You have a voluntary assessment district. Your Homeowners Association can agree to take over the job from the City. The only reason the assessment district was created initially was the fear that a new Homeowner’s Association would not “maintain†the quality of the development. I know this for a fact because I was on the City Council when the district was created.
Please feel free to share my comments with your neighbors.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Churchill