Yes, I am a licensed attorney both in California and Washington. I have been in private practice since 1983. I earned a Legal Specialization from the State Bar of California in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law. The State Bar does not certify specialists in the field of municipal law, so any licensed attorney can practice in that field.

I was fortunate enough to be trained in municipal law by for 7 years by the the City Attorney for Signal Hill. I served on both the Planning Commission and City Council for Signal HIll, and read everything the City Attorney prepared, and questioned him extensively, and challenged him on a regular basis when I questioned his legal conclusions or ethical positions.

As to the confusion over when the 2/3 vote approval applies: Under state law, certain “fees” are exempt from voter approval. That leaves “non- exempt fees, taxes and assessment – like the ones you see on your property tax bill from the Sanitation District – subject to voter approval.

Check out your property tax bill for the last 6 years. Your City Council, sitting as a special assessment district – Sanitation District 29- — transferred ownership of the sewer lines to the County. How much are you paying now and about 6 years ago? That increase in costs reflects the cash the city council is stashing away in “reserves” because it transferred to cost of the sewers to you.

With the Council’s enactment of the Economic Development Ordinance this year, the Council stated that it is looking for new revenue sources to replace State Redevelopment Income. That is what I declaration of “clear intent”.

Those sources of new revenues include new taxes and fees . You might remember the Utility User Tax the Council proposed a few years ago. Also it includes new property related fees: transfer of storm drain costs to property owners via the “clean beach, clean water” measure – the council voted to put on a County Ballot. Of course, that deal includes a cash “kickback” to the city from of your new property related fee. (I read the fine print of the contract)

In addition, the City is looking at “bonds” to raise cash to subsidize future development. However, to pay back bonds, a guarantee has to be given to the lender. In the past the City has pledged “sales taxes” and former Redevelopment “tax increment”.

Sales tax revenues have dropped substantially (see the 2011-2012 LA County Grand Jury Report) and there is no more tax increment coming to the City because the RDA was shut down.

So what will the City pledge to guarantee repayment of the bonds? The answer is in the Economic Redevelopment Ordinance.

Reading the Los Angeles Times for the last few months shows all the different ways Cities are looking to raise revenue. Even Signal Hill, having survived the Great Recession without cuts in executive salaries and the $1.5 annual legal fees paid to the City Attorney, knows that it has go to residents for new sources of “cash flow”.

In fact, the League of California Cities held its 2012 seminar recently and put out a 20 page document explaining all the ways that cities can impose new fees. Tax on soft drinks. Transfer of maintenance costs to property owners. New city sales taxes. New utility taxes. Creation of Assessment Districts for businesses and new public facilities – like libraries.

The bottom line is this. If you, like most residents, do not have the time to go to council meetings but you want to know what you are going to asked to pay, then it is in your best interest to see those proposed tax increases on the same ballot where your elected representatives are seeking your vote.

Future elected representatives will have to engage in long term budget planning, recognize community participation in financial decisions that seek funds from the pockets of their constituents, and consider cutting excessive legal fees and executive salaries out of line with similar sized and funded communities.

Remember, the Taxpayers Right to Know and Vote adds “NOTICE to VOTERS” to already existing revenue powers granted to the City Council.

You are lucky to live in a small city where this type of proposal is possible through the efforts of people willing to go door to door and engage the public. Residents living in big cities are at a financial disadvantage to acquire the “right to know and vote” in their communities.

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 Council”. 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