CORRESPONDENCE - 12A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SANTA ANA'S PROPERTY BASED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Many of the property owners claimed they were taken by surprise at the existence of the assessment much less the amounts. In many cases, their property taxes with the assessment doubled and in some cases tripled. Many assessments went unpaid and many properties were threatened with legal actions. As more of the assessments became known, the protests from those most affected became more vocal and louder. On August 1, 2011, a notice for a public hearing was issued indicating the city's intent to modify the boundaries for the downtown CMD. "Considerable dissention took place at this hearing alleging mismanagement issues associated with Downtown Inc., and the mayor pro tem directed staff to prepare a resolution for the "disestablishment of the PBID." A second city councilman indicated that any modifications to the original district area is considered a new district, and cites Proposition 218 in support of that position. On August 24, 2011, a public hearing was held wherein numerous speakers addressed the city council. The majority of the speakers objected to the PBID indicating that proper procedures were not followed in its establishment, that the assessments being made did not provide a proportional benefit as required by applicable law, and requested that the PBID be "disestablished." Subsequent comments from city council members revealed a lack of consensus as to what actions if any could, or should, be taken. At least three (3) of the members of the city council agreed that certain changes had to take place, most notably in the manner in which Downtown hie. was organized and conducting the business of administering the PBID. At this council meeting, the council agreed to allow an amendment to the boundary of the PBID. On September 11, 2011, the city council again met to discuss the disestablishment of the PBID. Again, extensive discussions took place regarding the manner in which the PBID was established, whether it should continue, a lack of transparency by Downtown Inc., and mismanagement issues with Downtown Inc. The lack of consensus amongst the council continued and the matter was continued until October 3, 2011. On October 3, 2011, a resolution was introduced before the city council to disestablish the PBID pursuant to Article XX, Chapter 13, of the Santa Ana municipal code. Multiple petitions had been received by the city calling for the disestablishment, "specifically, the City Clerk received fifty-six (56) signatures on petitions protesting against the existence of the CMD." The resolution also states that "there are questions regarding the overall support for the CMD from the remaining property owners during the vote if the City had not cast votes in support of the CMD." Comments at this meeting included statements that fifty-nine (59) signatures requesting disestablishment had been received, and that the proposed budget submitted by Downtown Inc. was "substandard." The matter was again continued until November 7, 2011. On November 7, 2011, the Mayor Pro Tem asked the city council to "clean things up." She further stated that the council never approved the bylaws or the agreement, i.e. with Downtown Inc. Furthermore, she stated that "State Law has a Clause for Disestablishment that was deleted from the Resolution that approved the Santa Ana Ordinance." Three motions were made: (1) to set a public hearing for the disestablishment of the PBID; (2) to have an advisory election 2011-2012 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Page 215