Laserfiche WebLink
F2. Monies collected from the improvement district appear to have only benefited a few and have not resulted <br />in a direct benefit to the assessed property as required by California law. <br />F3. An appearance of impropriety exists in the relationship between the developer and the City of Santa Ana. <br />F4. An appearance of impropriety exists in the relationship between the developer and Downtown Inc., the <br />administrator of the funds from the special district. <br />F5. The process by which the district was established in regard to the mailing of ballots, the process <br />of tabulation, and the voting by the City of Santa Ana does not appear to be in compliance with the statutory <br />requirements for establishing an assessment on property owners. <br />I: • ulu ►It : • ► <br />In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury <br />requires responses from each agency affected by the Recommendations presented in this section. The <br />responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. <br />Based on its study of the Santa Ana Property Based Improvement District, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand <br />Jury makes the following recommendations: <br />RI. The City of Santa Ana should request that its City Attorney or independent counsel conduct an investigation <br />into whether the City of Santa Ana complied with the requirements of establishing a formation district; whether <br />that district benefits all property owners proportionately; and whether there are any violations or conflicts of <br />interest. If so, the City of Santa Ana should immediately take action to disestablish the district. <br />R2. The Santa Ana City Attorney and the Orange County District Attorney should investigate the alleged <br />violations of election laws and procedures. <br />