Some Deeper Research and Analysis on the LMD Voting---Fair, Ethical, Moral, Right,---Legal?

Santa Clarita Landscape Maintenance District One

Modification 4 Voting Analysis

Commentary by Jim Farley and Michael Wilkerson 

After receiving the balloting results from the city we have been able to analyze them in some detail. What was predicted would happen due to the way the ballots were weighted, and due to the decreases given to existing assessment payers, has indeed happened: The new assessment payers in Newhall, and those annexed into the Thoroughfare Medians Zone, had an assessment forced on them by the rest of the voters in the city who were “voting their pocketbooks” for a decrease. 
The provisions of Proposition 218 were meant to protect taxpayers. But the City, in this election, cynically and effectively used its provisions in a way that was completely counter to the spirit of the proposition.
To understand how the abuse of the taxpayers happened we need to give some background. This election was set up to accomplish several things: 

1. Modify the assessment rate methodology used in several existing zones for landscape maintenance, changing from a parcel based assessment methodology, to an “Equivalent Benefit Unit” based methodology. This does appear to be a fair and sensible change, and did adjust the assessments downward for most of the parcels involved.

2. Create a new zone and place an assessment on parcels in that zone: Currently District One contains 12 different zones. This election annexed new sections of the City into the District adding a new zone, 28 Newhall. The approximately 2000 parcels in 28 Newhall would, if the measured passed, begin paying about $71 per parcel.

3. Annex about 5000 parcels scattered throughout the City into LMD 2008 Zone, already part of District One and authorize the collection of an assessment for median maintenance from those parcels. These parcels did not previously pay any assessment and are said to benefit from the City wide median program and therefore it was argued should pay.

Prop 218, often called “The right to vote on taxes act”, came about after cities were going around Prop 13, which limits property taxes, by adding assessments to tax bills without adequate property owner approval. Prop 218 requires cities to get approval by vote from property owners before adding an assessment and the amenity it is meant to pay for. As it should be, each property owner's vote is weighted based on the amount of their benefit assessment. If the property owners vote for the amenity the city is adding they get the amenity and pay the assessment. If the weighted vote is “no” overall, there is no assessment and no amenity.
The City of Santa Clarita used the weighting provision of Prop 218 in a way that effectively had one group of taxpayers voting to tax another group. By giving a majority of the existing payers in District One a decrease in their assessment the payers were compelled to vote “yes” for the modification (they voted their pocketbooks). Because these “yes” votes carry so much ballot weight the new taxpayers could not have avoided being brought into the district even if all who voted chose to vote “no”. To retain the spirit of Prop 218 the city should have held a separate election for the new assessment payers. Then they could have voted for it and gotten the landscaping or voted against it and done without the landscaping. While we are not at all against the concept that those receiving a benefit should pay for it we are opposed to abusive taxation. This election was a violation of the spirit of Prop 218 and thus an abuse of the taxpayer.      
The attached spreadsheets show the results of our analysis. When we made my public records request to the city we asked for the ballot results with both the parcel number and the zone that each parcel was assigned to. The City provided us with only the parcel number of each vote, not the zone it was in. This meant we had our work cut out for us to assign each parcel to the proper zone. Many of the parcels were easy to assign based on the amount of the assessment. Many were not so easy. By using a County Tax Assessor's Parcel Finder application, the engineer's report, and Google Maps we were able to assign a zone to each parcel. We could thereby construct the data the City failed to provide. 
We must give a disclaimer that when doing this with over 5000 votes it is possible we may have incorrectly assigned some parcels. That being said we were meticulous in our checking and double checking. Any errors should be few and should not have an impact on the overall theme of the results. In any case we assure you that our intention was not to distort the results.
The first section of the Excel spreadsheet shows the overall results for the new assessment payers separated from the existing payers. It can clearly be seen that even if all the new payers voted “no” they didn't have a chance to overcome the weighted “yes” from the existing payers of $1.1 million. 

New and Annexed Zones (Paying for the first time)								Overall
								Assessments
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Increased or
	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Decreased
2008-1 Major Thoroughfare Medians	$123,566.01	364	$20,567.34	17%	1565	$102,998.67	83%	Increased
28 Newhall	$174,510.07	188	$26,310.87	15%	520	$148,199.20	85%	Increased
Total	$298,076.08	552	$46,878.21	16%	2085	$251,197.87	84%
Existing Zones (Assessment being adjusted, mostly down)								Overall
								Assessments
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Increased or
	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Decreased
26  Centre Pointe	$89,436.46	69	$56,363.52	63%	22	$33,072.94	37%	Undetermined
27 Circle J Ranch	$306,151.44	259	$204,893.90	67%	34	$101,257.54	33%	Decreased
7 McBean & Newhall Ranch	$70,844.52	279	$61,827.93	87%	39	$9,016.59	13%	Undetermined
T2 Old Orchard	$80,450.97	406	$69,346.19	86%	42	$11,104.78	14%	Decreased
T3 Valencia Hills & VH Trees	$82,155.00	202	$73,102.20	89%	30	$9,052.80	11%	Decreased
T4 Valencia Meadows	$88,092.18	152	$30,669.55	35%	71	$57,422.63	65%	Decreased
T46 Northbridge	$783,209.43	516	$367,888.89	47%	438	$415,320.54	53%	Decreased
T47 Northpark	$249,302.53	464	$235,003.30	94%	36	$14,299.23	6%	Decreased
Total	$1,749,642.53	2,347	$1,099,095.48	63%	712	$650,547.05	37%
Total Final Vote	$2,047,718.61	2,899	$1,145,973.69	56%	2,797	$901,744.92	44%

The next section shows a breakdown by type of property. The last shows how voters indeed voted their pocketbooks. There is an obvious relation on whether an assessment increased or decreased and whether taxpayers voted yes or no. 
There is one interesting exception to the correlation. Those in zone T46 that are part of the Northbridge Homeowners Association voted 79% “no” even though they were getting a $13.60 decrease. This happened because that HOA sent a flyer encouraging a “no” vote as they felt the expenses were not being accounted for properly and despite a reduction, the assessment was too high. This also resulted in all of Zone T46 being a net “no” vote. 
The T46 homeowners in the Northbridge Pointe area are a perfect control group to the Northbridge HOA. They are paying the same assessment amount with the same $13.60 decrease and voted 92% “yes”, demonstrating the encouragement a few dollars of assessment reduction can make in a ballot choice.

Voting Breakdown by Zone and Type of Property								If Known
								Amount of
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Assessment
(see below for property descriptions)	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Incr/Decr
2008-1 Thoroughfares - SFH	$68,993.28	223	$13,355.47	19%	929	$55,637.81	81%	$59.89
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Condo	$25,514.56	114	$5,120.88	20%	454	$20,393.68	80%	$44.92
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Vacant	$2,470.05	17	$254.49	10%	148	$2,215.56	90%	$14.97
2008-1 5 Thoroughfares Commercial/Other	$26,588.12	10	$1,836.50	7%	34	$24,751.62	93%	Varies
Total 2008-1	$123,566.01	364	$20,567.34	17%	1565	$102,998.67	83%
28 Newhall - SFH	$15,816.97	50	$3,578.50	23%	171	$12,238.47	77%	$71.57
28 Newhall - Condo	$6,979.60	48	$2,576.64	37%	82	$4,402.96	63%	$53.68
28 Newhall - Vacant	$411.47	4	$71.56	17%	19	$339.91	83%	$17.89
28 Newhall - Mobile Home	$35.79			0%	1	$35.79	100%	$35.79
28 Newhall - Commercial/Other	$151,266.24	86	$20,084.17	13%	247	$131,182.07	87%	Varies
Total 28	$174,510.07	188	$26,310.87	15%	520	$148,199.20	85%
26 Centre Pointe - Commercial	$89,436.46	69	$56,363.52	63%	22	$33,072.94	37%	Varies
27 Circle J -  SFH (Includes 2008-1 assmnt)	$171,750.12	200	$150,658.00	88%	28	$21,092.12	12%	Varies
27 Circle J - Condo	$33,898.20	58	$32,768.26	97%	2	$1,129.94	3%	Varies
27 Circle J - Commercial/Other	$100,503.12	1	$21,467.64	21%	4	$79,035.48	79%	Varies
Total 27	$306,151.44	259	$204,893.90	67%	34	$101,257.54	33%
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - SFH	$49,315.35	171	$41,954.85	1	30	$7,360.50	0	-$2.43
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - Condo	$21,529.17	108	$19,873.08	92%	9	$1,656.09	8%	-$63.77
Total 7	$70,844.52	279	$61,827.93	87%	39	$9,016.59	13%	Varies
T2 Old Orchard - SFH	$67,079.88	346	$61,401.16	92%	32	$5,678.72	8%	-$13.85
T2 Old Orchard - Condo	$8,917.70	59	$7,852.90	88%	8	$1,064.80	12%	-$58.22
T2 Old Orchard - Commercial/Other	$4,453.39	1	$92.13	2%	2	$4,361.26	98%	Varies
Total T2	$80,450.97	406	$69,346.19	86%	42	$11,104.78	14%
T3 Valencia Hills - SFH	$81,807.00	198	$72,963.00	89%	24	$8,844.00	11%	-$11.31
T3B Valencia Hills Trees - SFH	$348.00	4	$139.20	40%	6	$208.80	60%	$34.80
Total T3	$82,155.00	202	$73,102.20	89%	30	$9,052.80	11%
T4 Valencia Meadows - SFH	$37,477.30	119	$24,107.02	64%	66	$13,370.28	36%	$0.00
T4 Valencia Meadows - Condo	$5,014.02	31	$4,710.14	94%	2	$303.88	6%	-$50.65
T4 Valencia Meadows - Commercial/Other	$45,600.86	2	$1,852.39	4%	3	$43,748.47	96%	Varies
Total T4	$88,092.18	152	$30,669.55	35%	71	$57,422.63	65%
T46 Northbridge HOA - SFH	$388,651.14	107	$83,338.02	21%	392	$305,313.12	79%	-$13.60
T46 Northbridge Pointe - SFH	$201,724.74	237	$184,589.82	92%	22	$17,134.92	8%	-$13.60
T46 Northbridge - Condo	$109,236.05	171	$99,889.65	91%	16	$9,346.40	9%	-$208.32
T46 Northbridge - Commercial/Other	$83,597.50	1	$71.40	0%	8	$83,526.10	100%	Varies
Total T46	$783,209.43	516	$367,888.89	47%	438	$415,320.54	53%
T47 Northpark - SFH	$113,673.78	275	$105,253.50	93%	22	$8,420.28	7%	-$10.00
T47 Northpark - Condo	$57,699.06	188	$53,967.28	94%	13	$3,731.78	6%	-$53.68
T47 Northpark - Commercial/Other	$77,929.69	1	$75,782.52	97%	1	$2,147.17	3%	Varies
Total T47	$249,302.53	464	$235,003.30	94%	36	$14,299.23	6%
Total Final Vote	$2,047,718.61	2899	$1,145,973.69	56%	2797	$901,744.92	44%

Correlation between vote increase/decrease and Yes/No vote								If Known
								Amount of
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Assessment
(see below for property descriptions)	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Incr/Decr
T46 Northbridge - Condo	$109,236.05	171	$99,889.65	91%	16	$9,346.40	9%	-$208.32
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - Condo	$21,529.17	108	$19,873.08	92%	9	$1,656.09	8%	-$63.77
T2 Old Orchard - Condo	$8,917.70	59	$7,852.90	88%	8	$1,064.80	12%	-$58.22
T47 Northpark - Condo	$57,699.06	188	$53,967.28	94%	13	$3,731.78	6%	-$53.68
T4 Valencia Meadows - Condo	$5,014.02	31	$4,710.14	94%	2	$303.88	6%	-$50.65
T2 Old Orchard - SFH	$67,079.88	346	$61,401.16	92%	32	$5,678.72	8%	-$13.85
T46 Northbridge HOA - SFH	$388,651.14	107	$83,338.02	21%	392	$305,313.12	79%	-$13.60
T46 Northbridge Pointe - SFH	$201,724.74	237	$184,589.82	92%	22	$17,134.92	8%	-$13.60
T3 Valencia Hills - SFH	$81,807.00	198	$72,963.00	89%	24	$8,844.00	11%	-$11.31
T47 Northpark - SFH	$113,673.78	275	$105,253.50	93%	22	$8,420.28	7%	-$10.00
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - SFH	$49,315.35	171	$41,954.85	1	30	$7,360.50	0	-$2.43
T4 Valencia Meadows - SFH	$37,477.30	119	$24,107.02	64%	66	$13,370.28	36%	$0.00
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Vacant	$2,470.05	17	$254.49	10%	148	$2,215.56	90%	$14.97
28 Newhall - Vacant	$411.47	4	$71.56	17%	19	$339.91	83%	$17.89
T3B Valencia Hills Trees - SFH	$348.00	4	$139.20	40%	6	$208.80	60%	$34.80
28 Newhall - Mobile Home	$35.79			0%	1	$35.79	100%	$35.79
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Condo	$25,514.56	114	$5,120.88	20%	454	$20,393.68	80%	$44.92
28 Newhall - Condo	$6,979.60	48	$2,576.64	37%	82	$4,402.96	63%	$53.68
2008-1 Thoroughfares - SFH	$68,993.28	223	$13,355.47	19%	929	$55,637.81	81%	$59.89
28 Newhall - SFH	$15,816.97	50	$3,578.50	23%	171	$12,238.47	77%	$71.57
2008-1 5 Thoroughfares Commercial/Other	$26,588.12	10	$1,836.50	7%	34	$24,751.62	93%	Varies
28 Newhall - Commercial/Other	$151,266.24	86	$20,084.17	13%	247	$131,182.07	87%	Varies
26 Centre Pointe - Commercial	$89,436.46	69	$56,363.52	63%	22	$33,072.94	37%	Varies
27 Circle J -  SFH	$171,750.12	200	$150,658.00	88%	28	$21,092.12	12%	Varies
27 Circle J - Condo	$33,898.20	58	$32,768.26	97%	2	$1,129.94	3%	Varies
27 Circle J - Commercial/Other	$100,503.12	1	$21,467.64	21%	4	$79,035.48	79%	Varies
T2 Old Orchard - Commercial/Other	$4,453.39	1	$92.13	2%	2	$4,361.26	98%	Varies
T4 Valencia Meadows - Commercial/Other	$45,600.86	2	$1,852.39	4%	3	$43,748.47	96%	Varies
T46 Northbridge - Commercial/Other	$83,597.50	1	$71.40	0%	8	$83,526.10	100%	Varies
T47 Northpark - Commercial/Other	$77,929.69	1	$75,782.52	97%	1	$2,147.17	3%	Varies

What is most bothersome is the fact that so many parcels, about 7000 in all will be forced to pay a new assessment, based on the incentive given taxpayers in other areas by a slight reduction in assessment.
This methodology of using reduced assessments for some, (in numbers so large) that “yes” votes, combined with the weighting, are assured and therefore “no” votes hardly have a chance does not seem at all fair. On one hand it could be considered a cynical manipulation, and on the other a clumsy poorly thought out combination of assessment changes by City Staff with no malicious intent. The net result is the same: some people voted to add new assessments on others in order to reduce their own assessment, and the measure got passed. 
In conclusion we can say we do not believe that what was done was ethical, moral, right, or at all in the spirit or intent of Prop 218.
Whether it was legal is another matter. Will other cities take note and use this method to skirt and essentially gut Prop 218 in the future? Time will tell.
Should we demand more transparency, clarity, and time for public examination of how such measures are handled by our City? Yes.
Should we assume that the City performs without error, sit back, not ask questions, and accept this and whatever is next to come. No.
This election is now water under the bridge but at least we know the results and how they came to be. While our city council did show concern at how this election was done they voted it in anyway. They have admonished city staff to not let this happen again. How effective that admonition will be remains to be seen. The citizens will need to remain diligent and scrutinize future elections to make sure this abuse does not happen again.


Jim Farley


Michael Wilkerson