Ms. Karen Rees, City Clerk
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Dear Ms. Rees,
March 24, 2023
Barbara Pascone
2208 Candlewood Drive
Fairfield, CA 94534
I have enclosed 10 copies of the attached report and ask that you please distribute them as addressed. Thank you for your assistance.
I am submitting the attached report detailing objections to NBS's 2023-2024 Preliminary Engineer Reports on behalf of all Fairfield LLMD's. This concerns the nine NBS engineer reports completed thus far, those in progress and would apply to future LLMD engineer reports as well.
The objections arebased upon the engineer's noncompliance with City Council's Resolutions No. 91-213-B & 91-214 (as amended), California's Constitutional requirements under (Article XIIID) and Proposition218's Appellate and California.
Supreme Court case law.
Although I am not an attorney, I do believe in fairness and the "Rule -of -Law".
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
r -
acbara Pascone
b arbydoll007@hotmail. com
March 24, 2023
Barbara Pascone
2208 Candlewood Dr.
Fairfield, CA 94534
Objections to NBS's 2023-2024 Preliminary Engineer Reports on behalf of all Fairfield LL 1 I D's.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
After attending a community meeting in 2022, I began researching the impact that Proposition 218 would have on my. p roperty. The city was made aware of my research last year when I discovered that all residential LLMD's have been overcharged thousands -of -dollars each year because the city's General Fund contributions were not implemented consistently or correctly or according to Proposition 218 requirements as mandated on July 1, 1997. .
In 2021-2022, Rolling Hills situation worsened when the city contracted with NBS/CivicMic to comply with Fairfield's LLMD Proposition 218 assessments.
Although NBS contracted with the city as an independent contractor, NBS agreed to communicate with city staff for the review of costs, improvements, maintenance, services, statute requirements and benefits conferred on properties.
However, their collaboration has resulted in unlawful results.
One problem is that NBS failed to assess properties based upon the city's legal liability for General Benefits as outlined in ResolutionNo. 91-213-B for residential property and Resolution No. 91-214 & No. 93-132 for commercial properties. As such, LLMD property owners will continue to pay "double taxes' and be charged for assessments that greatly exceed their legal liability. Therefore, the nine NBS engineer reports prepared thus far, are unconstitutional under Proposition 218 requirements.
Public record shows when NBS's engineer prepared Suisun City's, Proposition 218 engineer reports for their eight LLMD's, they exempted areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements, public rights —of -ways, public greenbelts and public parkways. However, NBS's engineer did not exempt Fairfield's nine LLMD's for landscaping and lighting costs in those same public areas. Therefore, none of Fairfield LLMD's were properly assessed.
Moreover, all of Suisun City's LLMD's are in the same county as Fairfield's LLMD's; all LLMD's had Proposition 218 assessments for identical improvements; and allengineer reports were prepared by the same NBS engineer, John G. Egan. Yet when you compare Suisun City's engineer reports with Fairfield's engineer reports, there are vast differences, and you will find that Fairfield's LLMD assessments do not comply with Proposition 218 requirements.
RESOLUTION 91-213-B. EFFECTS ON NBS'S ENGINEER REPORTS:
RESOLUTION No. 91-213 B & No. 91-71 ESTABLISHED POLICY FOR
DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE AND FINANCING STANDARDS FOR
RESIDENTIAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS.
RESOLUTION No. 91-214 & No. 93-132 ESTABLISHED A SEPARATE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT & POLICIES FOR OVERHEAD, GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR COMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
1) GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTIONS: The City Council may at their discretion make contributions to districts from the General Fund to cover the cost of providing services determined not just to benefit the district but the city at large. Such contributions may include direct deposits to maintenance district accounts for credits which effectively reduce district assessments. This council shall establish the appropriateness and level of any credit to contributions related to:
2) DOUBLE TAXATION: Maintenance district property owners pay property tax which in part goes to fund maintenance of streetlighting and roadside landscaping throughout the city. In maintenance districts where maintenance requirements are higher property owners also pay special assessments to cover maintenance costs for the landscaping and lighting improvements in their neighborhood.
3) CITY GENERAL AND ADMINISTRTIVE (G&A): The General Fund Contribution shall cover City G&A expenses as itemized in the budget. This includes ongoing annual administrative expenses and shall include charges for accounting, printing, publications of legal notices, county fees for collecting the assessments, public works overhead and other city staff general administrative expenses. Overhead, general and administrative expenses shall be established as outlined in section 4D of this resolution.
4) ARTERIAL MEDIAN MAINTENANCE: Maintenance district property owners pay to maintain median landscaping for arterials that run through their neighborhoods. In most cases, development would not be allowed to proceed withoutthe landscaping. This median landscaping benefits maintenance district homeowners by creating housing opportunities, enhancing the character of neighborhoods and increasing property values.
This arterial median landscaping also creates a citywide benefit by creating aesthetic thoroughfares traveled by citizens at large. Since maintenance district property owners are paying to maintain citywide facilities through their property taxes and district arterial medians through their special assessments the council hereby directs the Finance Department to apply a General Fund contribution to the residential maintenance districts.
ARTERIAL MEDIAN MAINTENANCE: The General Fund Contribution shall cover 50% of the cost to irrigate and maintain aerial median landscaping within any given Residential Maintenance District.
5) ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS: General Fund Contributions shall cover 100% of the cost to maintain and power arterial streetlights within any given Residential Maintenance District.
6) INTERIOR STREET LIGHTS: The General Fund Contributions shall cover per lot cost to maintain and power residential streetlights interior to a subdivision. General Fund Contributions for interior streetlights shall be made in accordance with the streetlight credit as shown in Exhibit C-2. The credit per lot is based upon the electrical energy and maintenance costs for a standard city owned streetlight including "Cobra Head" fixture. Therefore, the residential maintenance districts are only paying for increased costs for electrical energy and maintenance associated with decorative strcctlights. 7) Exhibits C-1, C-2 and F-2, stipulates percentages and other information. For instance, a Traffic Control Maintenance Worker III spends 1/3 of his time maintaining 2,500 streetlights and approximately every four years for materials in changing photocells and re-lamping. Moreover, amounts charged for employee benefits are shown as 35.2 % of their hourly wage.
8) Exhibit F-2, lists the MAXIMUM TIME BILLED & MAXIMUM ANNUAL COST". For instance, the maximum time billed for public works supervisors is 45%, assistant engineer 15%, landscape project planner 5% & associate civil engineer 15%.
4 9) The resolutions set the Maximum Time Billed and the Maximum Annual Cost for City workers. This would apply to all commercial properties within Fairfield's LLMD's.
As evidenced by the foregoing resolutions, NBS's engineer did not properly separate Special Benefits from General Benefits as required by Proposition 218 for the nine Fairfield LLMD's assessed thus far.
HOW DO THE RESOLUTIONS IMPACT FAIRFIELD'S LLMD'S:'
The city set the rates listed in Resolution No, 91-13-B & No. 91-214 (32 YEARS AGO). The city's General Fund contributions have not keptp ace with the increased maintenance costs over the years. For instance:
Public records confirm the only year that Fairfield complied with Proposition 218's Constitutional requirements was in 1999, for LLMD No. 7.
Therefore, the city did not comply with the law from FY 2000 to 2023, for 23 years. During those years, the city engineer overcharged all Fairfield LLMD's assessments. For instance:
Beginning in FY 2000, Rolling Hills total expenses were $237,319 and the General Fund Contribution was $41,750. Other General Fund contributions were, in 2001, $49,000; 2002, $50,000; 2003, $39,000; 2004, $127,540 then the city contributionis reduced in 2005 to $27,000; 2006, $28,000; 2007, $28,000. For years thereafter, the General Fund Contribution was around $35,000 annually.
The General Fund Contribution of $127,500 in 2004, represented (around 39%) of Rolling Hills total expenses of $327,281 and continued to increase annually.
The city's General Fund contribution of $127,000 was (18) years ago and the current FY 2023-2024 NBS assessment is $1,036,648; an increase of over 400% since FY 2000. Therefore, the city General Fund contribution should have increased at that same rate of annual increases; however, the city's General Fund contribution decreased beginning 2005 by $100,000.
With today's increased Lighting & Maintenance costs, how could NBS's engineer only assess Rolling Hills 2023-2024 General Benefits at 23.80%? If you consider the percentages that represent the city's liability in Resolution 5 No.91-213-B, and No. 91-214, the General Benefits should be assessed 50% or more.
ASSESSMENT RANGES, DEFICITS, REDUCTIONS & CITY LOANS:
If city General Fund contributions had kept pace with the gradual increase of annual maintenance costs and if the city engineer had complied with Resolutions No. 91-213-13, No. 91-214 and Proposition 218, assessment ranges would not have been exceeded. There would not have been anv district deficits, maintenance reductions or city funded assessment loans.
For instance, public records show that Rolling Hills had a maintenance deficit in 2019-2020 and again in 2020-2021, per Resolution 2019-282. Rolling Hills Actual Fund Balance for fiscal year 2020-2021 was nearly depleted with only $7,060 remaining. The city then contracted with NBS and their subsidiary CivicMic, which resulted in a reduction of Rolling Hills maintenance services from around $350,000 per to $81,000 per year, for two years, and a subsequent city loan in the amount of $410,000.
However, the city's public records are incorrect based upon the follow:
1) Beginning July 1, 1997, annual assessments were not performed by a licensed engineer as mandated by Proposition 218. This was disclosed by Public Works at a 2022 City Council meeting.
2) The city'spreliminary engineer rep ortsuse estimated assessments based on a fiscal year; whereas maintenance contract amounts are given by calendar year.
Therefore, assessment amounts over -lap every two years and are confusing. 3) From July 1, 1997, to FY 2022-2023, assessment amounts were not calculated according to those percentages for city liability (General Benefits) as outlined in Resolutions No. 91-213-B & No. 91-214.
4) City Council relies on this erroneous information when adopting preliminary engineer report resolutions.
THE CITY'S LLNID LOANS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Since the purpose of LLMD city loans is to cover increased annual maintenance costs, this is considered an increased assessment that must comply rl
with Proposition 218's voter requirements. CivicMic's online community loan vote taken April 1 to April 22, 2022, was unconstitutional as it violated Proposition 218's requirementof mailed ballots to property owners and Civil Voting Rights concerning the increased assessment.
In addition, public records confirm that the city's proposed loan repayment plan is unconstitutional as well. The city stated that loan repayment will occur from assessment revenues available either as a result of increased assessments approved pursuant to Proposition 218 proceedings or a reduction of services (Resolution 2022-97, page 2, Section 5). However, because an annual assessment cannot exceed the total amount of a Special Benefit conferred on an individual parcel, they cannot increase the amount of a Proposition 218 assessment to repay their unconstitutional loans.
FAIRFIELD LLMD ASSESSMENTS vs. SUISUN CITY LLNID ASSESSMENTS 1) Previously stated on page 3, Suisun City's, NBS engineer report (2022- 2023), for all eight LLMD's were exemptedfromthe assessment of areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements, public rights —of -ways, public greenbelts and public parkways. However, NBS assessed all Fairfield LLMD's for landscaping and lighting costs for those same areas.
2) NBS's engineer report for all Suisun City's eight maintenance districts, listed only four categories: 1) Unit; 2) Levy; 3) Rounding Adjustment and 4) Grand total.
Whereas all nine of Fairfield's maintenance districts were assessed for nine categories: 1) Benefit Points; 2) Total Landscaping; 3) Lot Factor; 4) Building Factor; 5) Average Daily Trip Factor; 6) Total Benefit; 7) Lighting Rate; 8) Landscaping Rate and 9) 2023-2024 Rate.
3) Suisun City's eight maintenance districts were assessed a total of (0 to 1) benefit point per parcel for lighting and landscaping. Whereas the lighting and landscaping for Rolling Hills single family residences were assessed a total around (12 to 24) benefit points per parcel.
4) For Rolling Hills, NBS assessed 2 benefit points for landscaping (one point for aesthetics and one point for livability). However, the Supreme Court in Silicon Valley Open Sp ace Taxpayers Association v. Santa Clara Open Space 7 Authority, found these are derivative benefits which are only general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.
The court further explained, to the extent that the value of property located in a desirable community would be enhanced, this is general enhancement of property value and thus by definition is not a special benefit. An aesthetic benefit point is only assessable to those parcels in direct proximity to the improvement.
The court found the aesthetic benefit must be tied to particular properties. A project confers a special benefit when the affected property receives a "direct advantage" from the improvement funded by the assessment (Silicom Valley supra. 44 Cal. 4th at p.452, fn. 8).
The court further explained, under the p lain text language of Article XIIID, Section 2, subsection (i) the special benefit must affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from its effects on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share. ** NBS's engineer did not assess Suisun City's properties any points for aesthetics or livability because they are derivative or enhanced benefits.
Likewise Rolling Hills and other LLMD's should not be assessed. 5) ForRollingHills streetlight assessment, NBS assessed benefit points (one point for safety and one point for imp roved accessibility). However, NBS does not show how streetlights benefit any particular properties. Moreover, accessibility was determined a General Benefit in the court of Silicon Valley, et al., unless otherwise proven.
**NBS's engineer did not assess Suisun City's properties for any safety or accessibility points becausethey are derivative or enhanced benefits. Likewise Rolling Hills and other LLMD's should not be assessed.
6) For Rolling Hills, NBS stated that differing levels of special benefits can largely be attributed to differences in building size, lot size, and trip generation associated with landuse and a larger building would experience a greater special benefit than a smaller building.
However, the Appellate Court in the City of Tiburon v. Bonander (2009), invalidated the assessment because the engineer levied larger assessments for larger lot sizes. The court found this improper, stating that the proportional special benefit derived by each individual parcel shall be determined in 8 relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the public improvement as a whole.
A building's square footage, a building's location, lot square footage and trip generation haveno relationship to the capital cost ofthe public improvement being assessed. Moreover, annual property taxes are calculated based up on the value of one's home; which is determined by building size and Iot size. How is this not double taxation or a parcel tax?
The disparities between Suisun City LLMD's and Fairfield's LLNID's are unconstitutional & discriminatory!
OTHER APPLICABLE CASE LAW:
In the Supreme Court case of Silicon Valley Open Space Taxpayers Associationv. Santa Clara Open Space Authority (44Ca1.4,h at p. 455-457), the engineer report failed to identify with specificity the public improvement that the assessment will finance and failed to estimate or calculate the cost of any such improvement and to directly connect the proportionate cost of benefits received fromthepub}icimprovement tothe specificaccessed properties. Forthosereasons the court concluded the assessment violated Article XIM.
In Silicon Valley, the engineers report conferred an assessment on all property owners in the district for enhanced recreational activities, expanded access, protection of views -and other resources enhance quality of life and desirability.
The court opined that these derivative benefits are only general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. In addition, Silicon Valley's engineer report made no attempt to tie these benefits to any particular properties.
In the case of the Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (Cal.App. 4th (2009), the case concerned p lacing overhead utilities underground. The engineer assigned a total of three benefit points for aesthetics, safety, and service reliability and also assessed cost based on the size of a residential lot. The court found that Article XIIID expressly contemplates that proportionate special benefit is a function of the total cost of the project, not costs determined on a property -by -property or neighborhood -by -neighborhood basis. The court found this approach improper, cmp hasizing that under Proposition 218 the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement.
OTHER NBS INCONSISTANCIES FOR ROLLING HILLS LLMD:
1) Rolling Hills maintenance contract with Terra Care's is for six months from January 1, 2023, ending June 30, 2023, in the amount of $240,000; therefore, the annual assessment amount would be around $480,000. However, NBS' landscape assessment for Rolling Hills LLMD exceeds the contract price by $123,000.
Since NBS's landscape assessment is not consistent with Terra Care's contract. it's invalid.
2) The Rolling Oaks Apartments have 292 Units. According to Planning Commission public records, they are both privately owned units and individual rental units. However, NBS' assessment indicates that only one owner was assessed.
According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, under Proposition 218, votes are determined by those'who are responsible to pay the assessment; according to an owner's or lease -holders contract terms. However, NIBS shows no distinction between unit owners and unit renters for a weighted vote. 3) NBS's preliminary engineer report for Rolling Hills included a one page district map on page 8. However, their map is not consistent with their description of LLMD services being provided in the district. In addition, NBS' map is inconsistent with the four mapsprovidedinTerra Care' s contract; which includes the areas North of the South Putah South Canal and West of Interstate 80, including Meadow Glen, Rancho Solano Pkwy, Solano Foothills Drive and Sanctuary area.
Additionally, Hilborn Road, Lyon Road, Martin Road, city owned open sp ace, fire breaks, walking p aths, trails and I-80 are not pictured or identified on the map in NBS's engineer report and no diagram was provided. In addition, firebreaks also provide a general benefit for the protection of the entire community and the city at large.
4) A Girl's Place is classified under Park and Recreation in the City's General Plan and on their zoning map. Since City Parks are maintained through annual property taxes, A Girl's Place should be removed from Rolling Hills LLMD. 10 S) For an assessment to be valid, the properties must be assessed in proportion to the special benefits received. For instance, my property on Candlewood Drive is approximately 1.9 miles from Lyon Road and approximately 3 miles from Waterman Blvd. How do properties in my vicinity benefit from lighting and landscaping on Hilborn, Lyon or Martin Roads, Meadow Glen, Rancho Solano Pkwy, Solano Foothills Drive and Sanctuary areas? How many of the 2,73 8 trees and the 329 streetlights benefit my vicinity? There is one streetlight on my block obstructed by city trees and as such, I received no benefit, yet I was assessed two benefit points.
VOTING BY MAIL:
At meetings and workshops, CivicMic and city staff announced that the city intended to expandand form some new districts by adding additional areas to their existing maintenance district. LLMD property owners were led to believe that they are voting to increase their assessment amount, they were not told that their "one" yes or no vote is for both the formation of a new maintenance district and to increase their assessment amount.
CiviMic's website states, if a new district is not formed then the LLMD may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to fund ongoing services. However, this is incorrect, because if NBS calculated assessments according to Resolution No. 91-213-B, & No. 91-214, there would be sufficient revenue to fund all LLMD services.
WEIGHTED BALLOTS:
Under Proposition 218, Article XIIID, Section 4 (e), states in tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation ofthe affected property. The financial obligation means the property owners vote is counted by dollar amount of each parcel's new assessment amount.
However, the weighted vote was eliminated in Golden Hill Neighborhood AssociationInc v. City of San Diego (199 Cal. APP. 4th 416, (2011). This case highlighted the tactics that some governments may employ to take advantage of the weighted voting system under Proposition 218.
Did the city expand maintenance districts to include larger buildings. businesses and apartment complexes and assess them by size, to gain weighted ballots? 11 RANCHO SOLANO LLMD #5. ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF OVERCHARGES:
All information discussed throughout this report applies to Rancho Solano's LLMD as well. The following is additional information:
In 1991, per ResolutionNo. 91-213 B, in Exhibit B, the total General Fund Contributions for Smith Ranch LLMD was $62,171. This included city G&A, interior streetlights, arterial streetlights, behind gates and 50% of median landscaping maintenance & water & in lieu golf course contributions.
In Agenda Report to City Council dated June 15, 1999, for FY 1999-2000, the General Fund contribution was $57,540.95.
Fast forwarding to fiscal year 2010 -2011, the City Council Agenda Report # 10, dated May 18, 2010, stated in addition to the 300,000 in assessments collected from the property owners within the district, the city will make a General Fund contribution.
The actual amount of the city General Fund contribution was $130,000 to the district. This contribution was made to cover the cost of those street landscaping and street lighting improvements along Mankas Blvd. and Rancho Solano Parkway which have been determined to be a General Benefit to city residents rather than a Special Benefit to the residents of Rancho Solano. The agenda stated that the city contribution was made in accordance with Resolution No. 91-213 B.
Rancho Solano's $130,000 General Fund Contribution included G&A, $0; Streetlighting, $7,000; Medians, $58,000 andGolfCourse, $65,000. However, the city should have also contributed to the G&A. The city's $130,00 General Fund contribution represents around 30% of the total expenses.
Moreover, the $130,000 General Fund contribution was twelve (12) years ago and thereafter the city's General Fund contribution was around $34,000$35,000 annually. Therefore, Rancho Solano property owners were overcharged annual assessments because the city's annual contribution amount did not keep pace with the increased annual maintenance costs and did not comply with Resolution No. 91-213-B or Proposition 218.
12 Rancho Solano's 2023- 2024 assessment exceeds S 1,000,000 because NBS failed to assess the city's full liability for General Benefits as outlined in Resolutions No. 91-213-B & No. 91-214 or according to Proposition 218 requirements.
On page four of Suisun City's NBS engineer report, all LLMD's were exempted frorn the assessment of areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements, public rights — of -ways, public greenbelts and public parkways.
However, NBS's engineer assessed Rancho Solano Pkwy, Mankas Corner and Mankas Corner Road bike lanes as a General Benefit of 5.80% when it should be 100%. In addition, the General Benefit percentage for streetlights, street trees, water, electricity, admin costs and other landscaping was not assessed according to Resolution No. 91-213B-B or No. 91-214.
CIVICMIC'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO RANCHO SOLANO:
CivicMic's website posted information entitled, "WELCOME TO RANCHO SOLANO". This was a Community Notice regarding Proposition 218.
Its purpose was to notify property owners that their current assessment amount is not adequate to maintain landscaping services into the future.
CivicMic stated, the new property assessment amounts will be based on location in the community, lot sizes and size of each residence instead of assessing the same rate for each home. NBS also assessed desirability, aesthetics, economic factors, livability, trip generation, etc. However, those assessments are General Benefits and unconstitutional under Proposition 218. Courts found these are derivative benefits which are only general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large and to the extent that the value of property located in a desirable community would be enhanced, this is general enhancement of property value and thus by definition is not a special benefit.
The court found the aesthetic benefit must be tied to particular properties. A project confers a special benefit when the affected property receives a "direct advantage" from the improvement funded by the assessment (Silicon Valley supra. 44 Cal. 4th at p.452, fa. 8).
Moreover, assessments based on location, lot size and residence size are unconstitutional under Proposition 218 as well.
13 As previously explained, the Supreme Court in Silicon Valley Open Space Taxpayers Associationv. SantaClara Open Space Authority (supra,44 Ca1.41hat p.456) stated, under Article XIIID for an assessment to be valid, the properties must be assessed in proportion to the special benefits received.
In the case of the Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (Cal.App . 4th (2009), the court found assessments by lot sizes, improper, emp hasizing that under Proposition 218 the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement. The proportionate special benefit is a function of the total cost of a project, not cost determined on a property -by -property or neighborhood -by - neighborhood basis.
FAIRFIELD LLMD. PROPERTY OWNER ALLEGATIONS:
Public records show thatNBS is an Independent Contractor with 17 years' experiencein Proposition 218 assessment law and current case law. Per NBS's contract with the city, they are required to communicate with city staff for the review of costs, improvements, maintenance, services, statute requirements and benefits conferred on properties. With such proficiency, it's mind -boggling that NBS's engineer assessed Fairfield LLMD's double the assessment amount of their legal liability under a Proposition 218 assessment.
Equally puzzling•, is that NBS produce engineer reports that not only violated Proposition 218 law, but also omitted landmark Proposition 218 Supreme Court decisions from their citations in their engineer report.; however, case law citations were completely omitted from SuisunCity's eight Lighting & Landscape Districts.
It's interesting that after city staff received my report about Suisun City's eight NBS engineer reports verses Fairfield's NBS engineer reports "someone" deleted the information from Google's search engine and when you try to access the 2022-2023 engineer report on Suisun City's website, it is now "restricted". Now that's coincidental!
Property owners believe that the city' s past pattern of overcharges coupled with the city's input into NBS' 2023-2024assessment overcharges, could further support allegations of a conspiracy to defraud unsuspecting district property owners. 14 THE CITY IS NO STRANGER TO MISCONDUCT:
A few years ago, there was a Grand Jury Complaint filed by Fairfield residents against the city questioning their accounting of Measure P funds. The Grand Jury (in part) found the following:
1) Therewas no established process for City staffto verify that the information is presented accurately, and it was found confusing to the public. 2) There was no clear detailed accounting structure that allows tracking with the need to develop a system where the public can easily see how the funds are applied. The city needs to enhance public transparency. 3) The city was noncompliant with collection, management and expenditure of Measure P funds, pursuant to its ordinance.
Likewise, city staff did not annually assess Fairfield LLMD's pursuant to Resolutions No, 91-213-B and No. 91-214.
The Grand Jury Report is available on their website by searching for Measure P.
THE CITY ATTORNEY PREFERS A LAWSUIT OVER NEGOTIATION:
The requirements ofProposition218 became constitutional law and applied to all assessments beginning July 1,1997. However, the city chose not to comply with the law until FY 2023-2024.
Many property owners voiced their objections at City Council meetings concerning the city's preliminary engineer reports for FY's 2021 2022 & 2022 2023, without success. The City Attorney stated the city has always comp lied with Proposition 218; however, Councilwoman Moy (at the time) opined that assessments were not grandfathered under Proposition 218 and as such, Rolling Hills LLMD was entitled to receive some reimbursement.
At a 2022 City Council meeting, the City Attorney interpreted Mr. Thacker's comments as a threat to sue the city relative to overcharges. How ever, the matter was abruptly tabled by the City Attorney who advised the City Council to convene in "closed session". However, the public hearing was required by statute and 15 other property owners were denied their right to speak on the issue. Property owners thought this unfair.
Fairfield's elected officials have fiduciary discretion powers affecting property owner's assets and interests. In addition, an elected official, appointed official or a member of government staff, have public ethical obligations in addition to general ethical obligations as well. Property owners put their trust in elected officials and city staffto act in their best interests. However, this report alleges that the city put their financial interests above those of LLMD property owners.
Fairfield's elected officials took an oath of office to bear true faith and allegiance and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California as well. THESE ARE MANDATORY DUTIES! However, Mandatory Duties are breached when elected officials refuse to abide by constitutional requirements when enacting Resolutions, Regulations and Ordinances.
A local agency acting in a legislative capacity has no authority to exercise its discretion- in a way thatviolates constitutional provisions or undermines their effect (Hale v Bohannon (1952) 38 Cal.2d 458, 471, 241, P.2d 4).
IN CONCLUSION:
The story told by public records throughout this report has shocked the conscience of many unsuspecting property owners. Property owners have not enjoyed wasting their valuable time on something as simple as receiving Lighting and Landscaping services.
In addition, many retired engineers and property assessors within Fairfield LLMD's have volunteered to assist with the 2023-2024 engineer report assessments; however, they were told by CivicMic and by Ms. Lewis that property owners would not be allowed to have any input whatsoever into the engineer reports
16 To date, I have personally spent more than one thousand hours researching, to understand the truth about this situation. If CivicMic and city staff were open and transparent, researching would not have been necessary because these facts are readily available and known by them.
NBS'sclerical staffcharges $105.00 per hour. To whom shall I submit my bill? Sincerely,
ar ara Pascone
17