Some Person(s) Inside City Hall Is/Are Stonewalling Public Records Act Release Of Poll On Proposed Tax Hike(s)

LBReport.com

First (Again) on LBREPORT.com / Perspective

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(Jan. 25, 2016, 10:30 p.m.) -- Some person(s) inside Long Beach City Hall is/are stonewalling release of a poll LBREPORT.com believes includes a survey of public attitudes on how the City is currently being run, what types of tax increases the public might support and how city officials should portray a proposed tax hike to induce the public to vote for it.

LBREPORT.com learned of the poll last month and on Dec. 21 requested its disclosure along with related documents under the CA Public Records Act. On Dec. 22, the City initially denied access to all the materials, followed a few minutes later by a response indicating said some materials might be releasable and sought additional time. On Dec. 31, we received an email citing "unusual circumstances" [narrow statutory grounds enabling additional time] to delay a response until January 14. The City has since produced no documents. [Comment: From our experience, this is very odd City Hall behavior in response to a Public Recs request.]

If you were contacted by pollsters on what sounds like this poll, email us at mail@LBReport.com or send us a Facebook message through our Facebook page at this link and let us know how we can contact you; we're interested in what you were asked.

[Scroll down for further.] .

Among other things, LBREPORT.com is interested in reporting to our readers whose City Hall office ordered the poll and how much it cost...and if some other parties paid for it, who they are and to whom inside City Hall they gave the results. We are also obviously interested in the poll's methodology, what questions it asked or didn't ask and what responses were received.

The Public Records Act allows narrow exceptions to the otherwise-required release of public records; the Act says exceptions to release are supposed to be narrowly applied and aren't mandatory; they're discretionary with the government body. In other words, even if the Act allows withholding, the City (including via direction of the City Council) can choose to disclose the requested documents.

On December 22 (three days before Christmas), city management agendized a "study session" to discuss the city's infrastructure needs. Management presented a Power Point slide show asserting that $2.8 billion is needed over ten years (a sum Mayor Garcia and some Councilmembers and media outlets have since repeated.)

On Dec. 22, only five Council members were present (a bare minimum quorum with four members absent)...and on a motion by Councilman Al Austin, Councilmembers Gonzalez, Lowenthal, Uranga and Richardson joined in requesting that "the City Manager and finance staff work with the City Attorney and City Clerk to provide options for new sources of revenue."

No Councilmember(s) present asked city management to present options for potential City Hall cost savings for LB taxpayers.

Management has now agendized a Jan. 26 Council item with a memo listing multiple potential tax increases including the options of raising the city's salex tax, utility tax, hotel tax (transient occupancy tax), oil tax (LB's is currently lower than Signal Hill's) or imposing a parcel property tax.

LBREPORT.com has been told by one knowledgable source the some Councilmembers and Mayor Robert Garcia have internally expressed support for, or at least no opposition to, a 1/4% to 1/2% sales tax hike.

A sales tax increase would put Long Beach among L.A. County cities imposing the highest sales taxes. Customers making purchases in Lakewood and Signal Hill would pay less on the same sales amount and even less if they took their business to nearby Seal Beach or elsewhere in Orange County.

On Jan. 26, the Council could indicate whether it wants to put a proposed LB tax hike(s) on the ballot and if so what type(s) and at what rates...or it could pause and seek further information...or it could "receive and file" the item and take no action.

If the Council put a proposed tax hike on the June ballot, it could be approved by 50%+1 voters and the Council could spend the money for General Fund purposes -- meaning for nearly anything a Council majority wants. A tax whose revenue is directed to certain specified purposes would require passage by a 2/3 voter margin.

If the Council were to put a proposed tax hike(s) on the June ballot, it would coincide with possible Council runoffs in districts 2, 6 or 8 and could pass with a 50%+1 vote. If the Council were to put a tax hike on the November 2016 ballot, it would require the Council to declare a "fiscal emergency" by a unanimous vote in order to pass with a 50%+1 voter margin. For the November ballot, if any Council member refused [as now-retired Councilwoman Schipske did in 2012] to vote to declare a "fiscal emergency," the tax hike would require 2/3 voter approval for passage.

In 2008, Mayor Bob Foster urged the public to approve a property parcel tax for several general categories of "infrastructure" items. Foster raised over $700,000 to fund a campaign for the measure; traveled across the city to advocate passage of the tax but refused to debate opponents face to face. In Nov. 2008, the measure received a little over 52% of the vote, failing the 2/3 margin required for passage.

Mayoral and Council moves to seek a vote for the people for a tax increase come a little over a month after the Council avoided a vote of the people in entering into the controversial Civic Center transaction, in which the City didn't seek bids or invite independent testimony on how much the City might save by seismically retrofitting LB's less than 40 year old City Hall. A retrofit would have required a vote of the people to approve a financing bond and would have had a fixed annual cost. In contrast, under the Council approved Civic Center transaction, LB citywide taxpayers will pay annual escalating sums (CPI inflator) for the next 40+ years without voter approval.

In November 2013, a Council majority -- which included current Councilmembers Austin, Andrews and Lowenthal and now-Mayor Garcia -- voted 7-2 (Johnson and DeLong dissenting) to approve 15% pay raises for management staffers over three years, creating an ongoing General Fund taxpayer cost estimated by management at the time of roughly $1.7 million per year.