Hawthorne Council Puts Property Tax Hike on Ballot : Revenue: The city would raise $2.4 million to hire additional police officers.

For the third time in two years, the Hawthorne City Council is asking voters to consider a tax to raise money for more police.

After a public hearing that lasted more than four hours, the council voted 3 to 0 Monday night to place on the November ballot a new property tax measure that would raise $2.4 million. Councilman Steve Andersen abstained, saying he believes raising the city’s utility tax would be a fairer approach. Councilwoman Ginny Lambert was absent.

In June, Hawthorne voters narrowly rejected Proposition D, a property tax measure that would have generated $2.9 million to hire and retain an additional 35 officers. The measure, which needed the approval of two-thirds of the voters to pass, failed by just 58 votes, or less than 1%.

In November, 1988, voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have boosted utility taxes from 3.5% to 6% to raise $2 million for more police.

The new tax measure would raise slightly less money than the defeated Proposition D, but Police Chief Stephen Port said he would hire the same number of officers, cutting down instead on the purchase of equipment or the hiring of civilian employees.

The proposed ordinance “reflects as much public comment as any document I have seen put together recently,” Port said in an interview Wednesday. “I think if there were some flaws in the initial Proposition D, that this new and improved version takes into account all those criticisms.”

While the measure is similar to the one that voters rejected in June and would also require the approval of two-thirds of the voters, supporters say there are significant differences.

Most important, the revised tax measure imposes a flat, $55-a-year tax on all residents, regardless of whether they are homeowners or renters. Senior citizens and disabled persons who earn less than $25,000 a year are allowed to apply for exemptions.

Under Proposition D, apartment owners would have been taxed $70 a year per unit, whereas homeowners would have paid $55. Police argued that the higher rate for apartment owners was justified because apartments tend to attract more crime than single-family homes. But critics said the measure was unfairly biased against renters, who would pay for the tax through higher rents.

The new version also would assess commercial property $5.50 per frontage foot with a cap of $5,000; owners of vacant lots would have to pay $1 per frontage foot with a $5,000 cap. Also, corner lots would be assessed on the shortest side of the property.

Under Proposition D, all commercial property--regardless of whether it was vacant or had housed a five-story office complex--would have been assessed $5.50 per frontage foot, with a $5,000 cap. Proposition D would have assessed corner commercial lots on the length of the longer side of the property plus one-third of its shorter side.

Under the new measure, the council would not be allowed to adjust the tax rate until July 6, 1993. The council would be able to raise the tax annually after that, but at least four of five votes would be needed to approve any change.

In addition, the rate could not be raised above the percentage set by the previous year’s cost-of-living increase. That figure is to be set by the Los Angeles All Urban Consumers Price Index, which provides a local measurement for the national Consumer Price Index.

Tax opponents said say they plan to campaign vigorously against the measure.

Ray Sulser, an outspoken community activist and tax opponent, said he believes the council should commission a study on whether the city would be able to save any money by dismantling its police department and contracting with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for police protection.