TAX MAILING RAISES TEMPERS : CITY HALL FLOODED WITH CALLS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS OPPOSING PARKS ASSESSMENT PLAN.

Byline: Rick Orlov Daily News Staff Writer

Los Angeles property owners began getting notices Thursday for public hearings on a proposed tax assessment to raise $25 million for parks - about $20 a year extra to the annual property tax bill for single-family homes.

The public reaction was swift and angry, with scores of property owners deluging City Hall with phone calls that sent council members scurrying for political cover.

Aides to Mayor Richard Riordan said he has yet to take a position on the proposal, which comes on the heels of a similar tax proposal by the Los Angeles Community College District that would cost homeowners about $12 a year.

``I hit the ceiling,'' said Laura Crockett, a Northridge writer and historian. ``First the community college district and now the city. This just really ticked me off. This is just a sneaky way of getting a new tax through.''

In addition to anger, there was confusion.

The notices - mailed to 800,000 property owners in the city at a cost of about $200,000 - advised residents of public hearings on the issue June 4 and July 9. But the notice implied that the assessment district will go into effect unless property owners representing more than 50 percent of total property holdings file written protests by July 9.

In fact, the City Council intends to hold public hearings first, and then decide whether to put the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, said Ron Deaton, the council's chief legislative analyst. A majority vote would be required for the assessment district to be passed, he said.

Neither Deaton nor other officials could say Thursday why that information was not included in the mailing, but Deaton said he is looking into the matter.

``Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,'' said Councilman Joel Wachs. ``This is total incompetence. It's totally inappropriate. This was to talk about whether to even have an election.''

Councilwoman Laura Chick said the measure now may be doomed even before its first hearing.

``I don't see how we can have a thoughtful dialogue with the voters when they get hit between the eyes with something like this,'' Chick said.

``I'm in a state of shock and absolutely dismayed,'' she said. ``When this was explained to us, we were counting on people having good judgment so people would understand their rights. That's not what's happened.''

Angry calls from property owners came throughout the day Thursday.

``Our phones have been ringing off the hook,'' Deaton said.

Councilman Mike Hernandez proposed the assessment district, saying the money was needed to help improve and expand parks and services for children.

``We are calling it L.A. for Kids because it is about working on facilities beyond parks,'' Hernandez said. ``We can use this money for football stadiums at high schools, for Boys & Girls Clubs. It also creates a process where we can try to get matching funds from foundations to use for programs.''

Kris Vosburgh of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association said creating an assessment district was an effort by the city to get around the two-thirds voter requirement that would be needed for a special tax.

Hernandez defended the plan, saying ``a majority is substantial support. You only need a majority to elect a councilman.''

But many property owners remained unsatisfied.

``Something's wrong,'' said Irene Drewton of Granada Hills. ``First the community college district, now the city. I'm a senior citizen living on a fixed income. I can't afford this.''

Jack Novell of Van Nuys said he must be convinced of the need for funding.

``I don't understand why they can't run with more fiscal management. We give them more than enough money,'' he said.

``There must be economics somewhere,'' Novell added. ``They spend money on things that aren't needed and when they run out they come out and impose assessment districts on us. It seems like it should be run better.''

The charges for the city assessment district would vary based on the size of the property.

A single-family home on a one-seventh of an acre lot would be assessed $18.45 a year, while a home on a quarter-acre lot would be assessed $21.91.

A half-acre office site would be assessed $161.44 annually, and a 25-unit apartment building would be assessed $270.27 a year.

The college district is scheduled to vote June 12 on its plan for an assessment district for improving recreational facilities at its nine campuses.

No vote of the electorate is scheduled for the college district's proposal. However, the assessment district would be abandoned if property owners representing more than 50 percent of the assessable land file written protests with the district.