HomeMy WebLinkAboutPavement Blue Ribbon Committee Recommendation Regarding Feas 4
`12B CITY( OF HU ® INGTON BEACH
� -a��
Interdepartmental Memo
0�
TO: Honorable Mayor Hansen and City Council Members
FROM: Patrick Brenden, Chairman-Paveme t Blue Ribbon Committee
DATE: June 26, 2012
SUBJECT: Recommendation regarding the feasibility of implementing a
street maintenance assessment district
The Pavement Blue Ribbon Committee was created on February 21, 2012, by the City
Council to examine and provide recommendations on funding mechanisms to address the
City's street reconstruction/rehabilitation needs. Since that time, the Committee has met
on six occasions reviewing presentations and information provided by staff and
consultants, most of which had been presented to City Council over the last year. A great
deal of. information was given to the Committee and considerable open discussion
followed. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline our efforts and transmit our
recommendation regarding the feasibility of implementing a street maintenance
assessment district and some caveats and concerns thereof.
As noted above, through the course of our meetings, we were provided with a great deal
of information, including:
Presentation — Infrastructure Needs and History — Staff provided a brief history
including a discussion of the most recent Council Strategic Planning sessions and
the previous work of the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee. It is
estimated that the City currently has an approximately $70M "funding gap" for
pavement related needs.
Presentation: Zone Maintenance Program — Staff outlined the City's approach at
addressing scheduled street maintenance efforts. Mr. Bacon introduced the
Committee to the "Pavement Condition Index (PCI)" and noted that as street PCI
drops, repairs becoming increasingly more expensive.
Presentation: Pavement Management Overview— This staff presentation provided
additional information on the PCI concept and explained that the City's goal is to
perform preventive maintenance, effectively extending the life of the pavement and
avoiding costlier rehabilitation/reconstruction.
Presentation: Street Infrastructure Analysis— Staff noted that this presentation was
given to Council in July 2011 and prompted a feasibility study for possible
-1- 6/25/2012
A
O
CITY OF HUNTINGTON� CH
Interdepartmental Memo
assessment district(s) and a public opinion poll. The presentation provided an
overview of the current condition of Huntington Beach streets.
Infrastructure Expenditure Calculation — Staff provided the Committee with the
methodology used to determine the percentage of General Fund revenue spent on
infrastructure and noted that the City Charter requires 15%.
Presentation: Feasibility Study for Formation of a Street Assessment District —
Staff presented a background on assessment districts and method of assessment
apportionment noting that the benefit to each parcel must be identified and that
votes would be weighted based on the amount of benefit to individual property
owners. Assessment methodology will need to be refined to include an analysis of
other factors so that assessments are proportional to the "special benefit" a parcel
receives. Key Factors in Developing Assessment Methodology were reviewed.
Presentation: Assessment Feasibility Study— Phase 1 Research Results —The
City's consultant presented the results of a telephone survey involving 400
randomly chosen homeowners in Huntington Beach. The survey showed that
slightly less than 50% of respondents supported the streets assessment concept,
but that the issue of the condition of streets ranked very high in importance with
respondents. A mail survey to 10,000 property owners would be one of the next
steps and would effectively mimic and ballot.
Presentation: Considerations for the Formation of an Assessment District for Street
Maintenance —The City's consultant presented the initial efforts at determining
assessment amounts.
At our May 17, 2012 meeting, the Committee "round-tabled" to discuss all of the
information received and to determine our recommendation for Council. Council Member
Connie Boardman and Keith Bohr were in attendance. By a vote of 9-1 (3 members
absent) the Committee recommends that the City move forward with the next steps of
further research/study, in the form of additional assessment engineering, and a mail
survey as noted above. After which Council may want to consider asking the Committee
to reconvene to review the results. Several Committee members stated during our
discussions that they were hesitant to make any recommendation until these next steps
were taken.
Attached for your review are the minutes from our May 17, 2012, meeting, that
summarize the comments and concerns of the Committee raised at that meeting. Also
attached are written comments from several of our Committee Members. The majority of
Committee Members felt that a City-wide assessment is the best option, with others
preferring the option of a zone approach. Other concerns noted in the minutes include
-2- 6/25/2012
0
CITY F HUNTINGTON BEACH
Interdepartmental Memo
the issue of cost to the resident, oversight of the program, perceived fairness and the
timing of moving forward with an assessment district vote.
In closing, I believe I can speak for all Committee members by saying thank you for the
opportunity to serve the community in this fashion. It has been an enlightening
experience. I would be happy to discuss the Committee recommendation with you at
your convenience.
TKH/KD:jg
Attachments
Cc: Pavement Blue Ribbon Committee
Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works
-3- 6/25/2012
s
City of Huntington
Pavement Blue Ribbon Committee— Compilation of Member Comments
June 8, 2012
Karen Jackle—An accountant told me several weeks ago that paving assessment could be
considered a voluntary tax and therefore not be tax deductible. This needs to be addressed if the
panel recommends we go forward.
The following was sent by Jim Silva and is also in the HB Independent 5/17/12—FTB
disallowing local benefit fees—they backed off for now but for how long?
By now, most people are aware that Gov. Jerry Brown is trying to raise taxes by billions
of dollars in November. But did you know that the Franchise Tax Board(FTB), the entity
responsible for administering state tax programs, has been moving forward with a plan to
raise taxes on property owners simply by amending a tax form?
Recently, it was revealed that the FTB is in the process of launching an "education
campaign," which includes amending tax forms to eliminate the tax deduction of the
majority of"Mello-Roos" fees. Mello-Roos fees are local benefit taxes which have been
used by communities as a way to fund projects without using traditional property taxes,
which are limited by Proposition 13.
The FTB's effort will eliminate property owners' ability to deduct local benefit taxes for
maintenance, interest or repairs—a common use of Mello-Roos fees—from their
county tax bill. This would result in an estimated$12 million taken from Orange County
taxpayers alone and$140 million statewide.
This action by the FTB is outrageous and has to be stopped. Even the Internal Revenue
Service disagrees. The IRS sent FTB a letter stating that the FTB's position was not
supported by statute.
That's why I introduced Assembly Bill 1552.
A.B. 1552 prohibits the FTB from going forward with its plan to raise taxes on
homeowners. It codifies that all Mello-Roos fees are tax-deductible.
A.B. 1552 has received broad support from taxpayer advocates and property owners.
These groups question the wisdom of the FTB raising taxes in a time when Californians
are hurting financially. Clearly, this policy is little more than a creative way to bring
more money to Sacramento.
Due to the pressure put on it by A.B. 1552 and its supporters,the FTB has
announced it has decided to reverse its position and drop its campaign to increase
taxes on Californians.
1
a
I applaud the FTB's decision to reconsider. California citizens are some of the highest
taxed in the nation, and California is repeatedly called by executives as the worst state in
the U.S. in which to do business. The last thing taxpayers need is for government to take
even more out of their paychecks.
Stopping the FTB in its tracks was a rare win for California taxpayers. Since my goal has
been accomplished without needing to go forward with legislation, I will have A.B. 1552
on hold until further notice. However, I will continue to keep my eyes on this issue.
Protecting Californians from unnecessary taxes is my top priority.
Bob Ewing- I believe that we are ready to recommend going forward with the caveats of:
• Making sure we know exactly what the cost would be to the homeowner,
• Making sure that any funds received for this project aren't allowed to be used for
anything else,
• Doing the best job of marketing the plan that we can. Whatever you call this assessment,
it still is going to sound like a tax to people.
Personally, if I knew our streets would be greatly improved over the next 7-10 years and my
contribution would be up to $100 annually for that time period, I would vote "yes" immediately.
But you aren't selling it to me, but to some who are probably more apathetic or anti-taxes.
Mick Totten - I believe some streets in our city are in very good shape and many others are not.
The people who live in the areas that are in need of street repairs should have the opportunity and
a vote on getting the streets in those areas repaired in a timely manner and districts or zoning is
the only way this is going to happen
The city has made it very clear that Huntington Beach does not have the funds or logistics to do a
City-wide paving project. That being said, we need to consider that without creative and forward
thinking our beautiful city will fall into disrepair, and as we on the committee know it is far
more costly to repave (i e. grind& complete repave) a street than it is to maintain a street
through slurry recapping or a maintenance program. By letting this idea of zone or pay as you go
plan get dismissed without getting the hard numbers,that we will only get by moving forward
and further investigation ( IE: polling and engineering survey), we are doing a serious disservice
to our citizens.
I also must say, I felt for a moment as a committee we may had lost sight of what the city has
asked of us. We were tasked with the question whether or not the City Council should move
forward with further inquiry of this project. But after our last meeting I am proud to say, my
fellow committee members as well as myself voted 9 to 1 for the City to move forward, with the
consideration of the committee as well as its concerns and views.
I am very humbled to have had the opportunity to serve with such wonderful and intelligent
people on the blue ribbon paving committee for the city of Huntington Beach. I am pleased when
2
it came to the vote,my fellow committee member chose to vote to keep moving forward and do
the fair and the right thing keeping in mind the City Council did not ask us to tell them how this
project should be done, whether it should be city wide or what have you. Instead agreed to
further inquiry and to have faith in our City Council, our City Public Works Department and,
first and foremost, our fellow citizens to make their decisions by their voice and their vote.
In closing,to not act and not think out of the box will only postpone the problem to a later and
more costly date.
Debbie Cook-While I support further investigation by the City Council, the following are my
thoughts and concerns with regard to the level of success of such an endeavor.
• I am not aware of, nor was the committee presented with, any other examples of
communities who have used this process to fund pavement maintenance. So beware, you
are traveling uncharted territory.
• In my opinion, City employees/City Council and a relatively small number of involved
community members have a heightened sensitivity to the perceived needs of our city's
roads. As was borne out by the survey, only a small number of community members
share in that sensitivity. Most community members are satisfied with the level of service
they receive from the City. It is quite possible that infrastructure has to deteriorate to a
greater level before the public will support additional assessments.
• There must be unanimous strong leadership demonstrated by the entire City Council for
this to be successful. Council actions leading up to an assessment vote will be critical.
Any perceived expenditures that are deemed frivolous by the community will undermine
voter support.
• It will take time to build community support. Fast tracking the process will ultimately
lead to greater resistance.
• Huntington Beach cares deeply about transparency and fairness. For that reason, a city-
wide vote as opposed to geographically determined districts would be preferable in my
opinion(except where homeowners themselves are the initiators).
• The initial survey of the community was very clear that success will be largely based
upon the level of the assessment. If the level is less than the full need, then how and
where remaining monies are spent will need thoughtful consideration and a wellde.ned
and executed plan.
• Focus on the need, and not on the money. We need a clearly defined vision of what is
hoped to be achieved and the anticipated future needs of this program. Don't count on the
return of"economic growth"to rescue us from our long term infrastructure needs.
Hart Keeble—I give my full support for the City Council to move forward and determine which
way we can improve our City's pavement problem. The City's staff, through presentations,
clearly demonstrated the need to improve the condition of our City's streets, especially the
3
pavement. In addition, the information we received concerning current and future funding
sources identified the need to explore new funding mechanisms.
After my first meeting, I looked at the condition of the street I live on and the streets I drive on in
Huntington Beach. I noticed there were beautiful streets with nice new pavement that looked
great, but, unfortunately, I also noticed the many streets that didn't look like they belong in
Huntington Beach. As a resident, I know our City struggles with funding and I also know there
is only so much that can be done with the money we have. You all have a tough job ahead of
you determining what course we need to take to keep our City running and looking good. How
we improve our streets is a tough question, but I feel that we can address it fairly and with
common sense. I would support moving forward on a pay-as-you-go basis, one section of town
at a time, looking at what needs to be done in that section and approved by a majority vote of the
residents/property owners of the section. I think this would enable neighborhoods to move
forward if there was a need and a majority approval. I know this wouldn't be fair to everyone;
the lucky ones with streets that were already done wouldn't have to pay the rest of us would. The
reality is that unless something like this is done, we may never see the streets in our
neighborhoods get done for a long time. Maybe my way of looking at it is simple and reflects
my unfamiliarity with the way things are done, but I don't really see any other way of getting out
street improved at this time.
I urge the City Council to move forward on the City pavement and street improvement issue. I
am positive a fair system can be created and implemented.
Vincent Latora - Firstly, let me state here that my opinions and beliefs are not necessarily that
of my appointer, Mayor Pro Tem Dwyer. The statements herein are based solely on my first hand
experience in the City of Huntington Beach and in other cities, as well as my professional
background dealing with the discussed elements (infrastructure) both in design and execution.
Also, I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of this proposed assessment, and, have no
designs of either personal gain for myself or to advance the agendas any private or public
organization which would have a resultant gain, either financially or influentially.
My sole intention here for accepting the position which was offered to me is to do my
ultimate best to see equal and impartial services for each and every residence and business
owner in the city in terms of the condition of the roadways which serve their parcels. The
following statements are based on that impetus.
Comments: ---For decades, I have seen violation of impartial maintenance services for
curb/gutter/sidewalk/pavement especially in residential areas. These violations are not wide
spread but implemented by design in very specific locales. I am assuming that most committee
members do not live within these specific areas nor travel through them on a daily basis for
ingress and egress to their residences. I, however, do exactly that. I have eliminated quite a list of
examples from this statement concerning everything from injuries to children, the elderly,
4
e
pregnant women, etc., to the regularly scheduled Orange County Vector Control vehicles coming
into the neighborhoods and spraying poison into the standing green slime ponds that stand for
many, many weeks and breed mosquitoes adjacent to residences. I am believing that there Might
possibly be a way here to alleviate the ongoing physical injuries to our residents and to
implement strict adherence to fiduciary duty by all departments of the city structure by
investigating the option that has come before us in this committee.
Concerns: ---I have very strong concerns that there should be complete transparency of every
single avenue of investigation for this proposal so that all committee members may scrutinize
activities down to the smallest single element and have power to adjust them if needed.
Caveats:
• If this proposal is forwarded to the point where it seems reasonable and equitable to bring
it before the city residents as a vote, that the utmost care be taken to express and explain
to the people, far in advance, the exact nature of what comes before them to vote upon,
and to do so without distracting portrayals and/or oversimplification.
• Any services which are retained to provide study and or information shall be subject to
scrutiny by the committee members down to the smallest single element, and that also
includes the hiring of these services, or the review or procurement of other qualified
companies providing the same service.
• That the legal construction of any proposal for assessment be done so by arms length
services. In other words, to avoid a conflict of interest here, which is quite typical in the
private sector.
• That the individuals/companies/corporations et al that presently own property within the
city, and who have serious infrastructure maintenance issues immediately adjacent to
their ingress and egress of that property, and who have owned that/those properties for a
number of years, having paid the taxation in good faith for the upkeep in their immediate
ingress and egress to that property and not having received their fair due, shall be granted
special benefit of repairs to that right-of-way directly tangent to their property, be it
frontal street access or rear alley access. In this way reparations are made for the property
owners who have legally paid their fair share for many years and whose funds were used
to enhance other property owners parcels. This clear violation of fiduciary duty by local
government should not only be vigorously addressed, but enforcement language be put in
place to monitor and if necessary police this activity.
• That no special political interest on the part of the city council or other influential groups
which affect them,be allowed to use any portion of accumulated assessment funds, for
5
any reason, of any manner or description, or to divert them during the process of their
collection before they are actually considered assessment funds.
• That there be a complete reorganization for the tree planting policy of this city. City
departments are directly responsible for the destruction of curb/gutter/sidewalk/
pavement due to the long process of destruction of these elements by tree root, along with
the ongoing maintenance problems of clearing roots invasive into sewer lines.
• There are many developments which have curb and sidewalk abutting and a nice
selection of neighborhood trees planted willfully by property owners in their front yards.
Damaged infrastructure by trees of this nature rarely exist, but that damage by roots,
created by city policies, runs rampant with the far and wide consequences that we on this
committee unfortunately are having to deal with today.There needs to be in place an
Oversight Committee formed to monitor the development of information needed to make any
proposed assessment vote a transparent and equitable proposition for city voters. In my opinion,
this committee needs to be a minimum of five, maximum of seven individuals who are residents
in the city. The preponderance of individuals on such committee(3 of 5 or 4 of 7)should have
strong backgrounds as business owners. Individuals of this type do know how to make"black
ink"or fail. This type of experience will be invaluable for any successful approach towards a
city-wide vote.
Thank you for your time and patience in reviewing my statements.
Patrick Brenden-At our last meeting (5/17/12), I cast the sole NO vote on the motion to
recommend to the City Council that the Benefit Assessment District concept be studied further. I
felt that it would be useful to offer an explanation of my rationale. I would also point out that my
opinions are my own and, in no way, should be assumed to represent my appointer, city council
member Keith Bohr, or any other council member or Huntington Beach staff member.
Summary: After sitting through the various presentations the committee has seen and being party
to the Q&A and deliberations of the committee members, I am of the opinion that the
Assessment District approach has little to no chance of adequate public support. Many factors
contribute to this conclusion and I have attempted to enumerate those factors below. If this
conclusion is correct, then I can see no reason to spend the additional money required to further
study the concept. We are facing the worst budget deficit in our history as a city. Now is the time
to scrutinize every expenditure.
Contributing factors:
1. Complexity of the concept and the intricacies of implementation will be difficult to
explain to the voters.
6
r
2. Further study will cost the city many thousands of dollars, at a time when the city is
facing millions of dollars of budget deficits. The next steps, engineering study and mail
survey to 10,000 residents, is projected to cost$55,000.
3. Voters will perceive this concept as a tax increase. Voters are averse to new taxes,
especially during recessionary times.
4. Consultant-produced studies did not present compelling data to substantiate public
support. Public perception of pavement conditions is favorable. Current PCI is above 70.
5. The city has provisions and accommodations in place to allow citizens groups to pursue
their own funding of improvements. This would be a similar concept to the Assessment
District by Zone but it would be driven from the citizens and not the city.
6. Administration of a Assessment District concept by city officials would add to the
existing workload, leading to either additional labor cost or reduced labor available for
existing workload(i.e. decrease in current services).
7. Potential for legal challenge is high and would create a new financial impact on the city.
8. Current economic conditions (recession) are not normal. Infrastructure funding at current
levels has created the PCI of 70+, so it isn't necessarily a matter that requires intervention
today.
Jonathan Ford - I wanted to let the committee know of my opinion and concerns regarding the
information we have heard over the past several meetings.
The basic question that our committee needs to answer is: "Should the city council pursue the
pavement assessment district concept?" My answer is yes. I think a complete assessment
engineering report needs to be completed and a mail survey with the information gathered from
the engineering report needs to be sent out. The information gathered from that will allow the
city to look at the districts separately and also find out if commercial, industrial, school districts
and any type of property other than residential would support the assessment.
However, these are my concerns on the process going forward:
• If the assessment districts go to a vote and are approved, how will each assessment
district be prioritized?
• Should all of the assessment districts hold a vote at the same time?
7
• I'm assuming the assessment district boundaries would be similar to the existing zones
that the Public Works Department has created. If not, how would the districts be formed?
8