State College Plans Rejected, City Responds.

It would seem that the email Jim Grosse sent to Council about the state college slopes meeting, no doubt aided by Ric Clough’s original meeting summary, both published here, has ruffled the right feathers to generate a response. I doubted it would come, but it has.

eric_rambles about state collegeThis morning Eric Nicoll, Community Development Director, sent the following communication in response to the email sent by Jim Grosse.

(Note: I’ve added a couple of paragraph breaks and reformatted Eric’s conclusions for easier reading.)

Tim, Council Members and Jim Grosse,

Good morning!  As Jim points out in his correspondence below, we presented the State College Slopes options to the affected residents last week and there was not any support for self funding the project even with some participation by the City through a LLMD or CFD.

We had a good turn out with 33 residents attending but the consensus was clear, if the City wants to improve this area we need to pay for it. We received some helpful input that will assist us in the future:

  1. They appreciate the traffic control and free bins the City provided and want to continue that program.
  2. They would like to see the concept landscape design (landscaping, V ditch and irrigation) as a “design guideline” for their use in planning their own improvements and requested consideration of permit fee waivers if they submit plans.
  3. The consultant work (both landscape architect and financial plan) provided concepts and real numbers for the first time and the residents can see what an improved slope looks like.

The City Council can now use this information as Envision Brea 2035 begins and the entire Brea community will participate in evaluating priorities.

Although the meeting did not result in any resident interest in moving forward on a self financed plan, it did give us their perspective and the Council can continue to explore options should the broader community see this as a priority enhancement project.

At the end of the meeting, we agreed to send a memo to the Council and the residents identifying the key points discussed in the meeting, which is forthcoming.

Regarding Jim’s specific questions below, I would like to have Bill Bowlus respond to him since he has been working with the consultants on this project and can best address those questions.

Eric

Translating government double speak.

“Not any support for self funding… even with some participation by the City” – Homeowners weren’t tricked into believing the recommendations benefitted them or that the City would seriously wade in with financial support (creating a bond) without a huge profit margin.

“We had a good turn out… 33 residents” – We thought we could duck dealing with homeowners on the south side of State College, equally problematic, or seeing the issues extrapolated citywide. Public review and reporting force us to rethink our position.

Citizen input reduced to vague remarks.

  1. First let me paint a picture of how much they love us.
  2. Design guidelines might be a place to begin once the State College corridor is identified as benefitting the entire community and alternative funding is developed that doesn’t create hardship for a majority of the homeowners whose property backs up to the thoroughfare.
  3. Residents were shocked at the astronomical costs in the consultant’s plan, particularly after ill-defined financing charges and exorbitant interest were added to the mediation costs.

Kick the State College can way down the road..

Pushing the discussion off onto the Envision Brea 2035 agenda is simply ridiculous. Envision Brea 2035 is simply ridiculous. Long range corporate planning has been a key part of my professional skills for nearly forty years. Never has a client asked to project so far into the future because they understood the unintelligent, half-baked and imprudent nature of such a wasted effort.

Envision Brea 2035, more than likely, will be attended by the same Boomers that have attended all other public forums, “discussions,” charrettes and charades conducted by the City. Don’t expect to see Gen X, Gen Y or the Millennials effectively invited or participating. They’ll quickly grasp the futility of the project.

What a shame that the very people with the greatest probability of being alive in 2035 Brea will end up having little or no influence on how Brea evolves over the next twenty years.

And please, forget that Summary Memorandum.

Eric, put your mastery of government double speak and powerpoint to good use and generate a full staff report. This time include all the details and describe them in a way that we all can understand them. If you need help from Bill Bowlus to accurately remember the specifics, you’ll get no objection.

Murdock prays about State CollegeAnd Mr. Murdock, since all of this was precipitated by your absurd original request, please do us the courtesy of bringing the final report and discussion to the Council meeting soon. As was clearly stated in the conclusion of “State College Controversy Grows” – Reviewing this in study session is a blatant rejection of reasonable transparency in government. The public should not be limited to commenting during matters from the audience, but should be afforded the opportunity of a formal public hearing. The precedents that could possibly be set here are wide ranging and likely to impact the entire community, not just the 44 homeowners selected as the target du jour.

 

State College Slopes Need Facelift.

murdock on state collegeAbout the time that Hizonner The Pool Boy was handed the gavel he suggested the City purchase the slopes on State College and give the strip a facelift. The idea was instantly rejected by his peers and staff.

What came next is no surprise to anyone keeping an eye on city hall, our highly paid extremely qualified city staff hired a consultant. Here’s the rest of the story from someone who was there… a witness to the whole affair.

State College Slope Enhancement Meeting Summary.

By Ric Clough, Brea Planning Commissioner 2006-2010

clough on state collegeFor years, State College from Lambert to Brea Boulevard has been in major disrepair. For over 30 plus years, residents in this area have dealt with increased traffic, vehicles racing through the area and major accidents.

This stretch of State College has been ignored by the City.

Approximately 10 years ago, the City spent millions to build the wall and place landscaping along the north side of Lambert, but chose to ignore this bordering stretch of roadway.

Another consultant, another set of plans.

Last year Council directed staff to hire a consultant to review issues in this area. According to City staff, the consultant took $24,000.00 out of the General Fund. The consultant’s review proposed 3 different “design options”. The Council rejected the third option and directed staff to meet with residents to present the two options they approved.

(Editor’s Note: Plan 3, the only plan to actually address all of the issues, was dismissed due to cost, though no creative financing options were explored, and because like Lambert, maintenance became the responsibility of the City. Here are the details of Plan 3:

  • Install new wall like Lambert / 100% uniform streetscape.
  • Tall enough to hide slope issues.
  • Landscaping in front like Lambert.
  • Backfilled behind increasing resident’s usable space.
  • Matches existing streetscape on Lambert.
  • Duplicate 6 foot sitewall on south side for existing fences.
  • Keeps infrastructure off of private property.)

During Monday’s meeting (6/23/14), residents of the area north of State College were presented the remaining two options. Residents south of State College, though easily within the impact area, were not notified of the meeting.

Though the original direction to hold the meeting came from City Council, no Council members were present to hear feedback from the residents.

City tries pushing cost onto homeowners.

Both options presented create either a Landscape Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) or a Community Facilities District (CFD). Similar to the recent failed effort by the City to convert the already existing Landscape Lighting Maintenance Districts, the choice between options, or to participate at all, would be up to a resident vote.

The LLMD option.

The LLMD option would create a permanent addition to homeowner’s property tax bills to fund the costs of the project and the continued maintenance, freeing the City from any future responsibility. The initial project includes building lower retaining walls and landscaping the hillsides in a uniform way.

Option One (LLMD) would cost approximately $1 million to complete. The forty-four homeowners effected would bear the expense and financing costs by having $1,744.00 added to their current property tax for 30 years. That’s $52,320 per homeowner, a total final payback of $2.3 million on the original $1 million investment. Who benefits from the $1.3 million profit?

The CFD option.

Option Two (CFD) would cost approximately $1.53 million to complete. The payback of these funds would subject the residents to an additional $5,662.00 in their property tax for 30 years. That’s a whopping $169,860.00 per homeowner! For the 44 homes involved, the payback on $1.53 million, over 30 years, would be $7.5 million. Almost $6 million in interest expense and profit generated here.

Additionally, residents would still be perpetually charged maintenance fees of $324.00 per year under the LLMD plan and $480.00 per year under the CFD plan. This perpetual fee could increase over the years as costs to maintain the area increases.

Always read the small print.

During the presentation, City staff stated the funding proposed for the initial projects did not include financing costs. No financing percentage number was provided to justify the reason for the payback amounts. Residents rejected the entire idea of paying such extreme amounts to the City for the projects.

Staff had no response to resident inquiries on other possible of funding mechanisms for the project. Residents discussed Measure M transportation funds, since State College is an arterial roadway and alternate to the 57 freeway commuters using Brea Canyon.

There was also no staff response to questions raised regarding the use of landfill funds (560 fund) that are always so available at City Hall for other projects, like making payments on a solar energy project that was supposed to pay for itself.

Staff did say traffic impact mitigation fees that are paid by developers on projects are not available. $8 million of those funds have already been dedicated to the improvement of the 57/Lambert off ramp project with Cal-Trans and OCTA.

Residents were informed that City staff will be providing the meeting’s results to Council in a summary memorandum, not during a study session or council meeting.

Time for me to wade back in. What are the extended liabilities?

This report from Ric Clough is clear and easily understood. But stop for a moment and consider the larger, unspoken issues lurking just under the surface.

tim_2aI’ll remind you again of Tim O’Donnell’s favorite definition of leadership…

“Leadership is disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb.”

What does this mean in simple language?

If we can successfully screw forty-four Brea homeowners out of millions of bucks while avoiding any responsibility to spend City money in the future, we can eventually screw the other 39,956 residents as well.

Once the camel’s head is in the tent, his ass is soon to follow. If you’re not interested in having your property tax doubled, or tripled, it’s time to stop the camel in his tracks.

A summary memorandum is grossly insufficient!

This is staff thumbing it’s collective nose at the idea of transparency in government and no one on Council should stand for it. This topic needs to be agendized, not for a study session, but for a regular meeting in Council Chambers.

The other side of the street.

As this stretch of State College is a true corridor and entrance to Brea from the west and the north… Brea Mall, 57 freeway alternative, CSUF, Target center, City Hall, etc., both sides of State College should be simultaneously addressed. A simple, clean design relying on drought tolerant native plants and replacing the melange of mismatched fences is what we need.

Refund the solar project payment(s) and turn to the 560 Fund and Measure M monies to pay for the project. Then, like the Lambert Project, the City can take on the maintenance obligations.

What Goes Around, Comes Around.

While heading to coffee this morning, an alert Brean gave me a heads-up on a new political sign that cropped up overnight.  I had to laugh, thinking how the “rough and tumble” politics of 2010 had come full circle.  Aren’t paybacks a b*tch.

No Connection To Brea Election.

Monika Koos is running for a trusteeship on the North Orange County Community College District.  Her campaign, other than to garner a few votes, has no nexus to either our race for Brea City Council or the ballot measures for accountability (Measure T) and open governance (Measure U). This handful of last minute signs smells sharply of revenge… nothing more, nothing less.

Gone In Sixty Seconds.

I’m glad I have one photo documenting this micro-event in the 2012 election season.  In less time than it took the Koos clan to (allegedly) pull down Ric Clough’s signs two years ago… voila… all but this one is gone.  It seems like these late night dirty tactics are becoming a standard part of Brea politics.

I’d be remiss not to include my personal opinion on the matter…

“No Koos Is Good News.”