HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/84March 1, 1984
To: Gregory T. Meyer,
City Manager
From: Charles Clark,
Director of Public Works
Subject: Hermosa Beach Landscaping Maintenance District
Dear Greg:
As you are aware, at the February 28, Hermosa Beach City Council
meeting, the City Council took action to place the question
of the Landscaping Maintenance District on the November, 1984
ballot.
As the Director of the Department, I feel compelled to compose
this communique regarding the actions of last evening.
As you might recall, approximately 1 1/2 years ago, this matter
was brought before the City Council. At that time, Council
voted not to pursue the item. The actions leading to this
vote required a minimum amount of staff time in the prepara-
tion of the report which suggested that the Council consider
a Landscaping Maintenance District.
Following this, at a later date, the item was again brought
forth through bedget hearings and the Council agreed to place
this matter on the November 8, 1983 election ballot to advise
the City Council as to whether of not a Landscaping Mainten-
ance District should be created. 1481 voters voted in favor,
727 opposed. Much could be read into why the electorate
cjose to favor a Landscaping Maintenance District by a
vote of 2 to 1 and at the same time deny the expansion of
a commercial development that could.provide increased revenue
to the City of Hermosa Beach. However, it is not the attempt
of thie communique to analze the outcome of this election,
only to emphasize that the electorate indicated clearly. and
decisively what direction the Council stould take in this
matter.
Following this action, the City Council at their November 22
meeting selected an Assessment Engineer after much staff time
was spent in the reviewing of the needs of the district, the
ability to create the district, and finally selecting
Assessment Engineers who would be qualified to perform the
necessary work. The motion was made by then Mayor, George
Schmeltzer and seconded by Mayor Protempore, Gary Brutsch.
The vote was Barks, Brutsch, Webber, Schmeltzer in favor and
Wood casting the only no vote.
-2 -
At this point, staff continued to work with the Assessment
Engineer and the at the City Council's December 6, 1983
meeting, the City Council ordered the preparation of an
Engineer's report regarding the enactment of the Hermosa
Beach Landscaping Maintenance District. This was a unanimous
vote - 5 0.
On January 24, 1984, the City Council approved the Engineer's
report and set the public hearing. The motion was made by
Councilman Wood and Seconded by George Schmeltzer and was
approved unamiously. At this point, the City staff work
escalated. It was now necessary to begin preparation for
a public hearing that would encompass the noticing of every
person who owned property within the City of Hermosa Beach.
Approximately 6,100 people were noticed. Included, but
not exclusively done in this stage, was the preparation of
assessment rolls, benefit zones, maps, and responsing to
public inquiries regarding the District. Through this final
stage, staff time was considerable, as one might imagine,
associated with the mailing of approximately 6,100 notices.
As was painfully evident last evening and as I am sure you
are aware, in order to form a protest that would decisively
indicate that the District was not acceptable, 50% of the
property owners owning 50% of the assessed areas within the
District must protest the District. As previously indicated,
athere are 6,040 property owners. For the public hearing
held February 28, 1984, the Council received 16 written pro-
tests and 13 oral protests. This is a total of 29 protestants
against the District versus the remaining 6,011.
Again, as you are aware, the City Council has taken the action
to once again go back and ask the electoratewhat to do in
this matter. At this point, I beg your indulgence as I must
take leave of my position as the Director of this Department
and _plead a personal point of view.
In a time when City funds are so critical and Department's
are asked to cut well into their budgets to attempt.to hold
the line, the spending of monies in a non-productive way is
puzzling. The hard costs involved with the District are
$9,000 for the Assessment Engineer, approximately $1,000
in printing, packaging and mailing, and a minimum cost of
approximately $3,000 for the item to be placed before the
electorate asking whether or not to proceed with this District.
This totals to approximately $13,000. Should this item be
placed on the November , 1984 ballot this will cost an
additional $3,000 - $5,000. The bottom line is that I do not
believe that there is one Department in the City that could
be called "fat" by any means. Much line a runner who is
attempting to complete a marathon, every Department head,
like that runner•, must allocate his resources wisely and
-3 -
and prudently. Manpower is a resource of a Department just
as must as the dollars within its budget. I find no problem
in pursuing items, whatever their nature, at my superior's
direction. It is only asked that a certain amount of consis-
tency be maintained and that when, as in this case, on four
separate occasions, affirmatives have been indicated that
we continue in the affirmative mode.
Thank you for the privilege of extending this communique
to you and please feel free to do with it as you choose.
Charles Clark,
Director of Public Works