10:00am | As reported previously, the Downtown Property Based Improvement District [PBID] curretly receives funds from commercial property owners. These include office and apartment buildings, retail structures, and the like. Because the PBID is set to expire in 2013, Downtown Long Beach Associates [DLBA], which manages funds collected from the PBID, has undertaken the renewal process a year early.
According to Brad Segel, their paid consultant, court cases in the last 10 years have required that the new PBID include all property owners within the boundaries of the district, including previously excluded owner- occupied residential units like condos, and properties owned by non- profits. The proposed district has also been redrawn to include some new properties, fees collected for existing participants will be increased, and changed from three service areas down to two.
In an effort to get a better sense of what people are thinking about, I came up with six questions that I asked of property owners. Some are DLBA board members, some are currently participating in the PBID, and others may be forced to if it passes.
These open-ended questions were written to be applicable to current and potential new stakeholders. To suit these two groups, I changed ‘does’ to ‘will’ in the first question for those not yet participating in the PBID.
1. How will participating in the PBID affect your property holdings in Downtown?
Sandra B. Rendell Spokesperson for the Downtown Homeowners Unite Residential property owner
“I am the owner of one residential unit in HarborPlace Tower. While the DLBA may say that the assessment is only $73 a year per unit, collectively our 225 units will pay $16,600. The benefits are to the building as a whole, not to the individual unit. Prop. 218 says that new assessments must be proportional with new benefits. Homeowners do not see any value in the new benefits that have been proposed. The negative reaction to these benefits at the meeting with the DLBA’s consultant last Tuesday was a strong indication that the DLBA has not taken the time to ask homeowners what additional benefits they want or need. This negative reaction could have been avoided if the DLBA had bothered to ask homeowners if they even need any additional services. Net impact of the new assessment and our inclusion in a business organization is very negative.”
Meredith Reynolds Residential property owner
“I invested in a condominium because I did not want the responsibility of being singularly responsible for home maintenance and repairs. I am supportive of the shared costs purchasing a condo affords through my HOA and overall, am not opposed to paying my share of shared services that I benefit from. I generally believe that participation in a PBID would be beneficial to my property and my urban neighborhood, however, there are currently too many undesirable components that are a part of the current proposal for me to be supportive of the PBID update.”
Scott Hamilton Owner, Doma Properties
“There have been some positive aspects but there have been negative aspects as well. I believe the core problem is that the DLBA (who runs the PBID) exists to promote themselves and not the businesses they are tasked with helping.”
Kipp Gillian President, Gillian Executive Search, inc Residential property owner
“I own property at the Walker Building and the Aqua. Presently all we get out of this is power washing of the streets. That is something that we pay for through our property taxes any or at least it should be. The PBID has no effect on our building as our HOA handles everything. We receiving no services from the City Guides.”
Kristi Allen, General Manager of Hotel Maya Executive Board Member & Chair Elect of the DLBA
“The PBID has been instrumental in not only maintaining a clean and safe appearance of Downtown but also in creating this perception of a more appealing and safe environment to investors, businesses, residents and tourists. Long Beach has not always had this clean and safe image and the PBID continues to work to improve it. Ensemble has a variety of different types of properties in Downtown Long Beach so ultimately improving the image of Long Beach increases property values with all other variables being constant.”
David G. Cannon Principal Engineer Everest International Consultants, inc Residential property owner Residential Representative on the DLBA Board
“I have two property holdings in Downtown, as I own a residential property at 150 The Promenade as well as an engineering consulting business, which is located at 444 West Ocean Boulevard. I believe that participating in the PBID will maintain a clean and safe environment that will help to maintain the value of my residential property. In addition, I believe a clean and safe environment will provide me with a high quality of life since I both live and work in Downtown.”
2. What are the challenges and opportunities of expanding the existing PBID to include residential property owners?
Scott Hamilton
“Adding any special tax is problematic. It means adding yet another expense to owning downtown and another disclosure to potential buyers that if they purchase here they will be subject to a special assessment. And this assessment can and will go up at a different rate than property taxes. Think Mello-Roos on a smaller scale. This tax is being added to the budget of a group that, for 10 years, increased its budget to over $3,500,000 and demonstrated that they lack the ability to keep up with other bids who operate at a fraction of that budget.”
Kipp Gillian
“The DLBA’s Clean and Safe Teams are 3rd party 1099 employees that are paid by a Temp group with a post office box in Nevada. The DLBA portrays that they’re providing jobs to locals but in reality they’re overpaying for a Temp Agency to run the personnel so they don’t have to. This, in turn, means lower paying jobs to those that take these positions because temp agencies pay pennies on the dollar to their staff.”
Kristi Allen
“Obviously the challenge is that some residents feel they do not share in the benefits. I think the biggest opportunity is making residents aware of what the DLBA actually does versus what the city, other organizations, etc do so they are aware that they do share in the benefits and will want to get actively involved in making this a thriving downtown. The DLBA often does not get recognition for their efforts because many residents don’t understand who is behind these efforts.”
Sandra B. Rendell
“The homeowners are frustrated and angry with the approach the DLBA has taken. At the DLBA Steering Committee meeting last Tuesday, a consultant presented plans that homeowners were not privy to. We were not even given the courtesy of an advance copy although we repeatedly requested it. Is this the way to build trust? We feel “dumped on”, railroaded, and manipulated. If the DLBA had wanted to integrate homeowners into the PBID, they would have had a small group of homeowners working on the plan along with the DLBA. And, homeowners would have had full access to the results of the original survey. We still don’t know how many homeowners responded or how many negative replies were given. [The DLBA has said that they would make this information public. – SRW]
All we know is that the DLBA consultant tells us that there is support for being included but we just don’t see it in our meetings with homeowners. We do not have much faith in their summaries of meetings and surveys and responses to on-line interactive tools because we don’t see the data and the consultant misrepresents and distorts our concerns. It is too bad that the Board of Directors is being told that there is homeowner support – how can they make a sound decision when they receive such misleading reports. At the Board meeting on Wednesday morning when the consultant reported on the public meeting with homeowners the night before, he made misleading statements about what happened and often misquoted what the opposition is saying. An ordinary homeowner who has pertinent feedback from a group of concerned homeowners should at least be given equal time to provide the DLBA Board of Directors some perspective.”
3. How can the DLBA best represent the interests of existing and potential new stakeholders?
Meredith Reynolds
“When doing my homework, it turns out that the DLBA Strategic Plan, DLBA 2010:A Strategy for Leadership and Development, was very enlightening. I would encourage the DLBA to re- read this document, revisit the recommendations provided and follow the advice given while putting together the second draft of the PBID managemen t plan, specifically as it applies to engagement of residents, changes to bylaws, and the benefit/value of existing service levels. It is disheartening to know tha t DLBA paid, likely using assessment dollars, for the organizational asses sment presented in this report and many of the recommendations are seemingly not a part of the proposed PBID expansion/update.
I would also encourage the DLBA to examine the budget and operation of the other local districts (Belmont Shore, Bixby Knolls) because the other districts provide the same, if not expanded services, at a fraction of the cost, and serve as successful examples in the minds of many in Downtown. DLBA should use these areas as examples from which to identify best pract ices for efficiency and better investment of public dollars. I recognize that Downtown will always be different and have different needs and issues than these other areas, however, they operate at a fraction of the cost and the DLBA should be prepared to operate competitively amongst their peer organizations.”
Scott Hamilton
“By shrinking – the current staff exceeds $800,000 – and they want to add another person to payroll to handle the residents – yet we do not have a single signature event downtown that would compare with Belmont Shore’s Christmas parade.”
Kipp Gillian
“By disbanding. We need this group completely flushed out. It has grown into such an incestuous power hungry group because it has been unsupervised for far to long. They do not have the trust of downtown Long Beach. We need new representation formed under the CVB. The CVB is a respectable group with a strong leader. They bring real opportunity and money to town.”
Kristi Allen
“The DLBA is already active in engaging all stakeholders new and old in a variety of ways including online surveys, community meetings, task forces and through the Board of Directors. In order to best represent all stakeholders, the DLBA needs to continue to provide means of listening to everyone’s input and use the strategic plan and stakeholder input as guidance in all decision making.”
David Cannon
“In the context of the PBID, I believe the DLBA can best represent the interests of existing and potential new stakeholders by first working to identify the interests of such stakeholders and then working to understand those interests. Once such understandings are achieved then I believe the DLBA can best represent those interests through modifications of the PBID Management Plan and/or changes to the governance structure (e.g., changes in the Board of Directors). This process has already begun as two residential property owners have been added to the Board of Directors as voting members and the PBID Management Plan has been developed with initial input received from various stakeholders.
Beyond the PBID, I believe the DLBA can best represent the interests of existing and potential new stakeholders through regular outreach to all stakeholders to understand those interests and then through quick responsiveness in governance, management, and/or operations to address issues stemming from those interests.”
Sandra B Rendell
“I personally think the DLBA would be better off to forget about the homeowners and concentrate on their core mission – serving the business community. I often think that the DLBA takes too much credit for the successes of Downtown Long Beach and doesn’t concentrate on the failures and their part in it. Since I began researching the DLBA, I have met a “wall” of negative comments, especially from those who are knowledgeable about the organization. The only half-hearted support is from people who have bought into the “DLBA” claims in slick, expensive brochures and who are unclear about the whole process. The DLBA Board and the City Council should take a hard look at how some of our tax money that is channeled to the DLBA is being spent, particularly on self-promotion and self- perpetuation activities such as focus groups on how to “rebrand” the DLBA and consultants who run the reauthorization process and who live in Colorado.”
4. Are there specific changes to the DLBA that would benefit all stakeholders?
Scott Hamilton
“Instead of spending $85,000 to get PUMA to sell the PBID, and continuing down a path we know will not work, spend 10k on consulting with Gene Rotondo (BSBA) and Blair Cohen (BKBIA) on how to fix the DLBA. Use the $1 million dollars that the DLBA collects from the business owners as their budget. The residents pay enough – we need them downtown. What we do not need to do is give them another reason not to want to live here.”
Mike Wylie Vice President Park Pacific Tower
“A few changes would be good. For example, better accounting and the posting of more details regarding financials. Why can’t they post them on their website? What they do post seems more like marketing and self promotion. If the community had more knowledge of what they are doing and how much it costs we could better address issues as an informed stakeholder. One example is how much they spend on entertainment programs for downtown, and for what? How did it benefit business? What impact did it have on the community? Also, it would nice to be able to stay engaged and be constructive with out having to go to all the meetings.”
Kipp Gillian
“Terminating Kraig Kojian and the entire board. All positions at this level should be voted upon in some fashion that is fair. We need accountability from any organization whose task is to make a better downtown.”
Kristi Allen
“Perhaps in the future as the stakeholder base and environment changes, there may develop a need for changes that would benefit all Stakeholders. If there were current changes to be made, we would as a board already have made them.”
David Cannon
“The Special Events Task Force could include more residential members that would be able to provide a broader range of input related to issues associated with special events. Such concerns typically include impacts to quality of life such as noise, trash, crowds, traffic, and parking. I believe that involving the residents in the identification of and solutions to such issues would be a benefit to the stakeholders.”
Sandra B. Rendell
“As far as I can tell, the DLBA is a consultant-driven organization. Why can’t we use our own local resources? The process leading to the inclusion of homeowners has been backward: the consultant identified a dollar figure to charge homeowners and then cast about for a proportional, new benefit. Why didn’t they just ask us? A small group of representative homeowners should have been assembled and provided with survey data and been asked to conduct meetings with other homeowners. Some very sophisticated on-line tools have been used to solicit homeowner input but the information was not made available to homeowners who could have used it to identify whether there is support, what kind of support, and what benefits make sense and then make accurate and balanced reports to the Board of Directors.
Homeowners have been dependent on DLBA consultants to interpret, report, and probably manipulate data. If homeowners had been involved in the process and if inclusion of homeowners in the DLBA had been warranted, the integration of homeowners into the PBID/DLBA would have grown organically from within rather than being imposed surgically from outside.
In addition, the homeowners should have been given more information about the voting process, the legal basis for the DLBA, and involvement of the City of Long Beach. Again, it is a question of whether the DLBA truly wanted to establish a relationship with homeowners or whether they were just seeking a new revenue source.”
Meredith Reynolds
“First, if the DLBA is genuinely interested in creating a PBID that is inclusive and responsive, it would behoove them to rearrange their board membership to include a better balance of business and residential board positions. In fact, page 25 of the document, DLBA 2010: A Strategy for Leadership and Development, actually calls out “the DLBA should explore a bylaw amendment that would e nsure a more diverse board composition that is representative of the emerg ing downtown neighborhood’ and ‘Additionally the make- up of the executive committee should mirror the diversity of the board and therefore may need to expand in size’. The DLBA should heed the recommendations provided in this report, because without including residen ts in the DLBA organizational structure, the very real divide between businesses and residents will be institutionalized into PBID for the next 10 years, if passed. Regardless of what is minimally required by law, incorporating residents into the PBID board and neighborhood activities should be embraced, and in particular, one of the reasons the other areas (Belmont Shore, Bixby Knolls) are seen as successful is becaus e of the acts of volunteer groups made up of residents and businesses who support the assessment organization (Justin Rudd, We Love LB, etc.).
Second, as a condition of collecting assessment funds from the public, issues of transparency should be addressed to a greater satisfaction of both residents and businesses. This needs to include identifying policies and procedures for disclosing personnel costs and gifts, protecting assessment funds from questionable e xpenditures (purchasing alcohol, treating existing and prospective busines ses to perks), conducting annual financial audits, adhering to noticing an d public meeting laws, to name a few.”
5. Are there specific changes to the existing, or proposed, PBID that would benefit all stakeholders?
Kipp Gillian
“This is the great unknown. As we see it now there will be no enhanced services. There’s only the threat of not having any services. We pay our property taxes and we support our local merchants in town. I think we’ve already paid our share.”
Kristi Allen
“The current PBID already benefits all stakeholders whether they contribute or not.”
David Cannon
“I believe the existing PBID benefits all stakeholders, although for some that benefit may be more indirect then direct. For example, homeowners that live on the fringe of the Downtown and do not utilize the Downtown would not really see a direct benefit like those that live and/or work in the core of the Downtown. However, I believe there is an indirect benefit to their property values because potential buyers of such property may place a higher value on the clean and safe services. My business is located on the fringe of the Downtown area and I place such a value on this indirect benefit in terms of my quality of life (e.g., walking to work, dining for lunch, walking from work). I believe the future PBID Management Plan will include changes to existing programs and/or the addition of new programs that will provide additional benefits to stakeholders.”
Sandra B. Rendell
“It would benefit all stakeholders as well as the commercial property owners if the time and energy that is being spent to swallow up homeowners was redirected toward serving the business community and leaving us alone. We do our part. We pay taxes to the City of Long Beach that they, in their wisdom, redirect to the DLBA – $516,000 every year. When the interests of the homeowners and the business community intersect, we will be glad to continue to do our part. But, we are not willing to become an ‘add on’ to DLBA.”
Meredith Reynolds
“Page 24 of DLBA 2010: A Strategy for Leadership and Development states th at the ‘DLBA Strategic Plan is built upon the assumption that the Top Four Priorities can be implemented with existing staff and resources. Most of the elements proposed in the PBID update are included i n these top 4 priorities and so I am left feeling unsure if there is actually increased need and therefore presents little justification for a larger budget, as seen in the PBID proposal.
Second, existing PBID proposal relies solely on resident’s and business owner’s assessment fees and does not include other resources or revenues to augment the proposed expanded services. If the PBID asks something of me as a resident, I expect the PBID proposal to be strategic and creative, bringing other forms of revenue to the table to demonstrate the value added. The strategic plan refers to one of the overarching goals as ‘employ a more strategic and long-term outlook for Downtown’ and it seems that relying on a single form of revenue is far fro m strategic. Page 25 of the DLBA 2010: A Strategy for Leadership and Development acknowledges this, saying ‘As part of the next PBID renewal, a variety of financing sources should be ev aluated based upon the improvements and priorities that emerge’. Identifying additional revenue sources outside of the assessment for items that do not have consensus (public art, banners, guides, etc.) are recommended to be evaluated as part of the PBID update and will be something I expect if I agree to allow the DLBA to manage my asses sment.
Third, the PBID proposal should guarantee acceptable levels of service and performance measures for both Environment and Economy services, a public reporting mec hanism to share this information with the PBID contributors and penalties if the guarantees are not met and performance is unsatisfactory. Residents and businesses alike should be a part of this discussion, determining their expectations for what satisfact ory performance looks like from DLBA and its contractors. Some issues I’d like further exploration on include what does ‘safe’ and ‘clean’ actually mean, what do economic development activities actually look like.
Finally, I have personal objections to the level of funding that would encompass the DLBA budget if the proposed PBID moves forward. I am supportive of the PB ID proposal when realigned to more closely reflect the current DLBA budget. It can be done by removing some of the expanded services that are included in the Environment section of the management plan, specifically the residential staff position, the c ommunity court and public art and banners. Incorporating a staff person focused on needs and services of residents is absolutely necessary, but not at an increase in revenue. I challenge DLBA to identify internal efficiencies, restructure staff positions and commit to finding ways to do more with less, as is the expectation of the rest of us (residents and businesses) in an uncertain economy. If the DLBA organization is effective at managing their existing resources and contingency, they will be capable of finding a way to reorganize and provide this core service now that residents are a core contingency of their PBID proposal. While the community court may be a new approach, it is not clear ly undefined at this point to include as a baseline service. Also, I do not support funding public art and banners as a baseline service, since these two elements are a question of taste, could be considered visual blight or clutter and can be divisive issues for individuals in the community. These are types of add- on services that can be incorporated when other sources of revenue, not assessment funds, are identified. The PBID proposal should also lock in a specific percentage for administrative overhead and personnel costs, not to exceed 10%. The proposal should then include other revenue sources that can pay for specific non-core expenses when this other funding becomes available.”
6. What would the impact be for your Downtown holdings if the PBID was not renewed?
Kristi Allen
“Downtown would probably regress, as the City does not have the capacity to pick up the services provided by the DLBA. The city has already slashed its economic development department, is reducing their police forces, and will not be able to maintain the downtown area at the frequency that the DLBA is able to do. We believe that should the services provided by the DLBA disappear, the values of our holdings would diminish.”
David Cannon
“I believe that my Downtown holdings would be negatively impacted if the PBID is not renewed leading to a reduction in the value of my residential property. More importantly, I believe my quality of life would be negatively impacted since clean and safe are the twin peaks for quality of life in any downtown. I would have this concern at any time but even more so in the current economy given the current reductions in city services as well as the additional reductions anticipated in the future.”
Sandra B. Rendell
“We contend that we do not benefit from any of the current services. We provide our own landscaping, our own maintenance and graffiti removal, and our own security. We do not see the guides very often, if at all. We do our own sidewalk cleaning. For our building, not much would change. And, did I mention that we pay $22,000 a year for landscaping the city park (Victory Park) which is in front of our building. We already do our part to make downtown Long Beach clean and safe. In addition, any new tax/assessment on our property just adds to the difficulty of selling our property and it would cause us to go through an additional layer of bureaucracy if we really needed anything done. In short, our building would never know the difference if the PBID renewal failed.”
Meredith Reynolds
“I’m not convinced that there would be an impact on my property if the PBID was not renewed, primarily because something will likely be derived to take it’s place. In particular, I believe people are dynamic and display ingenuity – if there is a need, our downtown community will find a way to fill it. This might b e in the form of HOAs sharing costs and services valuable to them, paying a contractor directly for services, organizing a downtown community group to provide services (tree planting, clean-ups, etc.), forming public- private partnerships, engaging local schools/CSULB, partnering with the city, or another form of supplementing city services with activities a nd projects that our neighbors find valuable.
I actually think it is offensive, demeaning, and outright absurd to tell downtown residents and businesses that without the PBID update, the downtown would go back to pre-1998 conditions. (This assertion was a huge turn off coming from the facilitating consultant at last Tuesday’s meeting.) This argument relies on there being only two options – PBID or no PBID – which is simply not accurate. I understand that this argument is intended to lead residents and businesses into 2- dimensional thinking that is beneficial for the long-term security of the DLBA as an organization. I can also see DLBA’s perspective, self- preservation is human nature and I don’t blame them for using the PBID update as a way to try to establish a future of certainty – it is desirable for an organization to secure its future, especially during uncertain economic times. Ultimately, with the current proposal, I continue to arrive at the conclusion that this may be the opportunity for downtown to do something different, with or without the DLBA.
Scott Hamilton
“I am part of 2 bids the property based (PBID) and the business based DPIA. If the DLBA was efficient there would be a positive change. If the city ignores the homeowners and forces this PBID it will have a negative impact on attitudes and values downtown.”
Mike Wylie
“The impact if the PBID was not around would be negative. The storefront activation programs have helped make downtown to be more alive, and gives struggling artists and creatives opportunities to build a better community. These are the very people that will make downtown more exciting interesting and enjoyable.”
Kipp Gillian
“Nothing. The DLBA is using a consultant to scare us. If they want to stop power washing the streets under the DLBA, fine. We as citizens will react in the voting booth and the City Council members, especially Suja, can kiss their jobs good by. Play that card. Let’s see who wins.”
—
These questions, and the responses, do not a create complete or accurate view of the issues and concerns of existing and potential new PBID participants, nor does it reflect the views of the DLBA Board or its officers. They are really points of reflection for the participants of the PBID renewal process so that, moving forward, a more meaningful and productive dialog about these and other issues can unfold.
Also, it should be noticed that I attempted, unsuccessfully, to solicit additional responses from DLBA Board members, and members of the PBID Steering Committee. If they are forthcoming, I’ll add them here as an update.