Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Undergrounding Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on undergrounding loan program, directs staff to pursue private financing options
Summary
Council continued consideration of an undergrounding assessment loan program for eligible homeowners and asked staff to return within roughly 60 days with alternatives that include a private‑lender RFP, coordination on hardship assistance, and options to avoid the city acting as direct lender.
Council Member Barto pulled item 4 — a proposed assessment loan/hardship program to help eligible homeowners underground overhead utilities — for discussion on April 28. Staff described the draft program as a secured loan available to qualifying homeowners (age and income thresholds apply) that could be repaid via property tax assessment over a 20‑year period; staff estimated per‑property undergrounding costs in the discussion and noted a property‑tax financing option and a cash payment option were already available to homeowners.
Public speakers representing Newport Heights residents urged the council to adopt hardship assistance criteria so longtime residents on fixed incomes could participate. Andrea Birdsteiner and other commenters described the program as a conservative, secured loan model modeled on neighboring cities (e.g., Laguna Beach, Manhattan Beach) and emphasized public safety benefits following recent fire events in Pacific Palisades and Altadena.
Several council members expressed strong support for undergrounding as a public‑safety and resilience priority but raised a consistent concern that the city should not become a bank. They asked staff to explore alternative financing structures, including issuing an RFP to find private lenders or public‑private partnerships, coordinating with state property‑tax postponement tools and HUD/other programs for low‑income homeowners, and preparing administrative processes for residents who need assistance navigating the program. Council Member Barto moved to continue the item and to direct staff to return as close as possible to 60 days with a revised framework that evaluates a private‑lender RFP partnership, assessment‑district structures, and coordination with state programs; the motion carried unanimously.
Why it matters: council members signaled strong policy support for undergrounding on public‑safety and equity grounds but prioritized structuring the program so the city is a facilitator rather than a direct lender. The council asked staff to return quickly with alternative financing options and administrative details for hardship assistance.
Next steps: staff will return with revised options, including an RFP for private financing and proposed administrative coordination for eligible low‑income homeowners.
