Petition to Repeal the Phase 1 L.I.D. for HESCO Implementation.

The Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) established to fund the HESCO barrier project, must be repealed.

The funding mechanism used for this project is fundamentally flawed, inequitable, and inconsistent with the principles required under the CBJ statute.

Key concerns include:

• Improper Use of a L.I.D.: HESCO barriers are an emergency flood response measure—not a permanent property improvement. A L.I.D. is not an appropriate funding mechanism for emergency infrastructure.

• Failure to Include All Benefited Properties: The HESCO project provides protection to approximately 2,800 properties. However, only about 466 properties were designated as “benefited” and assessed under the L.I.D. This selective inclusion is inconsistent with the CBJ statute, which requires that all benefited properties be included.

• Inconsistent and Unequal Funding Structure: Phase 1 properties were assessed under the L.I.D., while Phase 2 properties are being funded through a different mechanism and are not subject to L.I.D. assessments. This creates a clear and unjust disparity between similarly situated property owners.

• Inequitable Distribution of Costs and Benefits: Costs and benefits in Phase 1 were not equitably distributed. Some homeowners proactively invested in bank stabilization at their own expense—often exceeding $150,000—prior to the L.I.D. Meanwhile, other properties received comparable stabilization through the L.I.D. for approximately $6,300. In addition, four properties requiring major stabilization were assessed an additional $50,000, despite the value of the work performed significantly exceeding that amount. This structure penalizes proactive homeowners while subsidizing others.

• Failure to Align Costs with Benefits: A foundational requirement of any L.I.D. is that costs must correspond proportionally to the benefits received. This standard was not met.

• Compressed Timeline and Limited Public Input: The L.I.D. was presented under a highly condensed timeline, limiting meaningful community participation. Furthermore, the voting structure—where a “no” vote or lack of response was counted as approval—deviated from standard practice and created confusion, effectively biasing the outcome toward implementation.

• Lack of Transparent Public Process: Flood mitigation efforts of this magnitude require robust public engagement. Projects expected to span 10–15 years must include open dialogue, transparency, and meaningful opportunity for community input—not expedited processes conducted without adequate public involvement.

Call to Action

We, the undersigned, respectfully call for the repeal of the Phase 1 L.I.D. and the development of a fair, transparent, and equitable funding mechanism that reflects the true scope and shared benefit of flood protection in our community.

Sign this petition to demand a fair solution.