Adoption of Resolution Declaring Intention to Establish the City of Alameda Communities Facilities District (CFD) No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance and Adaptive Measures), and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein; and Adoption of Resolution Declaring Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Proposed City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance and Adaptive Measures). (Public Works 80700001)
That Senate resolution declaring intention to establish the city of Alameda facilities, district number 22 attached to Alameda Marina, shoreline improvements, maintenance and adaptive measures, and to authorize levy of special taxes there in adoption of resolution declaring intention to incur bonded indebtedness of the proposed city of the account for this District 20 2-2. All right. Thank you. And so, Mr. Byrd, Miss Smith, whomever who wants to give us an overview of this item. So I'll start. And then we can certainly, certainly use other members of the team to fill in the blanks that that they feel are important. Again, thank you, mayor, vice mayor, members of council. This this is a follow on item to the first community facility district. This is really an opportunity to take a proactive approach to potential changes to the the sea of the seawall that's being constructed. So if there are issues with either new requirements or or maintenance that needs to be taken care of, and there are you know, there's an inability for the the responsible parties to take care of it or that there's just a significant amount of new additional or new investment that needs to be made. This is an opportunity for for a subsequent community facility district to kick in and create a special kind of a back up tax that would allow us to have reserve or funding in place to to make those improvements in the long term. So essentially, once the first community facility district that covers the original costs, those bonds are paid off. There'd be an assessment at that time and these bonds could then start. So that wouldn't be an overlap with the with the first district. This would be subsequent to. And it's just an opportunity for us to make sure that this important infrastructure is maintained over time and can be enhanced if necessary. So with that, I'll conclude my presentation. I don't know if Director Smith would like to add. I see a hand. Yes, please. With the mayor. Absolutely. The public works effort with please. The evening again. Madam Mayor Council. I'm Aaron Smith Public Works Director. Jerry, thanks for that overview and intro. I just wanted to highlight one key point of this second CFD and it's I think maybe one of a first of its kind that's really contemplating revenue needed for potential sea level rise adaptation measures. So the seawall is currently built to end of century height based on current projections. So if that falls short, literally and figuratively, the this CFD would allow revenue to be collected to construct the seawall and shoreline improvements to a higher level for additional protection. There are some other nuances to what we're calling the triggering event. So these two CFDs will never be assessed. At the same time, the the bonds, which was the previous item, would be paid off before the second CFD kicks in and then their specific triggering requirements, one being the adaptive measure. So I spoke of others being the one Jerry had. So I just wanted to kind of highlight the uniqueness of, of putting in place this CFD for adaptive measures. And then thank you for the further explanation because I am very proud of the work that's been done. It's very proactive and forward thinking, and it's been almeida's approach with our climate action and resiliency plan that we have to take this stuff seriously. As you all know, we are an island, so that counts over her. Spencer Kim, we'll start with you because you pulled this item for discussion. Thank you. Mayor. And I. Really appreciate staff's and. The star crew's. Assistance in trying to figure out what the ask really is. So it sounds like and I please forgive me I don't recall it was the former 120 years. So are we talking that this would kick in at the. Earliest of 20. Years or what is the timeline? So what did you miss with. Its 30 years councilmember? 30 years to pay off the balance of the first CFD. Okay. And with so that we're actually talking that we're being asked tonight to make a decision for an issue that may or may not arise in 2052 or sometimes they're about. That's correct. Is there a reason why this couldn't come back closer to the expiration. Of the. Former item so that we're not so that we actually are not making decisions for that far. Out? Yeah. If if I could answer. Mr. Gooden, please explain the rationale for this. Sure. That there will be people who will be buying real property as part of this as part of this development. And so the idea is to inform those property owners from from day one. So the disclosure package will include this as a requirement. Trying to impose a tax after somebody is already there means we'd be dealing with a lot more property owners and likely less support to do something like this. And so this is an opportunity for us to set this as the, I'll say, pun intended, high watermark or the the goal for this particular project to be able to to sustain itself over time. May I continue? And I'm just going to add, we're going to limit the number of puns. Just kidding. Go ahead. I think Mr. Bowden, assistant city manager, has more to add. Mr.. Back to your. Tim was bringing his own counsel. Sure. We always want to hear from the attorneys. Mr. Jimmy Loggins wanted to mention that the master plan for this community specifies that we have this district. Also, the quote, trigger event is only if the property owner responsible for these measures does not implement them. So it really is a backstop. And I would emphasize also what Mr. Bowden said, that once the you have all the registered voters in there to get a two thirds vote for something like this is very difficult. That's why it's written into the master plan that it be put in upfront, even though it may not take effect, it may never take effect if the property owner responsible does what they are required to do under the master lease and the bccdc permit. So it's really a safeguard for the city to be sure that this flood control measure is adequately addressed well into the future. Thank you, Mr. Olson, attorney for all made of Merida. Was there anything you wanted to add, sir? Charles Olson. I may have an marine. Yes, mayor and council members. Just you just add, as Mr. Tenet indicated, this this was built into the master plan from day one as a as a way to address this issue. And it is really very dependent on the future of sea level rise. The project is built to adapt the 42 inches of sea level rise. That should be good until the end of the century, but no one knows. And so it is consistent with the master plan approval from 2018. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Back to Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. So the prior item was specifically for the townhomes. But does this include townhomes, condos, anything else that could be approved between now and 2050 to automatically. Hi, Sara. Mary's with NBC again. Yes. This if you refer to the boundary map that's attached to this item, you'll see that it does include additional area that was indicated to be future annexation area on the previous item. That area is included in the boundary of this CFD. So it does include the apartment property, the live work property, the nonresidential property, as well as the townhome project. Okay. And my understanding was, though, that the prior item for the condos, it would have to come back to council for a vote. Whereas what I'm hearing now is that for this item, there would be no more. There would not be a future vote. That's correct. Those projects are already in the boundary of the CFD. And I really appreciate the explanation of because right now, how many people, how many. Property owners are there. That will be voting to approve. This? Is it to property owners? Mr. Tim McGraw. It's still three young girls. Also three is correct. And who are those three? I'll defer to Paul related to aluminum arena. And the third is the townhome developer. Okay. And then in the future, for instance, in 2040, how many property owners would there be and who would they be? They would be voting on the idea. Nobody votes this. Once we put this in place, it's in place. The people who buy property, owner or rent or whatever, there will be disclosure that this CFD is in place, but there's no future vote and the number of people who may eventually reside here, it's really hard to predict. I mean, who would have thought some of the things world events are happening and financial markets are moving? So to predict the future 30 years out, a little tough. That doesn't really answer my question, so I'm going to try again if possible. My understanding is we're being asked to approve something tonight because and someone did speak to this one of y'all that in the future has to get the two thirds of the property owners. And right now there are three is what that answer was. So in the future, whether it be ten, 20 or 30 years from now, I think we're probably talking because we already were told that there would be about. 790 units or something. Like that. We're talking hundreds, I think, but that's what I want to make sure, because that goes to, I think, why we're being asked to approve it tonight as opposed to the 30 years. And I'm going to, if you will, hold on for just a minute. Assistant city manager has his hand up and behind you, but the upper screen part of my screen. So, Mr. Bowden, you want to comment? Sure. I think that in terms of the when the vote takes place to Councilmember Spencer's point, it is it is much more efficient to do this now and much more straightforward. The more property owners that come into the mix, if we don't take this action now consistent with the master plan, it gets harder to implement over time . And whether there's you know, whether there's 50 or 100 or 500 property owners in this area today is today is certainly the the most straightforward time for the city to take this kind of this kind of belt Dalton suspenders approach to making sure that that seawall is properly maintained into the future. If if we do wait it if we waited ten years from now, the the likelihood of being able to get that two thirds vote necessary for this kind of for the for this kind of a financing mechanism is a lot less likely. And so I think Mr. Tim makes a point about it's hard to predict the number of property owners is true. I think what we're trying to do here this evening is is move forward with a master plan contemplated financing mechanism at a time when we have three property owners who are willing to support this effort, understanding that it helps protect their their investment, but also ensures that future property owners in the area are also going to be protected as well as other neighborhoods in the city of Alameda. Thank you, Mr. Brady. And now we'll go back to Mr. Tim. Just a very quick technical point. The city's municipal code provides that if there's less than 12 registered voters residing within the boundaries of the proposed district, the vote is by property owners with one vote for each acre or a portion of an acre. So as long as we don't have 12 registered voters under your municipal code, the vote is by property owners on the statutes designed for exactly what we're doing here to put mechanisms in place and then obviously inform property owners that they're there. And you've done cities, a number of other ones that have put in place similar measures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. And I just want to clarify also that. So the three owners right now are all the developers. They're similar. It's different from a person going out and buying a house and becoming that owner. But in regards to the amount of money anticipated that what this would be, because we saw that the for the next 30 years, the prior vote that I did support would add an additional the CFD was, I believe, 5500 up to like 9000 per year for the 30 years. What is the dollar? And there was no tax bill attached to this as an example. So do we have any idea what we are committing to in the future of what the cost would be to the people then that are, you know, the hundreds of people then that are owning. The properties on an. Annual basis. This mayors, I wonder, is that where you'd like to to address? Yes, please. Thank you. So anything you know, to puzzle your point about not being able to predict the future, it's very difficult right now to predict what the values of those homes would be in 30, 40 years from now. And the effective tax rate is based on the value of the home. So for that reason, it is difficult to predict what those might be. However, the CFD is established, this particular CFD for the trust to is established at rates that start lower than the rates that you saw for CFD 20 2-1 for the facilities. So they are starting at lower rates in fiscal year 2223 and the special tax rates are going to increase by 2% on an annual basis. So when property owners are paying into CFD 20 2-1 for those facilities, they will have a special tax as shown in that rate method of apportionment and those rates increase by 2% a year. When we get to the point, if we get to the point that CFD 20 2-2 kicks in, they will be paying less than they were paying before when the bonds for the first CFD were outstanding. So. By that measure, I think that we're we're looking at a lower effective tax rate eventually, if this CFD were to kick in because the base rates are lower than they are for the facilities, CFD and they both increase at the same percentage rate on an annual basis. Thank you, sir. Harry Spencer. Any further? Thank you. Yes, but those numbers could change. Even though you're saying that that's currently what you're anticipating in the future, if, in fact, the cost of maintaining the sea wall or not is there not somehow it's open so that whatever the costs are would then be passed down to the homeowners ? No, it's not. Open in the dollar amount that is established in the written method of apportionment is a maximum special tax, and the most that it can increase by on an annual basis is 2%. And that applies to the one that we're talking about this 22 days to. It applies to both of the CFD is actually. Yes. Okay. And what is the start, the starting rate then in 2052? Uh, 1/2. I have to look that up. I will just add that it's pretty exciting to see this project take shape and I really like the cycle track that runs along Clements in front of it and and I appreciate the weekly updates I get on the construction and. I'm very excited to see this taking shape. And I'm happy to continue. Yeah. Well. Ms. Mares is, is then scrolling through your data, but just shout it whenever you're ready. Did any other council members want to comment? That's why that's your immediate. I guess, asking a quick question. My understanding is tonight we are just setting in motion a process that does not commit us to actually all it does is set a set in motion on a process that sets up the election that we can certify later. But we could actually decide at that time not to call the election ahead of that. Is that correct? It is. Mr. Burton. I was going to say that is correct. This is this is just the initial step, and there would have to be an election. The challenge is that this is a financing mechanism that was contemplated in the in the master plan. And so I'll stop there. I think that you all know where I'm going next. So we go to the lawyers. Yes. I understand. So I guess my my my comment and maybe request is, since we have at least three weeks before that's back before, you know, I personally I appreciated the opportunity to meet with everybody on the screen and ask my questions. So that's why I don't have any questions there. I'm wondering if maybe we could move forward with a vote and if there are further deep dove questions that can be answered. And we have three weeks until the next meeting and we have the opportunity not to move forward at that point in time if if the questions are unsatisfactory. And thank you for bringing that up. And because I also want to thank all of you on the screen who met with me. I'm sure you spent a solid hour going over these details. And I did ask lots of questions. I think I would like to see this continue to move forward. And I wonder if there is a way and we certainly want council members questions to be answered, but I wonder if there's a way to do some of that off line council day. So I see your hand up. Thank you. You know, I think we all here in Alameda know that our city, unlike any other city in the Bay Area, let alone California, is affected by sea level rise. And it's really simple. We either rise to the challenge of sea level rise or we sink. I think what's before us is quite innovative. While I certainly have my qualms with regard to the amount of affordable housing. I think that the financing mechanism contemplated for the future and there will be an increase in sea level rise. So that's without a doubt and I think it was just about ten days ago, I think the federal government issued a new saying that they're eight inches off. So if you're saying 42 inches a sea level rise at end of century, well, it's now 50. So so I think the mechanism that's before us, I think, really warrants any of us to step up and say, you know, we've got to support this. I might have my qualms with the housing project, but I think that's what what this is. Financing is important for all of Alameda and hopefully other projects along the waterfront do something is similar. Thank you for your comments. Councilmember Desai and I agree completely with you. And also, as was noted, it doesn't just affect this development, it would affect other properties in the vicinity. So we're protecting a lot of folks and properties and council redesign that have been in motion. Should be happening. I would be happy to move. Staff recommendation. Okay. And Councilor, we're not a second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. And Ms.. Mayors, you have your hand up. And I know you were doing some research, so please go ahead. Councilmember That's what you did. My and I just want with the direction that that staff connect with Councilmember Spencer to get her get any further questions that she has answered before the next meeting. Thank you for that. And Ms.. Mayors, let's go back to you. Thank you. I just I have that data that was requested. And so I'm just looking at one of the property types rather than going down the entire list. But just taking a look at the townhome property that is less than 1680 square feet. So that's just kind of the base unit that we're looking at in the CFD 20 2-1. That property in 2223 has a rate of $5,498 escalated to 2050 354. That special tax rate ends up being $9,958.87. And then we move over to the CFD 20 2-2, which is the maintenance CFD or the adaptive measure CFD. And that starts out with a with a special tax rate of $2,289 in 2223. And in the same time period that 2050 354, that rate would be 4000 147. So again, just comparing that to what they would have been paying in the other CFD, it would have been almost $10,000. Thank you. Yes, Councilman Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. And is this one also 30 years. Or so ago through. Is the the CFD is actually levied in perpetuity. It does not have a 30 year term. It doesn't. There is no expiration on this. It's as needed to fund the special tax requirement. So if anyone wanted to end it, then what would they need to do? If a citizen at the years down the road wanted to end the special tax, they could petition the city to end the special tax. But then is the majority of council. Then that would determine in the future in perpetuity at some point whether or not they wanted to end the tax. Sorry. Could you say that again? So then it's the council. The majority of council in perpetuity. It doesn't. The the voters, the homeowners could not put something on the ballot. They have to try to convince three council members. Mr. TIMBERG, you're nodding your head as you want to say something. That is correct. That is correct. They can petition the council to terminate the CFD, but they don't have the right to just bring it to a vote. This is under your ordinance that governs this type of district. So I just want clarification in perpetuity. And at some point council. Could also increase. The amount or not. No, they cannot increase it without a vote. But to terminate it would require a council vote at any time. Three council members could terminate that CFD. The reason why it's in perpetuity is because the maintenance of the wall is not going to stop in any given year. Again, this is a fallback in case the property owner isn't doing the maintenance. This tax may never get levied, but if it if we need it and the property owners are not maintaining the seawall and there is an adequate protection, this CFP can continue to levy what is required each year up to the tax rates to maintain the flood protection. And you I believe Erin Smith had her hand up. What did you want to add, Ms.. Smith? Just to follow on, I think Paul was touching on it there. Each year it's determined whether that maximum assessment amount needs to even be levied. So it could be levied and then determined no longer needed. But the amount levied is only that which is needed for the maintenance and or adaptive measures. Hey. Thank you so much. We have a motion and we have a second and it's almost 9:00 and we're still on consent calendar. So how quick would you call the roll, please, for this vote? Councilmember de Shag. Yes. For Spencer. No. Actually, I Vela. I Mayor. As Ashcraft, I. That carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you so much to our staff and to our outside experts, all of you working on this. We appreciate and I'm always fascinated to talk to you about this project. And I really do commend you for the forward thinking approach to an existential reality that we all face here in Alameda. So I think you're leading the way that other cities will follow. So thank you so much for your time. All right, counsel, I do believe we've come to the end of the consent calendar. Yay! So then we move on to our continued agenda items. And, Madam Clerk, if you would, please. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. That's okay. I just. Given that it's given. It's 9:00, we're just about to start the things we didn't get to last meeting. Before we get to the regular agenda, I'm wondering, I know there's interest in seven C in the city. Staff for seven C and seven D are the same. I'm wondering if we might move 7e2 to the continued items as well that our planning, land use and transportation folks who needed to be here for this last item, one of the last items, you don't have to sit around and wait till 11:00 to find out. We're not going to get there. I, I, I'm not I don't think I'm pessimistic here. No, I think you're great. And I think let's do a quick vote so we don't get too much further. So I think. I move that we move item seven E to the continued items at our next meeting. And just thank you, Vice Mayor, just for the sake of clarity, madam, quickly you tell us what that item is. Seven E Yes, seven E is the Alameda Loop shuttle basically item. Thank you. So just before we vote, anybody who's in the audience waiting to hear that one or the transportation plan which we already had moved to the next item. When we come back before you on April 5th, I believe it is, those two items will be up at the top. It will I should not count chickens before they hatch. Let's take a vote and then I'll tell you whether those items will end up at the top of the next agenda. Councilmember Jane, a quick comment. Quick comment is, you know, we have a process in place for removing items. And and I think we should stick to that process. I believe we remove items at a certain point. So thank you for your comments. We have a motion. We have a second way. We have a roll call vote. Please remember they said no. Her Harris Spencer. I. Knox Phi Phi Phi Alpha. I may as the Ashcroft lie. That motion carries four, two, one. Thank you. Okay. So now we go back to the the regular agenda. And now, Kirk, if you would, please introduce our first item. Six days introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute a First Amendment to the lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc, a California corporation for approximately 700 square feet of retail space in historic Alameda Theater, located at 2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to provide six months of rent deferral with a three year repayment period