Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing an annual special tax of $0.14 per square-foot for Community Facilities District No. 2007-2 for commercial properties in Belmont Shore for Fiscal Year 2020 and authorizing the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller to be included on the 2019-20 Secured Tax Roll.  (District 3)
District four i. District five I. District six. District seven i. District eight. And District nine. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you for for passing that. And we will be moving on to the next item, which is going to be item 41. You the Missouri. You please. Report from Public Works recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing an annual special tax of 0.14 per square foot for commercial properties and Belmont Shore for fiscal year 2020, and authorizing the Los Angeles County Auditor Comptroller to be included in the 2019 2020 secured tax role District. Three. Whoever we put in there. Craig Beck, our public works director. And I have a few questions for staff. But excuse. Councilman Price has a few questions. Her staff. We could have the questions and then Craig can answer them. Are you okay? Go ahead and start. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Mayor. Um, so, Mr. Beck, I do have a few questions that have come up on this, and I'm hoping you could clarify them for me. Um, what's the Belarus Fund used as the primary source of repayment of the bond? Or were Mr. revenues used? Councilmember Price. We conducted a review of the Mallory's funding. It collects roughly, say, 65 to $70000, depending on where the assessment rate is set. Our debt service on our bonds is currently about $270,000, so it's really a mixture. The Melrose collected again about 65 to $70000, and then the rest of that is supplemented with parking meter revenue. Okay. So my understanding is that, um, the revenue sources for the annual payment obligations are 200,000 from parking meter revenue. And then the risk assessment. Is that right? Fairly close again. The Melrose Sets collected its first pledge to the debt service, and then the parking meter revenue makes up the difference, and that difference is roughly $200,000. Okay. Was the Belarus Fund used to pay back public works for the immediate improvement and instead of the meter revenue. Councilmember. No, that is not accurate. Again, the assessment for the Melrose is being used for debt service. We utilize parking meter revenue to do the improvements along the Second Street corridor that address the medians and the landscaping and the lights and some of the other enhancements that were made. Okay. I think that's a really important point. So it's it's a it's an unequivocal no. The reason the median repayment was budgeted as the parking meter funds budget, the Melrose Assessment was not used for the meeting. Is that correct? Yes, Councilmember, that's correct. Okay. Um. We have heard some concerns about that. There was supposed to be $700,000 in the Mallory's account. Can you shed some light on that? Councilmember I heard that, but as far as we understand, that is not correct. There was an initial bond offering of about $5.4 million when the bonds were issued in the Melrose was generated. Since then, we've been making repayments to the bond structure. And as mentioned, we're collecting roughly the 65 to $70000. What we are proposing with this action is that we would set the assessment at $0.14. This is a $0.01 decrease from the current fiscal year, which was set at $0.15. We anticipate that. Okay. So I was just going to say, we anticipate the $0.14 will generate roughly $69,000. Okay. So tonight's action would actually be decreasing it from the present 50%. That is correct. If Council approves this item, it would decrease the assessed rate from $0.15 to $0.14. Okay. What is the military spending paying for currently? Councilmember. Currently, all the funds have been expended except for roughly $70,000. It can be used for any parking improvement within the within the district. So most of the funding has already been expended. And at this point, we're just making debt service payments. Okay. And one of the requests that I had from stakeholders in my district was to continue this item to a later date. Is that possible? And if it's not, why is that? Councilmember Yes, we understand that request came forward. Unfortunately, we need to have this item addressed this evening because we have to have information to the county assessor by the end of the month to be able to put the assessment on the rolls. If we do not take action tonight, then the rate would stay at $0.15 for the next year. Okay. And then another area where we had a lot of concerns from some of the stakeholders was on the topic of notice. Can you please share to the best of your ability what the notice requirements are when there is a change in the rate? And, you know, maybe some historical perspective on when the rate has been changed and what type of outreach has been done. Well, I'll do my best. I don't have a long history with this item. I can tell you that the the assessed assessment rate was about $0.12 for a number of years. Recently, we were finding that there was a gap in the amount of money raised to be able to make the payments. So there was a recommendation to increase the $0.15. I believe city staff could have done a better job reaching out and educating the stakeholders about that increase. Unfortunately, that was not done. So you are trying to do that this year. There is not a noticing requirement, but it certainly is a best practice. That we would work with the stakeholders whenever a changes made. Yeah, I agree. And, um, this is obviously something that was initiated by staff and presented to our office as basically a. A necessity and not something that we had too much discussion or outreach on. So I think moving forward, it would be a best practice for us to engage a little bit earlier if there's going to be any rate adjustments. I'm happy to see that the rate adjustment that we're voting on tonight is actually a decrease and that it's getting us closer to the 12% rate that we had for a number of years. And in the future, should there be any sort of rate adjustment? I think it would be important for us to maybe have some discussions or or maybe even an outreach meeting in advance of it coming to council. But I know that you share that that intent with me. So moving forward will make sure that we do that. In regards to tonight's item specifically, are you able to give any sort of prediction as to whether there will be another rate change in the next year or two? Councilmember. I'm not in the prediction business, but my anticipation is that we would leave it at $0.14. Okay. So that so it would not be appropriate for me to ask you to predict what streets are going to get repaved in the next few weeks either. Maybe once you return from vacation, we can have that discussion. That sounds good. Excellent. Thank you very much. I have no additional comments or questions. Thank you, Mrs. Rice. Would you like to continue, Mr. Craig, with your report? Oh, is that it? Vice Mayor I think that we covered all the outstanding questions. I'm happy to go in more detail if the council would like, but I'm fine at this point. Thank you very much. Councilman Orson. Fine, Councilman Ewing. Okay. Do you have any public comment in this? Could you please. Come on. State your name. You have 3 minutes. Sure. Okay. Son I can feel District six. I'll be curious to hear from Mr. Beck about in regards to the roots of this area. You brought up the being decreased from $0.15 to $0.14. I just happened to find online the hundred and 12 page report done by the legal counsel that initiated the original one. I think it's Quinn Quint something Quentin related when you you know, I'm just curious about Proposition 218, which is how this even comes into effect when you change the the tax, the amount of tax for this, which is basically a parcel tax when you change the amount. Isn't there supposed to be some type of like a two thirds approval from voters? That's a question I have. And also, is this decrease within the tax? Because according to the series 29, the expectation for these bonds, it's supposed to be about 75,000 for 2019. Is there any kind of, you know, evaluation in regards to the new development on the second PCH that's coming along? Just curious about these things. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Did you want any answers to those questions or are you just. All right. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Fine. We can go to the vote. This is why. I did want to get some clarification. Okay. Councilman, Arson. City manager. Mr. West, can you answer the question regarding the requirement for a two thirds majority? Sure. Mr. Beck can answer. Sure. Council Member Austin Council Regarding the community's comment. This is an assessment for a specific number of parcels. This is not a citywide assessment. If you think of it, the mailroom is I like to use the term set up similar to kind of in a way where certain property owners are paying rent and those dollars are only used within within certain boundaries. And I think the question was put out, does does the development of the second impact have an impact to this? And as. Of now, this. Project is not within the jurisdiction of these properties. Thank you for answering that. And I was clear. I just wanted to make sure that the public was as well. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I am on public comments on this item. If not, we will go to the vote just to go. District to district three. I. For. I5ii. Think District six, seven, eight, nine. Designate. Yes. Thank you. But. We move on now to item 43, please. Do you please with the 1843.