Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Schools and Local Communities Funding Act on the November Ballot. (City Manager 2110)
Okay to the let's go back to item five. I, um, this is the clerk. I don't want to step on your toes. What is this item? Adoption of resolution supporting the schools and local communities funding act on the November ballot. And I believe he could remind me whose staff report this is. That one is. It's the Sarah Henry, the POW. I think we're trying to admit her. Okay. Thank you for bearing witness. The lady with the bookmarks. See? There she is. Get them to us momentarily. Councilmember Desai, did you have questions about this? Comments? Did you want to hear the staff report? I don't have questions or comments, but if the staff member wants to. Perhaps for the purpose of the public. Very briefly, describe what five is. I believe it has to do with Proposition 15. Sarah, you're muted. Molly. I am here now. This is, by the way, Sarah Henry, our amazing public information officer. She also staffs the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. There's a whole lot more so. Oh, yeah. And keeps up with our legislative agenda, both state and federal. Yeah. So I didn't prepare a presentation tonight on this item, but this is the Proposition 15 on the November ballot supporting the Schools and Local Communities Funding Act. It is taxing the commercial property an annual or every other year assessment of actual value versus when it was sold. And the city has to gain what stands to gain about $7 million a year from this, the school district would gain about $5 million a year from this. And then, of course, our transit agencies and other municipalities would gain a lot as well. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you. Miss Henry, there's another Sarah. I have a meeting with her tomorrow. Councilmember Desai. Any questions? Great. Just let me just comment. I don't support the split role tax approach. I believe we need to, because this is all about modifying Proposition 13. And I get and I understand that there's an argument that commercial and industrial wasn't meant to be part of Proposition 13 when it was passed in 1978. But the reality, though, is that especially in the times that we're in, it's particularly the very small businesses, the small mom and pop type of businesses who would be affected by this? Sure. The city of Alameda or even the school district stands to gain from this split roll approach. But I believe as a matter of principle, I believe Proposition 13 should remain intact, as it was originally put together back in 1978. It served businesses and residential quite well, and I would hope to see it continue the way it is in terms of dealing with funding issues. There's a whole range of other approaches that that I believe California ought to take. And so I'm not supportive of this flat roll approach. Thank you. And just a thank you. And then perhaps one of my colleagues whose hands are up might want to clarify some of the provisions in Prop 15. But I thought the vice mayor stand up, then Councilmember Vela, then Councilmember Ody. I'm pointing to where you. Are and I. Don't know where you. Are. I won't say much. I will say vice mayor, vice mayor, former vice mayor and current vice mayor. And actually, we were going to bring actually a referral asking our council to adopt this this evening. And so I just wanted to give my thanks to the city staff for actually seeing the importance of this and the council weighing in on this and bringing it forward. You know, I think what we know about Prop 13 is that there were loopholes that were left in that have unintentionally removed billions and billions of dollars each year from our schools, leaving our local communities underfunded in ways that many of us. I didn't grow up in California, but people of my generation benefited from, and then we removed it from them, transferring the tax load from companies who used to pay for it to homeowners and individuals today. I'll let my other colleagues weigh in, but I just wanted to thank our staff for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilmember Vella. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify, there were some statements made that I think don't accurately reflect what Prop 15 actually does with regards to small businesses. Prop 15 exempts all commercial property below $3 million in value, which is pretty significant. And it provides a tax cut on business equipment that will actually mostly benefit our small businesses. So I want to clarify, there's a lot of misinformation out there that this is going to hurt small businesses. It's actually not geared at them at all. In fact, this is about having places like Disneyland pay their fair share. Disneyland is paying almost nothing per acre and they have lots and lots of acreage, as well as large parking lot owners and folks like that who have, you know, large scale commercial properties. These are not small businesses. These are businesses that have considerable wealth and equity in their property. So if your individual property is exceeding $3 million, then you will not be exempt from Prop 15. So I just wanted to clarify that. I did want to echo the vice mayors statements, and I'm very glad that staff brought this to us. I think this very much needs to be done. This loophole needs to be closed. Our our youth and students and everybody who works at public schools and in public education deserve this. This is an investment in our future and making sure that large corporations like Disneyland pay their fair share. So I'm going to be supporting this today. Thank you. By the way, it was the mayor and staff that brought it forward. But I know I thought we would be mostly supportive, but we thought that it's good to bring it up to vote. And Councilmember Ody had his hand up. Then I'll go back to Councilmember Days. I can't remember that. I will also thank the mayor and staffer and Sarah for bringing this. Henry sorry for bringing this this up. I mean, as much as we all would love to be back in 1978, I mean, we're not. Times have changed. I mean, one example of that changes. In 1978, our school system was in the top ten in the nation, and now it's in the bottom ten as far as funding. So I spent the better part of the last month talking to almost any almost everybody running for election this year in Alameda County. And, you know, with COVID 19, there's a lot of issues with funding. And you saw the staff report. We'd be. To receive $7 million, which would be a good shot in the arm for the city of Alameda to deal with all of our unfunded obligations. But, you know, some of our transit agencies are hanging by a thread. And that 24 million that would go to AC transit may make the difference between having a transit agency and not having the transit agency. And then you saw the others, whether it's Bay Area Air Quality or East Bay Mud or BART or, you know, the Park District, which, you know, we're going to be depending on heavily for some of our future recreational needs in the city. I mean, this is way overdue and I hope it passes the first time. If it doesn't, we'll go at it again. Thank you. Councilman Brody, let's hear from Councilmember Desai, then you, Mr. Henry. Just quickly, while while the owners of property who are small businesses generating no more than $3 million might not be subject to this. The small businesses will still be subject to this because many of them are tenants of larger properties. You could just go to South Shore Shopping Center, for example, their tenant. There are small businesses there. There are small mom and pop businesses throughout, not just Alameda, but California. And it's going to negatively affect a lot of businesses, those small businesses. And I think we need to be cognizant of that, especially in this economic environment. So and I just think there are other ways to deal with the school issue. Thank you, Mr. Desai. Councilmember Vela, briefly. Yeah. Just really briefly. It's not it's not for I for companies that bring in more than 3 million it's for commercial properties valued at 3 million or over. And I just want to add that this isn't more taxes, this is taxing everyone, the specific taxes on a relatively few specific people. And it will just it's basically 92% of the revenues generated are going to come from just 10% of the properties in the state. So I just think that those that those facts are very important. Thank you. And with that. I'd like to move the approval. Okay. We've got a motion and second move by Councilman Vela, second by Councilmember Odie. Quick, Miss Henry, before they take it away. Well, I was going to make the point that Councilmember Vela just made that such a large portion of the revenues is coming from a small portion of the commercial properties. But the other point I wanted to make to the general public, and I apologize for not doing this beforehand, is that properties right now are generally re-assessed when they're sold. And so the assessed value is less than the market value for commercial properties. They're sold on average every 30 years. For residential properties, they're sold on average every six years. So you can definitely see the disparities there. And that was all I want to just mention. Perfect. Thank you. We've had a motion. We've had a second. Any further discussions then maybe we have a roll call vote. So number data. No. Not quite. By Odie. I. I may as the Ashcraft. I. That carries by five eyes. Thank you. And then we move to item five K. Which is final passage of ordinance amending the element of principle code by amending Chapter 27 development fees by repealing 27 dash for only two point development impact reads in its entirety. And we have a speaker on this item.