SUMMARY: Public Hearing to Determine the Election Results For or Against a Proposed Assessment Increase for the Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 and Adoption of a Resolution Imposing the Appropriate Assessment in Light of the Election Results Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results to Determine Whether a Majority Protest Exists in the Proceedings to Increase Assessments in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street); and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results and Providing for No Majority Protest and the Levy of an Annual Assessment in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street). (Public Works 275)
Right. So this is the time and place for the public hearing related to the modification of. I'm going to continue right of them proposed increases to the levy of assessments within the island city landscaping and lighting maintenance district number eight for dash two zone for Park Street to fund ongoing maintenance and servicing of landscape improvements in the Park Street Business District area. But now ask the City Clerk to report on the notice of this public hearing. Notice of the public hearing and distribution of the assessment ballots has been completed in the manner and form as required by law. Before proceeding further with the public hearing, I would like to ask the city attorney to provide both the city council and the audience with a summary of the proceedings that will take place both during and after the close of the public hearings. Madam Mayor and Council, after the staff report is provided to the Council, the Mayor will first open the public hearing, then take comments from the public. Request any additional ballots to be submitted to the city clerk. Close the public hearing order tabulation of the ballots. And once the ballots have been tabulated, the city clerk will announce the results. I will now ask with the court from the Public Works Department to provide the staff report. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Liz Acord, management analyst for the Public Works Department. As you know, assessments for the Park Street Zone of the city's landscaping lighting district have been flat since the mid 1990s. These assessments fund sidewalk cleaning, tree trimming and maintenance of the public litter cans. As a consequence of the flat assessments, services have declined and maintenance has declined in the district. Beginning in 2013, public works coordinated with Pittsburgh, the Park Street Business Association, to develop a proposal to double assessments over three years and thus improve services. This year, the proposal was approved by Pittsburgh's board, and the City Council took the necessary steps to initiate the balloting process on May 19th. As you are well aware, votes to increase assessments are difficult. No one wants to pay more, especially as assessments have been flat for two decades. Yet his boss board has courageously endorsed the raised assessments, even though there's a risk of a failed ballot. While last year Webster Street's balloting effort was successful, some may remember an unsuccessful balloting on Webster in 2008. Let's now find out whether the balloting for Part Street was successful or not. Following the public hearing and tabulation of ballots. I'll be back before you to discuss the outcome. With that, my report is complete and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Member Ashcraft. And just for clarification, Ms.. Acord, the what what is required to pass this measure is a simple majority. It's a 50 plus one majority of the ballots submitted. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Brody. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. Just some comments on or questions that folks in on person have asked me the the monitoring, the public litter cans and excess waste from cans to prevent overflowing. It says it's done daily. That the complaint I was given was that that's the biggest pet peeve on Park Street is that the waste cans are are not emptied in a timely manner, that they're overflowing, that they're out there right in front of their businesses. They have rodent issues. So, I mean, is that something that we can address or is that not the this is not the appropriate time to bring that up? Or I'm for clarification, it is part of the current scope of services for the maintenance contract for the district. However, if this balloting effort is successful and we have more assessment money for more maintenance, we can increase perhaps increase the frequency of the litter can maintenance to help address the issue. Okay. Thank you. I want to make a comment. You had used the word courageous in regards to the Park Street business district, I believe, for bringing this. I would not support the use of that word for this. I think that this is just I see this as between the district and their tenants. And our role is to facilitate that, not to intervene one way or the other. Maybe that's my understanding, is we are just to facilitate the vote. Thank you. So at this time, the City Council will hear from any interested person who desires to address the City Council on this matter. We have two speakers, Walter Mcquiston. And then Mona Hanson. Honorable mayor. Council members and staff. My name is Walter Mcquiston. I'm a committee person with the Masonic Hall Association of Alameda, and I've been here to speak on its behalf. I've been a resident of this town since 1972 and a member of the local Mason Lodge for 22 years. I want to state for the record that the Masonic Hall Association of Alameda does not approve the modified boundaries proposed for the city of Alameda. The Landscape and Lighting District 84, Dash two, Zone four and the proposed assessment. Our large facility was not included in that district before and does not wish to be included for several reasons. We are a profit private, nonprofit organization that maintains a locked, restricted access facility that is not open to the general public without specific invitation or sponsorship. Furthermore, as a fraternal organization such as the Eagles across the street, we do not sell merchandise or services to the public. Since 1927, we have provided neon sidewalk lighting for the safety of our members and guests and we have always cleaned up our own sidewalks. Importantly, we have no landscaping at our facility to maintain. In other words, our fraternity will derive absolutely no benefit from the proposed assessment and the services it will allegedly support. Since our founding in 1871, we've never been a member of the Park Street Business Association. Or, as I indicated, District 84, Dash two. To my knowledge that none of our members or building tenants are members of PSB a. The fact is we pay our fair share of taxes and additional assessments would create distress for our fraternity. Furthermore, and in conclusion, we have recently retained counsel. In effort to obtain a refund from the city or wrongfully assessed and wrongfully withheld measure H funds. Again for the foregoing reasons or association, adamantly opposes increasing the boundary of District A4 Dash two to include our facility. Thank you for the opportunity to address this Council. Thank you. Questions? Not appropriate for us to have the questions. We can give direction to staff to look into this. My understanding. Next speaker. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mona Hanson. Good evening, honorable mayor and Council. This will probably be short and sweet for you tonight. I want to compliment the city and the Park Street Business Association. And I'll start with just a little bit of my history. I've been involved in various business consulting or whatever in Alameda for over 30 years. I think it was my first time of actually visiting the island, and I loved it. And I would say memories there. That's the white hair. But probably about 10 to 12 years ago I purchased the building on Park Street, which I'm thrilled with. And it was I tag it before Peet's and Starbucks as opposed to after. So I just felt great about this street. I love coming here. The tenants I have are great. The people surrounding it, the community. I've worked with the city a lot on various permits and getting the tenants in order. So I thank you. But from a standpoint of the Park Street Business Association generally, is it? Building owner. Do I like paying taxes? No. But do I recognize the value that the organization brings to us from Park Street? The what I've seen, the differences with the landscaping, the changes, all of those things, it makes a difference. We do need more trash receptacles. Please, please. We've had a couple of hours removed and never to be found again. So whatever we can do for trash would be really great. And thank you. Thank you. And Rob Rando. I don't. Oh, hi, Rob Bravo, executive director of the downtown Alameda Business Association. Yeah, we're. We had a soft opening on the name. Thank you. I just wanted to clear up one piece of what I believe is misinformation from the first speaker. Any tenant, any business tenant in that building is a member of the Park Street Business Association. He may not be aware of that, but they are. Trust me, I know these things. However, the reason I turn into speaker slip is to try to maybe clarify for Mr. O.D. and the rest of the council pertaining to the trash cans. Weekends the the maintenance company. They try to keep them as un overflowing as possible. But we are looking into with public works to replacing the plastic trash cans that took the place of the really crummy old green ones. And in fact, today was a perfect example of one of the reasons we're trying to replace them is the the fire den there at San Antonio and Park Street. Someone had moved the the can in and it had positioned it in such a way that Akai could not get to it with the claw because it was behind one of the bike racks. Now, as I've stated on numerous occasions, I made one phone call to my contact at HCI and by the time I went by there at 2:00 in the afternoon, the can had been moved and it had been empty. So, you know, we're doing the best we can and we are looking at getting much better, permanently installed trash cans that are actually not that bad looking. So I just wanted to get up and clarify that for you. Okay. Thank you. Much appreciated. Okay. No problem. Any comments or questions. They see no one else who wishes to be heard. Do any members of the City Council have any further questions for the city staff or consultants as a result of public testimony? All right. I do have a question. I looked up the Masonic Hall and it looks like that they have the nonprofit rate. And I'm trying to figure out. It looks like it goes, was it 103 or was it zero? You know, from looking at this and then it looks like it goes 195 to 45 and then to 99. But can someone tell me what they currently pay or what they have in pain? We can tell you what they're currently paying. I'm just going to check with and guess who is our financial consultant for special districts to get. In the middle of page 31 or. If you want to try to find it. It has a dash. If I'm reading this correctly, under fiscal year 1415. Does the dash mean zero? Sorry about that. The Masonic is not part of the current boundary of the districts. As part of this balloting process, we are modifying and updating the boundary to reflect the services that happen as part of the Park Street landscape and lighting zone. So they will be receiving an assessment if the balloting effort is successful. Okay. So you say we. So who is determining that they were not in the Park Street Business Association district and now they will be. They were not in a part that was assessed before, but they will now be. There were not in the district as it was in the zone as it was formed in 1984. But it was through the special benefit general benefit analysis that was done as part of helping. Or preparing for this increased assessment to determine that they are receiving benefit. Therefore, those who are receiving a benefit must be assessed for the benefit they're receiving. And is that the I'm sorry. Let me finish my questions and then you can speak afterwards. Sorry. Thanks. Right. So is it the city that is now determining that they are in this group? No. It was an engineer's report that the that was commissioned by staff. It's an engineer's report that actually did the analysis. But who's bringing this? Is it Pittsburgh or is it the city that is making this change. Is asking for this increased assessment to go forward when their board has voted to proceed with that? And I appreciate it, but I'm trying to figure out if you have a business that apparently has not been part of Pittsburgh for how many years? Since at least 1984. Actually, I think from the clarification from Mr. Rado, potentially the Elks themselves were not part of. The Masonic Lodge. I'm sorry, but the businesses within and I don't know if he's here clarify that, but that the businesses within the Masonic actually were, are part of Pittsburgh. But the building itself is now within the district. So. And that change. Okay, that's what I'm speaking to. Why are they now within it? Whereas before they hadn't been. Well, by law, when you're doing these assessments, an engineer's report is required by law. And the engineer's report looks at and see who has a benefit. And if you have a benefit, whether you like it or not, you have to pay into the assessment district. So they are receiving a benefit, therefore they have to pay into it. Okay, so when was the last time there was an engineer's report on this? As part of the regular levy. The first item that we had the public hearing for, we do a regular engineer's report every year for the landscape and lighting districts. Okay. So apparently in the past, they did not find that this that they had any benefit. But today they are. Let me finish, please. Question actually piggybacks on yours. All right. So I think if I'm reading the staff report correctly, this accord on page two, it talks about the the council we as well. In February 2014, the city council awarded a contract to conduct the analysis, voting and reporting required to increase the assessments. And they talk about in the report how the analysis has complicated because any increase any assessment increase triggers prop 218, which is of course, state law, which was passed after the district's founding, which is part of the complication. But Prop 218 special benefit analysis requires a parcel by parcel review of land use and benefit, rather than the previous analysis, which was based on acreage and frontage. So the state law mandates it's not the city, but it's the state mandates that any property that receives a special benefit must also be assessed. And I think that somewhere in this report it talks about how there I mean, there is there are going to be some hard feelings, no doubt, because there are some people who have been enjoying benefits without paying into the assessment, and there's others who have been paying into the assessment which actually might have their assessments lower just because of the analysis, the benefit analysis that is being done. So I think it's not just peers, but if this is actually compliant with state law, if I'm understanding correctly. All right. But this has passed. So when did Prop 218 passed. Or. 96? That that is my issue. Okay. So that's my concern is there have been reports, engineer reports since passage of Prop 218, and yet this apparently was not addressed earlier. We apparently do this every year. This was changed in 96. Thank you. Remember already. And so why today as opposed to the last year, every year since 1996? Sure, I will defer to NBC if I'm speaking incorrectly here, but it is the increase of assessments that triggers this special, this revisit to the special versus general benefit analysis. And because between the time of the formation of the district and this time, which has been has said they would like to increase assessments and go through this process, we do have property 18 law changes. We have changes to parcels within the district to have parcels such as the Masonic that have been reclassified from for profit to nonprofit that do affect the outcome of that analysis as well. And you mentioned that the rates had remained flat since the mid 1990s, right? Correct. And also, just for clarification, even if some entity hasn't paid the assessment in the past, we're not looking to go back and collect it retroactively. Right. Correct. That is that is an excellent question. From this day forward, if assuming it passes. Vice. Mayor, and. Can you confirm that the request or or an increase in assessment is what triggers a special needs engineering report? Correct. Correct. And there have been no request for increased assessment for almost two decades. Correct. So that trigger that's the reason why in the past this hasn't been addressed. Any other questions or comments? All right. Okay. Fallon, I think this is where I am now. I would like to remind everyone that all. Thank you. I would like to remind everyone that all assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots must be received by the city clerk before this public hearing is closed. Assessment ballots or replacement assessment ballots received after the close of this public hearing will not be tabulated. Are there any owners who have not submitted their assessment ballots and need additional time to submit their assessment ballots? Or are there any owners who have submitted their assessment ballots but now wish to submit a replacement assessment ballot? If so, the City Council will take a five minute recess before closing the public hearing to allow for the submission of such ballots. Seen? We have. Would you like to approach the podium or speak with the clerk? I. You could use the microphone. I'm sorry. Microphone. Please approach. Thank you. I filled out my ballot but went on vacation and I don't know that it was mailed. My daughter thinks that she might have tossed it, so it's only one vote. So at this point, then I will call for a recess and we will resolve that and then we'll resume. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. All right. So at this point. Thank you. We're resuming. The. Public hearings that were we are is that correct? Is now closed. All right. The public hearing is now closed. Assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots received by the city clerk after this time shall not be tabulated. The city council shall now. But it's same. Say we already did that. No, we need to recess now. Okay. The City Council shall now recess. While the city clerk tabulates the assessment ballots and replacements ballots received by the city clerk prior to the close of the public hearing. We will now take a short recess. Thank you. If you want to get. One of the gray hairs. That's another. Reason. Okay. There's food back. Now. And now they've got. Have it this. I mean, whether he was okay or not. And if a gun. Oh, yes. When either one was. Who I. Wrote didn't already vote. And now this one is actually. You're joking. I don't know. I. Right. We're having another meeting Thursday. Anything else? Allegedly. He said he was. Oh, he was just like, I don't just like goofing around. I'm already sort of heading. My proposal is. Yeah, I'm going we're going to be on early, though. No, really. I was just like looking every other lot at such. There's a hierarchy. Have you been there? I've been to Moscow. Oh, nice. Uh huh. So then a. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh. So powerful is the are. We will now be resuming. Upon completion of the tabulation of the assessment ballots, the city clerk will notify the City Council that the tabulation has been completed. 200 207 assessment ballots were mailed to the owners of property within the boundaries of the assessment district, and 67 of those ballots were received prior to the close of the public hearing. 15 assessments. Ballots representing $6,839.47 or 26.6% were submitted in support of the levy of the proposed assessment within the Assessment District. 52 ballots representing 19,402 and $13 or 73.94% were submitted in opposition to the levy of the proposed assessments within the Assessment District. Hmm. But. The percentage was 26.06 in favor and 73.94. All right. So when the. So that means that the measure fails. So then is there a specific language that I read at that point? Yes, Madam Chair, there is a you cannot adopt the motion, obviously, to approve the district. And in fact, with the failure resulting in a majority protest, which is then the failure of this assessment to go forward, it cannot come back again for a year as well. But so we have a resolution that declares the results are at the bottom. So a resolution of the city council of the city of Alameda, California, declaring the results of the assessment ballot tabulation for Island City Landscaping and lighting maintenance. District number 84-2 zone for Park Street determine the existence of a majority protest and abandoning the proceedings to increase such assessments there in. And then staff. This is obviously not the outcome that the city or I had hoped for. Nonetheless, I want to thank the Park Street Business Association Board for their hard work in educating their members about this proposal. Public Works remains committed to working with Pittsburgh to figure out how to raise the necessary funds to enhance the area's maintenance. At this time, I'd like to invite Rob Rado, Park Street Business Association's executive director up to share a few words. Would you like to speak? Hi, Rob Rato. I'm still the executive director of the downtown Alameda Business Association. I'm very disappointed by the outcome, but it's the outcome. And what are you going to do? I want to thank Public Works and Bees, specifically, Liz, who's gone through this process with us and my buddy Trevor, who frankly, I just met today. And I just want the council and the general public and every possible member and every property member, owner in the district. We will continue to try to do the best we can maintenance wise with the amount of money that we've got. But as I suggested to Mr. Materazzi Rossi before the meeting, it's a very limited amount of money and we're doing the best we can and that's all we're going to be able to do. Thank you. Thank you. As an agenda item. Sir, you need to adopt the. Yeah. All right. Most time. I just want a quick question from. From staff, so. The resolution on the increase in assessment failed. What does that mean for the folks that were supposed to be added to the to the district? The folks that are not included in the existing districts can no longer receive the special benefits services. So they're not in the OC. Thank you. Sir. Do we need to take. I do have a clarification on what you just said. Which so I mean, what does that mean? Because you're still going to pick up their trash and repair the sidewalks in front of their buildings. Right. So we do need to figure out a way to do that without using the assessment district funds. We can no, we can't use the funds to provide that service. We need to staff in public works, needs to work with peers to figure out a way to absorb that outside of the assessment district. And have you been doing that? Have you been using the funds in the past for that? There have been some of those. Part of this balloting process was to reflect the current state of the district and those who are receiving the services. That's just the ones that you were like the the Masons Masonic. I'm not talking about everybody on this in the district. It's just the ones that the the the engineers report said should be added because the receiving service. Correct. But those are not in the district. They are they are not included in this zone of the assessment district. All right at this time, do we need a vote or whether we move forward because it feel. You need to vote for the abandoned and excuse me, the abandonment resolution that you read, Madam Mayor, just certifying the ballot and that it's being abandoned. Yes. The language that I just read at the end. All right. Do we have a motion to drop that resolution? I'll move. Second. Is there a second? Any comments? All those in favor. I. I'm a. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next item seven, I believe, City Manager Communications.