Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills. (Finance 2450)
Public hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license, taxes and delinquent integrated waste management accounts via the property tax bills. Do we have a presentation by staff? Yes, they do. Hello? Elena Dias, finance director. Um. I really don't have a actual presentation, so we're just going to go over real quickly on the staff report. So there are a couple of. Feels that the city were actually presenting today to levy with the county against the property. Properties within Alameda. So those are the business license tax. As you you're aware, any time a business owner does business in the city, according to the ordinance, they are supposed to pay a business license tax. In some cases, some of the business owners are delinquent in paying the business license tax. We do provide ample time to actually make the payment. Original notice of the renewals goes out to those business owners around May one for fiscal year 1415 went out in May of 2014. And the customers, our customers who are the business owners get a chance to actually make the payment and be on time by the end of July. So they have about three months to pay for the business license. Unfortunately, some of them do not and then those that are delinquent. We sent out three notices this year. We send them out one in March, one in April and one in May, letting them know that they are being delinquent and on top of that, informing them that there is going to be a public hearing last time we've had it set for today. And so today is the public hearing to clean those particular properties. The City Clerk may have already distributed you the updated updated listing for business license delinquent customers. And I do want to let you know that this is current as of today. All of the business owners that are on that list do have an opportunity to still pay the business license by the end of June, June 30th, specifically in order not to have a lean on their properties. The second one you will see is a. Waste management fees that. Actually is done through ac i ac i bills the customers within city of alameda and. They provide actually quite of an extended period of time to collect the fees, the fees that you actually see on the list right now. Those were sent to the city by ACI. And generally they are never less than 360 days being delinquent. So they are at least a year past being paid. That said, again, you have received an updated list of all of those delinquencies and those customers do get as well notices. Quite a few of them, actually. I believe it's for where they're being notified about delinquent outstanding counts and we request for them to clear their bill before it's actually been levied with their account, with their properties. That said, tonight we are asking you to approve the current list unless of course, somebody makes the payment and those will be removed from the list and approved. Correct. One is for the monarch clarified. Were speaking about two lists. Yes, there are two lists. One is for business license and one is for the Integrated Waste Management. Hmm. All right. Do we have any clarifying questions? We do have speakers. Member, Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple quick questions. So the people on this list, did they get an actual notice saying today, June 11th, that 7:00 is the hearing? Yes, they do. Okay. And then is it been the past history of this council if someone does pay their delinquent business license that the late fees are waived? Well, this is a per ordinance. And per our masterpiece schedule, we are supposed to levy any penalties or interest. Now, this is not up to a department, I guess, to waive fees. I cannot tell you if previously these particular fees have been waived or not, but it would be up to council to actually if you do decide to do that, you can do that. I couldn't actually speak to that. If it's a first offense, we have waived the fees in the past, but if it's recurring, then we don't. The list does not delineate between any recurring and first offense. Far as I know. No, I was going to ask that question. I think that's just something that we do administratively. Mean. So do we know any of these that are on here? I guess those whether they're another recurring. I don't know. I don't know. Do you know? I can tell you that there are a few on the business license side that have been generally late in paying. I'm not sure if they were specifically delinquent. Okay. Thank you. Member de SAC. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you can, can you just give us some background on the leg that matter of legacy. Programs. Public information. Yes. Yes, yes. The matter. Thank you. The matter of legacy partners. I mean, there is a substantial amount there. I mean, what's this? What's the story there? Well, they have rental properties and they have been previously late in making payments. Cannot tell you actually if they have been delinquent previously or not. But they have rental properties for which at this point in time, after last contacting them, they have not made the payments yet for their rental properties. I see. So on the very same topic, when it comes to the late charge, it seems as though the late charge on it seems to be if the amount due is 4000 and then there's a late charge of 3200 or a total outstanding fee of 7200, and then there's some processing charges, etc.. So the 3200 late charge tacked on top of the $4,000 amount. It just seemed a little excessive. Now, let me just say, before anything, I have not been lobbied by anybody indirectly or directly about this. But just looking at this. My inclination is I want to hear more. Thank you. Okay. Clarify, in regards to legacy partners, is that a first offense or a recurring? I can find out that information if need be, but I don't have that in front of me right now. All right. Remember Ashcroft? And then I was just going to ask Mr. and by the way, thank you for your email. I didn't have a chance to get back to you and say thank you for your email earlier today, answering some questions that I had. But so how is the the late fee determined? Is that is that something that every city does a little differently? I know you've worked in some other cities or is there some formula. And can you clarify that in regards to the business license list or the way I'd like to actually treat these issues? Well, one is waste management, and that probably determines differently. You know, the only one I'm seeing with a late fee is the business license tax, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also exist for waste management. So if you could ask in regards to each list. Okay. This you're speaking to. So on a business license, that particular fee is actually in our master free schedule. And the way it's being calculated, it's 20% per month and up to 100%. So technically, if a business is delinquent anywhere from August, you're pretty much January and not paying it. You're out of 100% of the fee, the late charge. Imminently or per year, or. It cannot exceed 200% in a year. And a year. So per annum. But 20, 20% per month? Yes. Okay. So mathematically then Legacy Partners is ten months behind? No. Hundred is 80% of. Oh. Technically 20, 20 times. Yes. So it's 20% for each month starting August. Okay. And, um. And we do have two speakers. Okay. Any other clarifying questions? All right. I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers. And of course. Dennis Wong. And then to Peter Todd Whitman. Good evening. My name is Dennis Hwang and my family. Most of my family still resides here over 50 years. And they earn income property here in Alameda. And my parents have lived in the same address for over 50 years. I retired to Utah about ten years ago. And I don't know what that lady was speaking about, but all I know is my personal experience. I receive the notice on one of our properties for delinquent business license fees on the letters dated March the 31st. I live in Utah, so I probably received that about seven days later. And I quote. That if payment is not received on or before April 16th. Of 2015, the amount due plus additional late charges and collection fees. Will be sent to the. City Council for their review and approval for attachment of the amount due on the property. Tax. So I receive and again we've been paying diligently on a four plex way on business taxes for. 30 some odd years. Never received notice on this duplex. I did not know that duplexes within the purview of the business license. So I called the city clerk, the finance department and the legal department, and wrote letters. And some were helpful. Some were not. But I spent about two weeks of my life researching it. Came and spent it. Great afternoon with this listener and this smaller but I can't pronounce your name but Carol the delightful people explaining it. Researched back. On the legislation. Which was first wrote. I think section 834. Uh. July the 20th, in 1943. And at that time Council saw fit to levy business licenses. And the, the intent was to generate income. And at that time it defines business as is in calling or any any enterprise carried on for profit dispenser. At the last meeting we were discussing AT&T and astoundingly and I tried to answer, but I was stopped. You wanted to know whether or not that tower, AT&T, it were subject to business license. And I was going to give. You the answer. What astounds me was you had three counsel here. You had three attorneys sitting here. I talked to two of them. They didn't know the answer. And if you look subsequently over the years, they've added fortune tellers on telecom bowling alley. You're to have pure, clean legislation. Anything any enterprise carried on for profit. Why do you need to add all these subcategories? You don't need to do that. And I don't know if it's because you feel like you need to generate more legislation so that you're doing your job, but you have clean legislation. Leave it as it is. And quite frankly, I find it rather offensive that. You may continue like that. You're trying to scratch out $20 a unit, which I'm perfectly happy to pay. I just wasn't aware of a subject to it. And you don't know or we're not levying business taxes for AT&T and the Verizon's of the world. So you asked about the penalty. It's still $20 a unit. And that's been since 1986. In my my junior high school principal actually enacted that offensive $20 unit. I mean, I think if you went to people and actually told them $20 unit and they knew that it existed, they'd be happy to pay it. I'd be more than happy to pay it. It's the penalty that seems like you give me seven days to pay and then also you're asking for 100 800% penalty. So I'd like to ask you a clarifying, crushing real quick. When I look up, are you on here long? I'm on the list. I'm looking at it. Shows amount due just the late the the late charge of $160 and amount due zero. So did you pay? Right. So I researched I researched it. And again, you they what they did was they added they had this general language about anything carried out for profit. And then over the years they started added these specific businesses. To understand the Maersk question you were asking, did you pay off the late. Or the principal? Because on this chart. Did you pay the back? He's the only one that has a zero under the amount to call columns for. This a dare. Well, I can I can answer. So I came and I researched it and sure enough, it was it was an 86 that they added specific language on duplexes and they still exclude single family dwellings and I don't know why. Right. So I said, oh yeah, we the duplexes subject to the business license. And so I told Carol, I said, Hey, I want to pay this, but what do you suggest? You know, I'm going to ask counsel to weigh the fee. Now, first of all, I haven't had no problems with the thing. And ironically enough, I got my annual notice for Meals on Wheels. I'd be happy to pay the penalty to Meals on Wheels. It's it's the principle. And if you look at the history, we have it increase that business license since 1986. But the penalties over the years have been increasing. And I don't I can give you the detail the year in the legislation, but the penalty is now 100%. And what it seems like is from a layperson who has no notices that, hey, you know what we get, we want to penalize you. You probably was afraid of the microphone, say, oh. We want to penalize you. We don't want the $20. We want the penalty fees. Do you. See? Right. So man, clarify I at this point that let him finish if you could wind up and we can have so. In any of it you know I have some suggestions suggestions. Okay if you say, hey, the $20 it goes to, you know, here's your annual business license notice again, which I did not receive until the date that I indicated it. Here's this business license. And by the way, what's really helpful, this is new federal legislation on landlord tenant issues. This is new, particularly the local ones like I look every year, you know, you change the fire notices. You know, you have to put the notice. I'm happy to meet with you. Oh, you remember how it went? So, you know, something like that, so. Oh, wow. You know, I talked to all my my friends, you know, my high school buddies about this, and it's kind of it's kind of bang for the bang for the buck. And I don't I don't really none of my friends, we have nothing against the 20 hours. We actually think it should be increased. It's it's the penalty and the lack of notice. That's right. Did you have any other points you want to raise? So that's that's that's about it. Okay. I had one question, Mr. Wong. One question. So thank you, Madam Mayor. So I didn't quite follow your presentation, but are you asking us that we, we waive the late charge and not send that for for you you because you paid and not send that through the property tax attachment. Well yeah, I'm I'm. Glad to see you decision. You know, I came here today and I just right earlier this afternoon thought I was going to make the appeal, mostly to give notice and give you some feedback on what I think long time aluminum and some of us, you know, small dwelling unit landlords, are. They yes or no? I mean, are you asking that? Yeah. Yeah, I think that there's not. There was some sympathy on my part to do that. Okay. Yeah. 10 minutes ago. So that and then but I think more importantly, maybe some suggestions on how to take a look at this legislation. Also look at the policy. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have another speaker. I think I'd like to hear the clarification on this point while we're still on it, though, from this one, madame. So the point is that several years ago, under the previous finance director, Fred Marsh, there was a change in the fee because we were continually getting people not paying on time. And so the idea was to actually create a penalty for people not paying on time. I think the staff, the finance staff does a admirable job trying to reach out based on the the address that we have, based on the business license that people have submitted. So we try and we do our best to try and reach out to these individuals so that they can pay on time. But sometimes we don't have the correct address. Right. But I actually think that's more appropriate after we hear from our speakers. I'd like to continue with our speakers. Thank you, Mr. Raymond. Yes. Good evening. My name is Todd Wyman. I have been a resident here for about 15 years as a homeowner. And I'm also here to speak against, I guess, the penalties and back business fees for for a number of the reasons that have actually been cited by Mr. Fong. I, I received the notice on, I guess it was probably around the March 31st notice. That was actually the first notice I received full stop that a business license was required for the In Law Unit that I have behind my house. I received no there was no effort by the city to actually let me know that. As you know, as you need a business license for this, I did receive three letters threatening me with the problem with the additional fees and penalties, which again I had no knowledge of to begin with. I didn't know that to rent a piece of property behind my house. And incidentally, my house is two houses on one lot. Which is kind of to be honest, to send the penalty is kind of a cynical way to treat residents of Alameda to assume that we were I was or residents as a whole are trying to evade a fairly nominal tax or fee, if you will. I'm sorry. I had similar difficulty understanding the penalties. I actually had someone in the department explain it to me. I am still baffled by how it all. After that discussion, I was still baffled at how they arrived at the penalties. And I have a graduate degree in business that I mean, that's that's horrible. From what I can tell the city to simply a search of county records and blindly sent out notices to anyone that had anything other than a single family residence. This was a fishing expedition. I was actually one of the honest ones that said, Huh, I didn't know about this. I actually came down. I paid for the business license for this year. I even paid. The late fee for. This year. I simply refused to pay the back penalties or back fees because it doesn't make sense to. Me at all. Can you speak to the numbers when I'm looking at this with your name? It has amount due principal $14 and it has $64. Late charge adding all the way up to 156. Yeah. Again, the total amount due at this point. Is that. Correct? The total amount that I received on the most recent letter, which was dated May 28th, was 154. And it goes through a bunch of different charges that don't up that add up to that. And the principal initially was $14. I was $14 then. You know, more than I do. All right. No one's explained that to someone on staff explaining that. Yes. The 14. Staff confirm. Are we starting with that? That's what it says on here. Amount due $14, but the total amount due now with the county fee, which I believe is after assessing late charges, is now $156. But initially, if this gentleman had paid $14 within the correct time, was that all that would have been? Do I miss him? So, Miss Adair, could you please. Give us some. I was going to ask Mr. Women, do you have those letters you're referring to in your file? And if so. Two of the three? I don't have the initial one. Can we look at them? Sure. You get to the car, give them to the clerk, and then she'll pass them. Thank you so much. Ms.. Adair. Okay. So for Mr. Women specifically, so the amount due was $14. With the late charges of 64 making total being 78, there's a additional $1 fee, which is a state fee. It's a state required fee added on to a business license. Our master office schedule also does have a fee for business license processing fee. It's an annual fee and it's flat amount, $25. And that's for the city. For the city. And that's. As I mentioned, it's part of the masterpiece schedule already. There's also it's not really $14. And if he'd paid on time, what would he have had to pay? 14 plus 25? Correct. I'm still confused. I think that doesn't get to the point of the mayor's question, the $14 or how is that composed? Because I heard this gentleman say he paid his his his bill. I would I don't have to back up for this particular business with me, so I would need to go and take a look. Okay. I apologize for that, but I can get you that information. I'm saying remember de sa. Thank you. Is it there for for your assistance? Much appreciate it. The question that I have is so this in this particular case, we're talking about a granny unit, as they call it. It's I believe it's a separate from the main house. Is that correct? It's on the same parcel, separate from the main house. But the parcel is owned, I suspect, by the resident who lives in the main house. That correct? Absolutely. And so the unit in the back is rented out. Now it has its separate completely right? Like it has its own kitchen and has its own bath and everything. So. So the rule regarding renting out single family homes doesn't apply. In this case. Is isn't that. A single. Family house? I mean, it's certainly not a duplex in the sense that like when you go down, I forgot that avenue. Yeah, there's all these duplexes that are attached to the same wall. So how does. The way what I can tell you is the way as part of the collection effort of the business license, because the Revenue Division, it's not just, you know, sending out a bill, but it's also making sure we do do a collection effort as well and making sure that the businesses comply with our current ordinances. So, in essence, compliance. So one of the ways we research or identify which businesses need to pay and if they are paying, is going through county records. So on a county record, on a parcel, they will identify, for example, that it's a owner, but it has two units on it. So and then once we'll look into that and identify that there's one owner, two units and send out letters. And I'm sure Mr.. When women can speak to that, but we identify that there's a unit that's been rented out as part of the I guess. I ask actually a question of how. They come in, use the microphone, because then we'll get it in the record. QUESTION Now, how is it. Determined that that unit is rented out? It's an in-law unit. It's been used as a guesthouse. It's been used as an office. There's an assumption that's made here that it's being rented out because it's two properties on one lot or two houses on one lot. And that was a question I had. Didn't we hear earlier that there's a license required for renting a duplex, but not a single family residence? And if I can help a little bit, I'm looking at the ordinance and it first, let's say we admit it's confusing. And I think it's also staff. Would. Would tell you that this ordinance, as has been pointed out, has been on the books for a long time and has been modified and revised many times over the years. And frankly. Could use. A nice dusting off and making it. Even more clear. However, on in in the definitions of hotel rooming house dwelling unit, there is. An exception. Where if you have a single family residence that you are renting. So the entire single family residence. You don't live. In, you live. Someplace else. It's a single family residence that is accepted. But everything else where there is any other unit. That you rent, rent. Lease or higher, you pay a. License fee of $5 for each room that's in. The building. And so what would happen in. A case like the mother in law type unit. Assuming it is rented, that the single family house. Would not qualify, but that is. Another. Unit on. That lot. And that one would qualify. To to. Be required to have a business license. That's what happens with duplexes. It's the two units. They both would be subject to a business license. Yeah. And the reason. The reason why I'm even pursuing this is because it is my feeling, hey, you know, I rent out two rooms at my place. You know, there's a downstairs, and it's like, well, I'm just one guy, so my hotel just. It'd be empty. So. And I asked, do I have to pay a business license? And they asked, was it a single family house? Yes. Do you live in it? Yes. Well, then it no, you don't have to. So it's just kind of quirky that I don't have to pay a a business license of $20, but someone who , for all intents and purposes, kind of meets the same attributes of the same owning the parcel, owning at least one unit and having a net. But having another unit, I don't know. If I had a C or I differ with Mr. Wong as if I had to alter it, I would say that I should pay a $20 fee. I think all the people who are in some who are advertising on Craigslist, for example, should pay a $20 fee. But I think what we're hearing from Mr. Wong and from Mr. Wayman isn't so much the dollar amount, but just clarify what the rule is. And, and so that, you know, we get. Yeah, actually I do want to I do want to clarify. I mean, the dollar amount on an annualized basis, I mean, 20, 25 bucks. I mean, I've already I've already got my renewal notice, which I actually would like to pay before the July 31st deadline online because it's actually cheaper. You get a break if you do that. I'm not being allowed to right now because there is a balance. Do I don't have an issue paying 25 bucks a year if I'm renting it out, honestly, that's not a big deal. The issue that I have is I was not aware of it and the first notice I got of it tacked on a whole bunch of penalties that I didn't even I'm very willing to. Do the right thing and act in accordance with the with the requirement. But the first letter I receive is basically a stick. Saying You've screwed up. That's. That's it doesn't feel right. Thank you. May I ask you, Mr. Women? So how long? How long have you lived at that Central Avenue address? Since 2006. And then you've rented the back bungalow. It's been rented. It's been rented on and off. I was told, actually when I came here that I was actually being charged for fees due back to 2011. Which to me seems strange. It seems very arbitrary and capricious, to be honest. So this is in the past, you've paid these fees? No, no. I have never been aware of it. Under this this current billing cycle, you're being told that you're being paid. You're paying back to 2011. Yes. I have never. I have never received any notice that I was required to have any type of business license at all. So when we talked earlier about sort of first time offender, if you call me an offender, I guess that's that's perhaps what I am. But I had. No, it's offensive. I mean, I find that yeah, I find that maybe offensive. What I would ask. I think the city I think the city can do a better job letting folks know that this is required. And, you know, there are a number of different ways to do it. You can when multi-unit properties are sold, you can send a notice out to those folks. You can have it as a disclosure with real estate agents. If anyone who buys those properties, you can have an amp, put it a notice in once a year if you rent out a property, anyone who's got a property that has two different, you know, accounts on it, ahem, send that notice out. You can even. And this takes the carrot approach. You can run an ad in the journal and say you have to have one. And if you do, you have. A business license, you can go shop at Jetro on High Street because you have a business license. I would. I know a lot of people would love to be able to do that. So it's not all bad. It's just the. City I don't think has done enough to let folks know they need to do this. Thank you. And Vice Mayor. I have three points here in this. Gentlemen, you could have a seat at this point. Thank you for bringing this story. I'm in. Both of our speakers can sit right here. No, no. No. I want. To speak to. Him. Oh, Mr. Raymond. Yeah. Yes, it went well at my turn. Okay. So at this point, you could. Did you want to speak to the speaker? Is that what you're doing? All right. All right. All right. So you can have a seat until we call you back. Thank you. I have two points. One is here in these two gentlemen, I'm inclined to ask that we waive their late fees. They've made due diligence efforts on very small amounts. I am not inclined to ask to waive the late fees on legacy partners. These are big companies. They know that they have to have a business license. This is not. Oh, we weren't aware. They owe us a lot of money. They have to do it. And the third point is we've got a Byzantine code there that really needs to be revamped. And I'd like to ask this council to direct staff. Start that process and give us a time on how long it's going to take to get there. I think the other point that goes along with that is the notification process and to come up, rather than us trying to cobble something together to ask staff to put together along with that revamping a notification process or disclosure process that lets people know who have to have business licenses that they need. But and the dates are right on their on. Once you have the business license, you know, when it's payable, due and payable. So Matthew. I may just quickly and I just want just for clarification and information, understand what vice mayor matter as he has has said. This is a tax, however. So while staff certainly can go through and try to update. This ordinance, which. Frankly probably would be very. Helpful, it will take a vote of the of the the voters of Alameda. It'll take a vote to change the business. When you bring back the weekend. I mean, it's just going to take a lot longer. I just heard that you've got. A problem in in the meantime, you know, you're winning. Think the public speaking part has ended, but the mayor can speak to that. But what I was going to say was I. Think I was just. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry you were. And then I'd like to come back. So, yes, I've already been. Cut off. Once. I'm so patient. Yeah. All right, Vice, see where you stand. All right. Member. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I actually had a couple questions for Mr. Wayman, so I'm still confused. What? You know what this $14 is for? No. 14. The first time I heard about this, $14 was when the mayor said it. So. And you've paid something? I came in and I paid a sum, I think a check for somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to $60 to get my license and the late fee as before, before the notice given on the first letter, which I don't I don't have. So then my understanding from staff is that they cannot tell us at this point what that $14 represents, what year or anything. Is that is that correct? I mean, this gentleman says he's paid. Well, first of all, you said that you don't rent that place. So, no, it's not that I said I didn't rent it like I do it. I'm that's I'm saying it hasn't necessarily been rented like full time. I was originally told these were fees going back to 2011 and it hasn't been rented the whole time. I guess that that's that's a little bit what concerns me is I don't know this $14. You know what what it I don't either and I would think and no disrespect to staff but I think if you're going to come and ask us to put something on somebody, you know, property tax assessment that, you know, if they come and appeal, that we would be able to have that information in front of us. So we know what you know, what we're actually doing. I mean, for what time periods. And, you know, we'd have the file and we could ask questions for future, you know, I I'd like to see that. So. Mr.. MCDANIEL Can you can you ask can you restate what you're asking this counsel to do related to your account? Yes, I'm asking I'm asking to to waive all of the penalties for whatever goes back to 2011. I've got my business license. Ah, the I've paid the business license fee I'm current for this year. I will renew in subsequent years when, when I've got the place rented and we'll continue to do that. I would just like to wipe out all the back stuff as a, as basically a first time offense since I was unaware . And just to be clear, does your request include that $14 that's alleged is the amount? I suppose so, because I have no idea what that's for. I know I've paid my business license. I actually have the renewal form here, so I'm up to date on that already. No idea what that 14. I appreciate I appreciate that request. It shows that you owe $156.62. And that's my understanding. You're asking that that be waived. Let's make sure that he gets his letters back. I we were circling them around. Okay. Thank you. Is it time for talking or are we still doing your questions? Because I kind of wanted to follow up. May I. Clarify something, council members, just to let you know that what happens is the ordinance allows us to go back no more than three years, I believe, to collect any business license fees that haven't been paid. So what Mr. Women seen is that the if the business license hasn't been paid, then we can only go back three years and collect those. So should he. You know, as you mentioned here, has had it for several years. We cannot go back that far. We can only do so many years. And that's authorized by the ordinance. But all right. With the assumption that it was, in fact, rented during that period of time, well, we don't know because we don't know. So it could be. It could not be. I mean, that that's that was part of my point. I would like to know that information before we put a property tax assessment on your property taxes. I spoke to Mr. Raymond and. I'm actually retired. You're winning, so you might want to sit down. No, no, no. And that's just it. I think you're. Concerned that I'm trying to over argue the case. And I spoke to Mr. Raymond. I am a retired attorney. I have written California legislation. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Raymond is very wise and we both are volunteering our services to help. We appreciate that. Okay. Thank you very. Much that we can with the. Client. Let us have our conversation. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Member Ashcraft. Yeah. So thank you, everyone, for your comments. I am troubled by a number of things. I, I do understand the concept of a penalty and a penalty in creasing as time goes by because it gives you an incentive to pay on time and and correct any arrearages. Quickly, I read two of those three letters that were sent, and I'm an attorney too, and I'm all for plain English and saying what needs to be said. And I, I think the letters could, could be more informative and not just the letters that are sent out. I think we I'm I'm a little unclear as to the whole process of how we put these lists together. But in this day and age, there should be a wide variety of ways that we reach out to our community and let them know if there is a fee or a, you know, a license or a tax or something they should be paying. And it's both print media, but it should be electronic media, too. We have a website and maybe it's on there, I'm not sure. But it should be easier for the the average citizen to and I think we have some above average citizens here. But be that as it may, anybody should be able to understand clearly and simply what is expected of them. And once that, you know, we have that process and that clarity in place, then I feel comfortable going forward and imposing penalties. But I do think this is something that we need to spend a little more time on. Because I just think that we're not we're not doing ourselves or our residents any favors when we're as unclear as this appears to be. And this is on the business license part. So there were no questions or comments in regards to the waste management lines. Is there any interest in having a motion to approve that and discuss it separately that way? That's what I would prefer. I'll make that motion move the approval of the lens on the Integrated Waste Management lens. Do we have a second? A second that any discussion? Well, and I'll also note that just in the time that our packet came out online and today, this afternoon, the original amount owed on the Integrated Waste Management fees was 13,167. It's down to 9800. So, you know, hopefully it keeps going down. But anyway. The variety and. Just one quick point. I mean, we've we've given notice to individuals on the waste management list, giving them notice at this hearing. And as far as I know, no one has come to appeal or dispute or try to clarify anything and with proper notice. So I'll be supportive of this motion. Can staff confirm member Otis comments in regards to We did not receive any challenges on this. We didn't. Thank you. All right, all those in favor. Why? That motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now to the 2015 delinquent business license tax issue. And I'm here. A member already. Thank you, Madam Chair. So. I kind of want to echo what I think I've heard from my colleagues over on the other side of the the dais here. We had a list here of 17 different delinquent business license tax. 15 of them were given notice of this hearing, and 15 of them did not come and appeal or otherwise dispute. So I would be in favor of moving forward with those 15 and the two individuals that came. Mr. Wong apparently has paid and I would be in favor of waiving the late charge on that. And then on Mr. Women's matter, I do not believe I have enough information to. Assess him on this. And I would also move to grant his request for a waiver of his complete $156.62 as well. I'll second that motion member Ashcroft. And just a clarification point. It is in actually 17 individuals because the legacy partners has for 17 parcels. Parcels. Okay. All right. So concerns. That sounds reasonable. So I would prefer not including item parcels one through six. I'm concerned that the late charges greatly exceed it's actually more than 100%. You have an initial fee of $120, for instance, on number on parcel number one. And the total amount due today is 321. That is more than a 100% increase. So I have concerns about these additional late charges. So I would not support pursuing item the first six passes. I'm I agree with vice mayor in regards to legacy partners that we know that they no, I actually do not know that these one these other ones know the fact that these two came today, whereas in questions of notice, in fact, suggests that without confirmation that these other individuals are aware of this and having what appears to be sometimes as great as a 300% increase, I think that's very significant and I would not be able to support that. However, in regards to our source, what appears to be more of a business where we were confident that they would know what's going on as opposed to someone that appears to be an individual. So I as I understand it, the 100% cap is on the late charge. By the time you add processing and county fees, it may get up higher than that. But I. This is what the the fears that was set by ordinance. And so I don't think we're here properly to dispute that. And also, I would caution a little about assuming that Legacy Partners got noticed and others didn't. So that's so I'm saying I do not accept this as is I do not know that these people received these notices. And as far as I know, these are individuals within our community. When the bill starts at 120 and today we're asking for 321 or. And there's many examples of similar numbers on here. Without knowing that these individuals receive this. That's my concern is I do not know and I don't have that documented. But of course, you understand the legal definition of a notice being there. I actually don't appreciate your comment at this point. I understand you don't appear to be listening to what I'm saying, so I am not willing to support these. But I would consider egregious taxes on entities, on individuals that we cannot confirm that they actually received notice. And we have had that issue raised this evening that there may very well be issues in regards to receipt, unless it's in fact where we know, for instance, legacy partners, I'm confident that they received notice and understand what's occurring here. But I think that the amounts, the total is so egregious without any confirmation. And this ledger, I think, is insufficient. That's my position. Member de SAC. Thank you very much. You know, what I want to address my comments to is just kind of like this. And if curious way that we go about applying the business license tax fee on residential properties. I think during the housing discussions that we had earlier this spring, which will hopefully come back to us sooner rather than later . One of the things I mentioned was this whole issue where I don't have to pay a business license fee and maybe there's state laws as to why we don't allow single family units to pay business license fee. But it seems to me that. Whatever argument there is for a gent. The gentlemen such as Mr. Wayman, you pay a business license fee for a granny flat should hold. While it might not be the same, I think the thrust should still hold. Or those who own a single family unit and live in it. And rent it out. So for example. In Alameda, there are 15,800 rental units and 15,800 of the 15,800. There are roughly 4100. Single family units. Now some of those 4100 are paying a business license fee because as the owner doesn't live in it, though. But a good number of them aren't. I would be the example. And. And so. You know, it's very difficult to estimate how much you can generate by the $20 a year. But, you know, if you kind of ballpark it low to high, I mean, you've got enough collection possibly there to run the whatever affordable housing program or whatever program we want to do to to help. The Rent Review Advisory Board, you've got enough revenue being generated there. So. So I like, uh, council member Vice Mayor Matt Orestes point about looking at this because I think this was really an opportunity. I don't want to say this is going to solve all the rent review advisory board type of issues. But, you know, there might be some money there to to help them expand in doing their task. So I also agree with that. Is there any other council members you want to weigh in on that? The suggestion. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and the second. All those. May I make just a comment? Two things. I would just respectfully ask not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we had to verify every time somebody got a receipt, we'd have to do return receipt. There's no way we could do that. We cannot verify to make sure that everybody received these notices. We have 4000 businesses in this community with three notices that would be impossible to do. So we do make our best effort. I understand from time to time we probably don't get it right. And I think it's perfectly appropriate for people who come tonight to ask for a waiver for you to provide that. But I respectfully request that you don't do that as a policy. I think that just would be very detrimental. Thank you. So I'll respond then that my position continues to be that when the penalties are so egregious that we have a serious issue and we did have that issue raised. And so we have a motion. And what was the motion? I wasn't. Clear. The motion was to attach the 15. 15 of the 17. Yes. And waive Mr. Wong's one and. Mr. Wei. Mr. Wong and Mr. Waymon per their request. With the understanding that this was a publicly noticed hearing. And it was seconded, right? Yes. Yes. And I will not be supporting this. Not because I agree. I agree. You should not have to pay us. But I have concerns in regards to these other individuals also. All those in favor. Hi. May I just clarify for Mr. Wayman? Are you waiving everything or just delay charges and fees? I think it was. The motion included everything. I believe that I can tell you the amount of get one giving 62. Yeah. Given all the confusion. Not being able to go. Back to 2011. I have clarity on what that $14 represented as far as a year. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Six C. A recommendation to provide input to Adrian Associates on the qualifications of a city manager, the recruitment brochure and the selection process. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Stephanie Geller, Brant Serra. I am your administrative services director. And first of all, would you like an update on the score? Yeah, it's 98 to 79 with 3 minutes left to play.