From: Marla Koss
To: City Clerk
Cc: Alison Limoges
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment for Item 7A on tonight"s City Council Agenda (Aquatic Center financing) Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:51:28 PM
For the Alameda City Clerk,
I hope to read this statement at the February 21, 2023 Alameda City Council meeting on Zoom tonight, during the comment period for item 7A (Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Fund the City Aquatic Center). I would also like to ask that it be entered into the written record.
Thank you,
Marla Koss
---
Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members.
As a 43-year resident of Alameda and a member of Alameda Backyard Growers’ Board of Directors, I’d like to ask the Council when considering the matter before you to recapture the vision of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park as the fully-developed regional jewel we all hoped it would be at the very least by this time.
Today, most people look out at the middle and west ends of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and see pretty much nothing besides the Cross-Alameda Trail. Those of us who sat on the advisory committee established 9 years ago to address the development of a Community Garden in the park have worked on the design for years off and on. This committee was formed expressly because community-wide meetings were held to ask what Alamedans what they wanted in this new space, and the top answer was a Community Garden.
Will the park be completed or left barren for lack of funding? If not for some large project to come along and spur the rest of the park to be built, how will a Community Garden get its funding? Placing an Aquatic Center at the northwest end of the park could be the project to do that. Building the pool area and a parking lot, and placing the Community Garden to the east of the parking lot would allow the garden to be located in a more advantageous middle-of-the-park section, and with it a Demonstration Garden garden for Lisjan Ohlone tribe members.
There is a lack of community garden space in Alameda, and there are plenty of residents who want to grow some of their own food. Let’s get this park finished and make sure it’s what the people asked for in the first place. In addition, let there be a new Aquatic Center that teaches everybody living on this island to swim. It’s a win/win.
From: Alison Limoges
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] For Alameda City Council Members re: JSOSP Aquatic Center item on Agenda 2-21-23 Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:33:47 PM
For the Alameda City Clerk,
I will be reading my statement below at the 2/21/23 City Council meeting on Zoom tonight. But I also wanted it entered into the written record.
Thank you. Alison Limoges
---
Good evening.
I am Alison Limoges, a resident of Alameda and a long-time Board member of Alameda Backyard Growers. ABG is a not for profit organization whose mission is to educate people to be successful gardeners. One of our most popular programs is Project Pick through which our volunteers pick excess, unwanted fruit in Alameda and deliver it to the Alameda Food Bank. Since 2011 we have picked and donated more than 48,000 pounds of fresh produce. Through our monthly educational programs and newspaper articles, ABG is known for teaching gardening, reducing food waste and feeding our neighbors.
In 2013, as part of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park planning and visioning process, ABG was invited to help plan a Community Garden. For those of you who may not have been around then, a Community Garden was voted one of the top priorities for the park. Our Board agreed to help form an Advisory Committee on the development of the garden.
This Advisory Committee, chaired by my husband Ron Limoges, met 11 times. Its members worked with the Alameda Food Bank, graduate students from Mills College and experts on aquaculture, mycology and bees. They even made a field trip to Sacramento to visit six community gardens to see what worked there. And they convened a public meeting to gain input from Alameda community members.
When it became apparent that the available funding would be dedicated to the playground area of the park, the Advisory Committee stopped meeting.
Nevertheless, a great deal of information was developed and documented. This information is still available to help ARPD implement an effective plan for creating and operating a successful Community Garden.
Today, in the plans for an aquatic center at Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, it appears that through economies of scale, it would be possible to build the long envisioned Community Garden next to the pool.
Therefore I am speaking tonight, on behalf of Alameda Backyard Growers, to tell you that our Board supports the plan to build a pool at Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and the adjacent Community Garden.
ABG has a mailing list of 2000 active constituents with whom we communicate frequently. Many of them have asked us about a Community Garden, especially during the early stages of the pandemic. Many, like myself, have no yard. Many really want and need a place to grow their own food. A Community Garden at this special Park will be a place for growing and gleaning food and for educating children through adults. And it will serve patrons of the Alameda Food Bank, for whom food security is a health and survival issue.
So I am here to ask all of you to vote in favor of the proposal to build this pool and to e nsure that the Community Garden is part of the comprehensive project. Thank you.
--------------------
--
Alison S. Limoges
2051 Shoreline Drive, Apt. 213
Alameda, CA 94501
Cell: 415.515.4333
Email: [email protected]
From: Leslie Borkow
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Alameda Pool
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:06:51 PM
Hi,
I am writing urging the city council to support the proposed public pool and use existing funds for it, rather than pushing for an upcoming bond which may or may not pass and would delay the building of the pool.
Thanks,
Leslie Borkow
1034 Fair Oaks Ave.
Alameda
From: Kris Motola
To: City Clerk
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella Subject: [EXTERNAL] Community Pool
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:02:36 PM
Council Members,
I am writing in support of the proposed community pool. Our kids participate in both Gators and Neptunes water polo and can speak to a great lack of available pools for sports, swim lessons, family recreation pool time, etc., especially since the pools at both Alameda High and Encinal High have been broken for several months. I grew up in Pleasanton biking to the community pool (actually 3 pools and a snack bar) and was surprised to learn Alameda did not have this pretty common amenity.
What would be most useful is a true 50 meter pool with a diving well. Also, rather than having the building of the community facility dependent on a future bond measure I implore the council to use existing funds to fund the pool so the project can proceed as soon as possible and not risk loss of financing in the future.
As the council is aware from prior presentations by parks and rec, Alameda has the fewest pools available to the public compared to other similarly sized Bay Area cities.
Thank you,
Kris Motola
From: Drew Swartz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Funding the Alameda City Aquatic Center Date: Saturday, February 18, 2023 1:22:25 PM
Hello,
I am writing for my support of the Alameda City Aquatic Center. As was made clear during the October city council meeting, Alameda is severely lacking in the ability to meet the aquatics needs of the community and is well behind in the facilities needed to match comparable cities in the East Bay. It is unacceptable that an island community surrounded by water cannot accommodate the need for swim lessons and aquatic programs for both children and adults. As an adult lap swimmer and previous collegiate swimmer, I have swam at other facilities in the East Bay (Moraga, San Ramon, Dublin, Walnut Creek & Concord) and am embarrassed that a city the caliber of Alameda doesn’t provide the community comparable facilities. This hurts the livability and quality of life of all Alamedans.
I joined the Alameda Aquatic Masters program last year and have an 18 month old son, so I have had to experience the impact of the lack of facilities first- hand. Masters swim has been cancelled for several months in the past year due to inadequate facilities on The Island. I am struggling to get my son into swim lessons. This is not a new need and something the Alameda community has been missing for decades. That is why it is important to fund this project now and not continue to delay, otherwise city council is blatantly not supporting the need and desires of community of Alameda.
Funding of this project will help meet several of the city council key priorities outlined on the City of Alameda website: Preparing Alameda for the Future, Protecting Core Services (and in this case, expanding to meet growing need), Supporting Enhanced Livability and Quality of Life and Encouraging Economical Development.
My last ask is to build a facility that maximizes the available space at Jean Sweeney Park and doesn’t just support the need for the Alameda community today, but for the future. One that addresses the increased population that will come with the city council approved housing plan.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to not only hearing you support the City Aquatic Center at the next council meeting, but pushing for immediate funding and action to finally bring this much needed amenity to the community.
Thanks,
Drew Swartz
From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Cc: Manager Manager; City Clerk; Finance; ARPD
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: ACT Review of Proposed Jean Sweeney Park Aquatic Center/Park Upgrades-Item 7-A on Feb. 21 Council Agenda
Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 3:07:38 PM
ACT
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Vigilance, Truth, Civility
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice-Mayor Daysog, and Council Members Jensen, Spencer and Vella:
Below is a letter to our ACT members and friends in which we clarify and comment on the staff report pertaining to Item 7-A on your Feb. 21 agenda that proposes funding vehicles for construction of an aquatic center and other park upgrades to Jean Sweeney Park.
We are not supporting or opposing the project. The letter simply highlights the issues which we believe need to be addressed in the decision-making process and encouraging the public to make their views known to you. We hope that our comments below will also be of aid to each of you in determining your position on the matter.
This project is not a required expenditure for basic city services. It is an enhancement to the community which will have various degrees of value to residents and may adversely impact other needed infrastructure projects. Therefore, if you decide to go forward with the project, we believe it should be subject to approval by the voters whether or not required by law.
Sincerely,
ACT Board of Directors.
From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 8:59 AM
To: Alameda Citizens Task Force <[email protected]> Subject: ACT Review of Proposed Jean Sweeney Park Aquatic Center/Park Upgrades-Item 7-A on Feb. 21 Council Agenda
Dear ACT members and friends:
Item 7-A on the City Council Feb. 21 agenda proposes significant upgrades to Jean Sweeney Park, the most prominent of which will be an aquatic center to provide a public swimming pool. The estimated cost is $30M. This is a major financial investment that needs to be carefully examined. The details of the proposal are in the report of our Finance Director, Margaret O’Brien, and Rec and Parks Director, Amy Wooldridge. The purpose of this letter is to clarify and comment on the report. https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6022172&GUID=CB86C2AE-6CC1-41E5- 84DD-E1044E1DC4F8&FullText=1
The City Council on Oct. 18, 2022, at item 7-A, approved the project in concept by unanimous vote and approved expending up to one half of the cost of the project from the General Fund Balance (GFB) by a 4-1 vote. Council Member Vella dissented due primarily to her concern about an outstanding 200M need for other city infrastructure projects and the prospect of declining future revenues. The Oct. 18 staff report, which contains much more detail, can be accessed on the city website.
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5866826&GUID=2C64D763-6BC2-41B8- 9D96-89D34896002F&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
The current Staff report states that partially funding the project with 15M from said general fund, would leave a balance 18.59M. This is misleading because there is another 24M which is identified in City financial reports as the “reserve policy” which represents City Council policy to maintain a GF balance of approximately 20% of annual expenditures from year to year, so the actual remaining fund balance would be closer to 33M, not 18.59M.
Is it prudent to expend 15M of our GFB? The staff report explains that our large residual fund balance is primarily due to large deed transfer tax payments realized over the last few year’s real estate sales, particularly new development, but those revenues will be declining and there may be declines in other revenues due to a reduction in economic activity. In fact, the City financial reports predict City expenditures exceeding tax revenues by about 2M per year into the indefinite future. To put this in terms of a family budget, if you have a significant amount of excess income that you have saved over the years, but your income is going to be less than your basic living expenses for the indefinite future, do you invest almost half of your savings on a down payment on a rental property? We are not suggesting the answer, just clarifying the issue.
Assuming the 15M GF expenditure, what is the best option for financing the 15M balance? Staff present two options, Certificates of Participation (COP’s) or General Obligation Bonds (GO).
The COP option would be similar to you financing the remaining cost of that new rental property with a 30 year mortgage on your house in hopes of meeting those payments with the rental proceeds. In the case of the Aquatic Center, it would result in adding a million dollars to annual City expenditures which are currently about 130 M. However, you would also be adding about $500,000 in revenue in estimated user fees in excess of the operating costs of the Center. The COP would require four affirmative votes of the City Council, but no voter approval.
The GO option would entail a voter-approved 30 year add-on to your real estate tax bill at the approximate rate of $18 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. It would require a 2/3voter approval.
Both options present almost the same debt service costs. However, the COP is a direct cost to the general fund every year and in a bad economy could contribute to the reduction of discretionary City expenditures, while the GO is burdened entirely on the individual real estate taxpayers.
Again, we are not answering the boldfaced question, only clarifying the issues. However, we do have one clear opinion on the matter. This project is not a required expenditure for basic city services. It is an enhancement to the community which will have various degrees of value to residents and may adversely impact other needed infrastructure projects. Therefore, we believe it should be subject to approval by the voters regardless of which financing option is approved by the City Council.
Council Member Vella’s negative vote on using the GFB, plus the fact that one of the four previous yes voters is no longer on Council, and the need for four affirmative votes to adopt COP financing indicates that Council will be very impacted by citizen comment.
We urge you to participate in the discussion of this project at the Feb 21, Council meeting either via Zoom as provided in the Agenda preamble at:
https://legistar1.granicus.com/alameda/meetings/2023/2/5768_A_City_Council_23-02- 21_Meeting_Agenda.pdf or by email directed to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Sincerely,
ACT Board