From: Renee Sheehan
To: Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] proposed change of landscaping & lighting district 1986 MOU Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 7:28:44 PM
Dear Alameda City Council and Mayor,
Please vote no of the proposal to unilaterally disregard the agreement with our landscaping and lighting district.
1100 and 1200 block of Bay St., have had a special L and L district since 1986. We have agreed to assess every resident on the block to be able to pay for enhanced care of our city trees. Originally, the focus was on the elms and Dutch elm disease. In more recent years, the focus was on replacement of the elms with a variety of trees that are compatible with stately homes and neighborhood ambiance, and paying extra for larger trees than normally the city would routinely provide. Also it has paid for anti aphid and anti Dutch elm disease injections. The district members have been in agreement with being assessed for the special needs over and beyond routine maintenance. The city should bare the expense of removing trees that are at the end of their useful life, just as they do elsewhere in the city. We want the original MOU to continue, with our district reps deciding on special expenditures and making the decisions about additional assessments. We believe Bay St neighbors in this district will aim to have a cordial and productive relationship with city staff going forward. Maintaining the district as described in the 1986 MOU is in the best interests of Alameda as a whole in addition to Bay St.....the city prides itself on lovely historic neighborhoods with tree lined streets.
Thank you for your consideration,
Renee and Bill Sheehan
1236 Bay St.
From: Dee Keltner
To: Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; City Clerk; Erin Smith; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen Subject: [EXTERNAL] Engineer Budget -Item 5G. L&LD. 84-2. Zone 7 Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 5:14:35 PM
I am 100% in support of the email sent by one of our neighbors, Gig Codiga. There is no need for me to speak, as a hardworking District member and representative over the Past 37 years, I cannot add one more thing. Our original desire has not changed, it remains as strong as ever, to support and enhance the ongoing care of our trees as we have done willingly all these years.
Tree issues and expenses for other streets are covered by the city, not the residents. The city should be grateful to our District for enhancing the longevity of our old Elms and caring enough to spend upwards of $300,000.
Please do the right thing. This is our money, not the city’s Sincerely
Dee Keltner
1137 Bay St
Alameda 94501
Dee Keltner
From: Tom Geary
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; Lynn Mire
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Yes In My Backyard
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 4:50:04 PM
Dear Members of the City Council and Mayor,
I’m sure you’re getting inundated about an item on the agenda this evening.
For nearly 40 years, our neighborhood has worked hard to preserve the trees that make this street so charming. To have the foresight to set up a dedicated fund, effectively in perpetuity, to keep the trees of Bay Street looking amazing? How rare is that? I hear about an initiative like this, and I say to myself, what a great idea (and then, if I am being truly honest, why didn’t I think of that?) You probably feel the same way.
Don’t our communities need more of this kind of transformative thinking, rather than less? Given this backdrop, I am shocked to learn that someone wants to gut this initiative. How and why is undercutting a thoughtful agreement, made 40 years ago in good faith by all parties, suddenly a priority?
Nationally, we’ve seen all kinds of precedents get nullified, from Roe with Dobbs, to all kinds of LGTBQ civil liberties. I’m not equating our neighborhoods trees with those far more important initiatives, but I wish there were more presumption of positive intent, especially for issues settled decades ago.
To put it another way, in the absence of an actual issue (say, fraud or misuse of funds), how about giving this agreement and our neighborhood, the benefit of the doubt? Most sincerely,
Tom Geary. 1200 Bay Street
Moved to Alameda in 1968, at age 3.
Tom Geary | Founder & Creative Director | School of Thought 544 60th Street, Oakland, CA, 94609
C 415.596.4154 D 415.685.4475
Brand Strategy | Campaigns | Videos | Sites | Event Activations From: Alice Lewis
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; City Clerk; Trish Spencer; td4722 Cc: Si Lewis; Alice Lewis; Julie Conner
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Subject: Unilateral (by the City) Changing of 1968 Landscaping & Lighting District (1986) Agreement Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 4:41:44 PM
Dear Members of the Alameda City Council and Mayor:
Tonight: Please Vote No on the Staff recommendation to unilateral toss the agreement with Landscaping and Lighting District, a violation of our contractual agreement.
The block of 1100 and 1200 Bay Street has been operating as a special zone in a Landscape & Lighting District since 1986 ("L&L District). The Resolution creating the District is clear that assessments and use of the resulting funds would be with the agreement of the residents. We have a legal agreement with the city signed in 1988 that gives the L&L District the ability to decide how much to assess ourselves and how to spend the money we have charged ourselves. This assessment has been collected by the City via a special property tax assessment each year. The L&L District has not charged the members in the L&L District an assessment for the last two years, as there is no reason to over fund the account - there are sufficient funds to support the L&L District obligations for many years.
The City Staff is proposing to change the process. Via letter dated April 13, 2023, the Public Works Director informed the L&L District that the City intends to use our assessment fund to cover the removal of nine sick elms on our block to the tune of $50,000 (not a part of the L&L District responsibility - that is the City's responsibility and consistent with past practices) and to reinstate an annual special assessment of $150 (not the right of the City to make this decision and not necessary to meet L&L District obligations).
A city attorney has informed the representatives of the L&L District that the City views the 1988 legal agreement to be invalid and no longer plans to abide by its terms. [Note the signers of that agreement had 100% support and authority by the L&L District members. Just because they are no longer alive does not invalidate the agreement. If that were true many past contracts would be invalid.]
Thank you for all of your time and effort serving Alameda. We appreciate it and are proud of our island home.
Sincerely,
Alice and Josiah “Si” Lewis
1128 Bay Street
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Gig Codiga
To: Trish Spencer; td4722; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Unilateral (by the City) Changing of 1968 Landscaping & Lighting District (1986) Agreement Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:56:21 PM
Dear Members of the Alameda City Council and Mayor
Tonight: Vote No on the Staff recommendation to unilateral toss the agreement with Landscaping and Lighting District, a violation of our contractual agreement.
Context: The block of 1100 and 1200 Bay Street has been operating as a special zone in a Landscape & Lighting District since 1986 ("L&L District). The Resolution creating the District is clear that assessments and use of the resulting funds would be with the agreement of the residents. We have a legal agreement with the city signed in 1988 that gives the L&L District the ability to decide how much to assess ourselves and how to spend the money we have charged ourselves. This assessment has been collected by the City via a special property tax assessment each year. The L&L District has not charged the members in the L&L District an assessment for the last two years,as there is no reason to over fund the account - there are sufficient funds to support the L&L District obligations for many years.
The City Staff is proposing to change the process. Via letter dated April 13, 2023, the Public Works Director informed the L&L District that the City intends to use our assessment fund to cover the removal of nine sick elms on our block to the tune of $50,000 (not a part of the L&L District responsibility - that is the City's responsibility and consistent with past practices) and to reinstate an annual special assessment of $150 (not the right of the City to make this decision and not necessary to meet L&L District obligations).
A city attorney has informed the representatives of the L&L District that the City views the 1988 legal agreement to be invalid and no longer plans to abide by its terms. [Note the signers of that agreement had 100% support and authority by the L&L District members. Just because they are no longer alive does not invalidate the agreement. If that were true many past contracts would be invalid.]
Best Regards
Be Well
Gig Codiga
650-922-0554
From: Julie Conner
To: Jennifer Ott; Erin Smith
Cc: [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; CityCouncil-List; Len Aslanian; Emily Antenen Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Time Sensitive: Assessment District No. 84-2, Zone 7 Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:18:13 AM
Attachments: MOU with City.pdf
Resolution re- Zone 7.pdf
Bay St District to City Manager and PW Director.pdf
Please see the attached Letter with attachments from Zone 7 of the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 84-2.
May 2, 2023 To: City Manager Jennifer Ott Public Works Director Erin Smith From: The Residents of the 1100-1200 Block of Bay Street (Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 7) (“Bay Street District” or “District”). We write to respectfully request postponement of 5-G on tonight’s City Council Agenda with respect to the 1100-1200 Block of Bay Street . Prior to any action being taken, we would like to better understand the basis for the City’s (i) abrupt change in the course of dealing with the Bay St. District, reversing 37 years of established processes and breaching a signed Memorandum of Understanding and (ii) position articulated in Public Work Director Erin Smith’s letter dated April 13, 2023 to the property owners in the Bay St. District (attached, “April 2023 Letter”). As you may know, the City created the Bay Street District in 1986 at the request of the property owners on the 1100-1200 Block of Bay Street in order to provide for enhanced maintenance for its Elm trees, then threatened by Dutch Elm Disease. The Public Notice reflecting the City’s October 27, 1986 Resolution approving formation of the District confirms that its purpose was “to provide for enhanced maintenance” and that “the annual levy of special assessments for the enhanced maintenance shall annually by determined by the property owners and City staff” (the “1986 Resolution,” attached, emphasis added). In 1988, the City and the Bay St. District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU,” attached) reflecting the agreement between the City and the Bay St. District about the process by which the 1986 Resolution would be implemented: • “Each year, the [Bay St.] district shall present a budget” to the City. • The City would “inform the [Bay St.] District’s representative that there is work scheduled to be done on the trees.” • The Bay St. District would “agree to the work and/or to offer to augment [the work] at the [Bay St.] District’s expense.” • “In no event, should the City of Alameda unilaterally spend the money of the assessment district.” Review of the correspondence between the City and the Bay St. District evidences that the City and the Bay St. District have consistently followed the process set forth in the MOU for the past 37 years, with the Bay St. District, providing the City with an annual proposed budget and the amount of the assessment needed to fund it. In each case, as was the explicit intent of the parties in forming the district, the Bay Street District paid the difference between the maintenance services ordinarily provided by the City and the cost of the enhancements or special services requested by the Bay Street District. The record confirms that the Bay Street District and City have acted consistently with the MOU for 37 years, adhering both to its letter and spirit: the City has honored the Bay St. District’s decisions on how to spend its assessment funds and on what amount to assess the Bay St. District’s members. The following are illustrative of the City’s and the residents’ adherence to the terms of the MOU:
• On March 1, 1988, the Bay St. District Representative wrote then Public Works Director Robert Warnick to provide him with the budget for the fiscal year 1989-90, stating that the budget included the cost of supplementing the tree replacement budget of the city (“4 trees at $300 per tree minus $87.50 per tree from the City”), tree spraying, and special • In a letter dated July 26, 1995 to Public Works Director Warnick, the Bay St. District proposed a budget for 1995/96 to cover tree replacement (1 tree at $300 minus $87.50 City shared cost), tree spraying, and special pruning and requested a $50 per property owner assessment. • In a letter dated February 22, 2008, the District representative informed Marge McLean, in the Department of Public Works, of the proposed budget for the use of the assessment fees to cover trimming of elm suckers, injection of aphid control for red lindens and tree improvements warranted by the wire undergrounding and of the decision by the Bay St. District to reduce the annual assessment each Bay Street property owner. • In all years, to the extent represented in the correspondence, the City assessed the District members the assessment fee identified by the District representative. This course of conduct between the parties continued throughout the decades, and the Bay St. District continued to supplement the City’s expenditures on the trees on the block for the enhanced work that was budgeted. In all instances, the District determined the District’s budget for the following year and the assessment fee to be charged. Public Works Director Smith’s letter to the residents of the Bay St. District, dated April 13, 2023 (“PW Director Smith’s letter”), marks a departure from the 1986 Resolution and established precedent, and breaches the MOU. PW Director Smith’s letter informs the property owners that nine trees need to be removed at the estimated cost of $50,000, to be paid from the Bay St. District’s “assessment reserves” and informs us that the City will be imposing a $150 per property assessment going forward. During the past 37 years, the City has paid for removal of trees it deems unsafe and paid for tree replacements. The District has supplemented this budget solely to plant larger replacement trees. It is our understanding that this abrupt change in course may be due to a breakdown in the relationship between the Public Works Department and our Bay St. District occasioned in part by interactions with a Bay St. District representative. We inform you by this correspondence that this representative has resigned, and the District is committed to an engaged, thoughtful and respectful interaction with the City. We respectfully ask you to postpone placing the Resolution related to District 7 on the June 20 council agenda, burdening Zone 7 with the cost of the tree replacement needs previously borne by the City and increasing the yearly assessment without our consent. We look forward to discussing the pressing matters outlined above – namely (i) the disregard of the original terms under which the District was formed and the consistent course of dealings over 37 years and (ii) the entirely new assessment regime articulated in the April 2023 Letter – with the City and our new Bay Street District representatives.