From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: June 20, 2023 , agenda item 7-C referencing MOU with LLD District 7 assessments Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 9:42:22 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dee Keltner <[email protected]>
Date: Jun 20, 2023 12:58 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] June 20, 2023 , agenda item 7-C referencing MOU with LLD District 7 assessments
To: Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>,Erin Smith <[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]> Cc: Liz Acord <[email protected]>,Erin Smith <[email protected]>,Yibin Shen <[email protected]>
Please read my neighbors emails, they cover our history of love & commitment for our Elms I am a founding neighbor of the Bay St. LLD 7
Our LLD 7 was formed by our 1100-1200 block of Bay St. neighbors in 1986 after a few years of concern about losing our beautiful Elms to Dutch Elm Disease. We were mostly young homeowners worried about the possible loss of our beautiful trees. We felt like stewards of one of Alameda’s most beautiful streets, because of the trees.
Many of our neighbors have sent emails to you and I TRULY HOPE you will read them.
We, on Bay Street, have worked beautifully with the City, Planning Dept, for years. The City Manager, Mayor and Planning director partnered with us to establish and administer our one block District. **** Over the past several years, our district has delivered our budget, as always, and the City Council approved it. Very Sadly, since 2019 none of our Council approved budgeted items have been completed. Now, Public Works & the City are charging our District to test and even remove the City trees. This has never happened in our history. **Now we are being told our Legal “Memorandum of Understanding” from 1986 is defunct!!!! Were we notified? NO… When did this happen?? How and Why?? Who made this decision?
** How can a legally binding agreement between the city and our district become defunct? I don’t believe it can, yet I don’t have the money to fight the City!!!!!!!! The City should be.ashamed of not appreciating our contributions to our trees over the years.
In addition, our District was always a partner for our Elms; now we are being treated as an advisory. SHAME on the city!!!
Return our assessment dollars, keep your hands out of our money and dissolve our District!! Dee Keltner
Friends & Family multiply Joy!
From: [email protected]
To: Erin Smith; Jennifer Ott; CityCouncil-List; Yibin Shen; Liz Acord; Len Aslanian; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] June 20, 2023 agenda item 7-C, re: Bay Street trees Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 5:34:12 PM
To City Council members and City staff:
I have always loved trees. The very old American Elm trees on Bay Street were a huge part of our decision to buy the house at 1131 Bay Street back in 1994. I didn’t begrudge the extra annual property tax of as high as $350 to fund the Landscape and Lighting district for our block. We all wanted our trees to have whatever enhancements they needed to survive Dutch Elm Disease and the damage from pruning around electrical wires. We met periodically with our partners in Public Works, consulting arborists, and other experts to jointly decide how to best maintain this vibrant tree cover. The dollars we taxed ourselves were used for more regular pruning, testing, treatments and costs for replacement trees that were above and beyond what the City’s budget could provide.
We knew the trees would eventually succumb, so we researched new varieties of elms and other species that could provide a similar tree canopy.
I tell you all this so you understand what a positive and value-added relationship we’ve had with the City. It was a simple, cooperative agreement, spelled out in writing: we were willing to pay more tax to ensure our trees had the very best chance to thrive as long as possible – and be replaced with hardier species when they had to go – and, this work would be done in consultation with us.
So I’m having trouble getting my head around the idea that my city’s government recently called off the terms of the original MOU, unilaterally, without notifying us, and that you now consider the remaining dollars yours to use for routine work that your budget covers for every other block in town. That means we are being taxed twice for this work. Plus, our trees have lost their primary advocates – those of us who see and appreciate them every day.
Ethically and legally, all remaining funds paid to the Zone 7 fund by homeowners on 1100-1200 Bay Street should only be used for maintenance above and beyond that offered by the City for any street tree in town. If our L&L District has become too cumbersome to maintain transparently, in partnership with us, I urge you to disband the special district, apply a rebate over time to each homeowner’s property tax bill, or refund the remaining funds to District members so we can continue to use them for their intended purpose, beautification of our street.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Christine Buck
1131 Bay Street
From: sally damsen
To: [email protected]; Jennifer Ott; CityCouncil-List; Yibin Shen; Liz Acord; Len Aslanian; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bay St. Lighting and Landscape District Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 11:52:23 AM
My husband, Fred Damsen and I have been residents of the 1100, 1200 block of Bay St. since 1980.
In order to preserve our Elm trees, we neighbors agreed to establish a special assessment district to protect these beautiful trees for as long as possible. This assessment was above and beyond our regular property taxes.
Other neighborhoods saw these trees being cut down as a way to prevent the spread of Dutch Elm Disease. Our District funding enabled us to hire arborists to test the trees, give injections, and pesticides. In so doing, over these 37 years, we saved many of these trees so that, now, there are 9 remaining original Elms.
We were very surprised and disappointed to learn of the recent change in the way the City was spending the special assessment funds for basic tree maintenance that has typically been paid for on other streets by the City.
It is our understanding that these expenditures were made without the consent of our block, and with no further notice from the City.
We request that the expenditures going forward on our trees be paid for from the City's General Fund for any testing and removal.
As well, we request that the City dissolve the District, and that it refund any funds not used for member-approved purposes to a trust or homeowner's association to be created by the members so that the money can be used for its intended purpose.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sally and Fred Damsen
1243 Bay St.
From: Gig Codiga
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella Subject: [EXTERNAL] June 20, 2023 Agenda Item 7-C Regarding Bay St. and Pending Issues with MOU, Use of Existing District Funds, and Future Assessments
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 10:02:08 AM
June 20th City Council Meeting: Item 7-C 2023-3146
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Executive Summary:
Alignment: The Staff Recommendation to Direct Staff to Engage with the Property Owners of Landscaping & Lighting District Zone 7 to Explore Specific Options Regarding the Future of Zone 7 and No Assessment which makes sense.
Action: City Council to direct the City’s Public Works to pay for the normal city services, as provided for in other districts, out of the General Fund.
Action: Reject the proposed modified Resolution which is totally inconsistent with the existing understanding, agreement and resolution between the City and District 7.
Alignment: The City and Zone 7 has achieved the purpose to preserve the Bay Street Elm tree Urban Forest for as long as we could.
Points:
1. The Landscape & Lighting District 7 (100% residential) was relied upon and established with the advice and guidance of the City’s Head of Public Works, Bill Norton, and was fully executed by the parties.
2. The L&L D7 was established to protect the tree canopy with the sole purpose to pay for ENHANCED MAINTENANCE (Resolution 11049 – public notice)
3. The City is fully responsible for tree and neighborhood maintenance as they do for other residential neighborhoods.
4. The self-imposed levy was exclusively earmarked for Enhancement purpose and reliant on the City to fulfill their obligations at the City’s costs.
5. District 7 members pay into the General Fund, as do other property owners in Alameda, for City tree maintenance services, thus using District 7 money for City’s responsibilities is a double payment by these members.
6. The City has no right to assess the district, which can only be “determined by the property owners and City staff.” (Resolution)
7. The City has no right to “unilaterally spend District 7’s money of the assessment district. (MOU)
8. District 7 has never, knowingly, paid for, nor approved, any tree removal.
9. The City has followed the MOU and Resolution and its intent and purpose for over 35 years.
Discussion:
I am a member of the Landscaping & Lighting District 7, a 100 % residential district whereas the other districts are overwhelmingly commercial districts.
The proposed Resolution is contrary to the original intentions of the City and the members of District
7. Per our agreements, the City cannot unilaterally assess District 7; The City cannot charge for normal services the City provides other residential areas; District 7 funds are ONLY for Enhancement Services.
District 7 does not support the City’s staff recommendation to modify the MOU nor the 1986 Resolution 11049, which are connected to each other and are memorialized by both the City and the District.
In the beginning, under the advice and guidance of the City via the Head of City Public Works, Bill Norton (later to be the City Manager), together we signed the MOU and the City passed Resolution 11049 to join the Landscaping & Lighting district. The MOU and Resolution, as signed by the Mayor Corica and City Manager Wonder, Stands As Is.
These documents set clear boundaries and responsibilities as to what the City is responsible for (e.g., Services the City performs at no extra charge for other residential districts).
The Resolution is clear “Whereas, the stated purpose in the petition of the assessment district is to provide ENHANCED MAINTENANCE…”
Furthermore, the MOU and Resolution clearly intended that “In NO event should the City of Alameda UNILATERALLY spend the money NOR ASSESS the district…” Modifying the agreements is not aligned with the good faith of both parties nor past practices and disrupts the good relationship District 7 has had with the City for 37 years.
We were surprised upon looking back and seeing, buried in the Mid Year budget an adjustment, item C26, wrongfully tapping into District’s monies to the tune of $37,000 to enhance the city’s budget.
And, we were surprised by the commingling of City’s funds with District funds.
The facts are clear, until otherwise resolved the City must abide by agreements and continue the 35+-years of collaboration that has worked well to protect the Urban Forest on Bay Street, and thus, stay true to the mutually intended and agreed upon MOU and Resolution 11049.
With Respect
Gig Codiga
1242 B
Best Regards
Be Well
Gig Codiga
650-922-0554
Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up ange r.
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.
From: Felicia Reid
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Yibin Shen; Jennifer Ott; Lara Weisiger; Len Aslanian; Liz Acord; Julie Conner Subject: [EXTERNAL] June 20, 2023 Agenda Item 7-C, Bay St. Landscape & Lighting District 84-2, Zone 7 Date: Sunday, June 18, 2023 12:39:39 PM
Attachments: June 20 2023 City Council Submission from Bay St Members.pdf Please see attached correspondence.
Julie Conner, 1209 Bay St.
Felicia R. Reid, 1215 Bay St.
June 18, 2023
To: Alameda City Council Members
Cc: City Manager Jennifer Ott, Public Works Director Erin Smith, City Attorney’s Office
From: Julie Conner (1209 Bay St.) and Felicia Reid (1215 Bay St.) on behalf of the Residents of the 1100-1200 Block of Bay Street (Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 7) (“Bay Street District” or “Zone 7”)
Re: June 20, 2023 Agenda Item 7-C Regarding Bay St. and Pending Issues with MOU, Use of Existing District Funds, and Future Assessments
We are writing on behalf of the property owners of the Bay Street District (“Members”) to register our strong objection to the City using special assessment monies – paid by Members only for member-approved enhanced purposes – for routine and necessary tree work, as proposed by the April 23, 2023 Engineer’s Report for both FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24.
We are requesting the City Council to:
Reject the proposal to use Zone 7 funds for tree testing, removal and replacement in FY 2023-24;
Direct City staff to fund the currently proposed tree testing, removal and replacement for both FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 from the City’s General Fund; Dissolve the Bay Street District; and
Refund to Members the balance of monies remaining in the Zone 7 assessment fund (after returning any FY 2022-23 deduction for testing and removal to the fund) to enable us to ensure our special assessment monies are used only for the purposes for which they were collected.
We estimate that since the Bay Street District was formed, Members have paid more than $250,000 in special assessments, over and above their property taxes, to fund additional landscape and lighting work beyond what the City would otherwise provide to them as property owners. In the beginning, the expenditures were for enhanced maintenance to save our elm trees from Dutch Elm Disease – an effort that was successful. More recently, as our elms have succumbed to old age, these funds have been used to buy larger replacement trees than what the City would normally provide. Although the City has never provided us with a complete accounting, we estimate that more than $75,000 of our Member special assessments remains unspent for Member-approved enhanced services. None of these funds legally may be used for standard testing, removal and replacement of trees.
Over the past six weeks, our Members have submitted a petition signed by 37 of 38 of our Members expressing our position and met with City staff, both individually and as a group. We had an informative and cordial meeting on May 23, 2023, with the Assistant City Manager, the Public Works Director and Public Works staff, attended by 75% of our Members. Our Members are fully engaged on this issue and in near unanimity in objecting to the use of Members’ special assessment monies for services and work the City would pay for itself were this any other residential block. We have also had discussions with Public Works staff and the City Attorney to better understand their perspectives on the situation.
We have learned that in recent years the City has not administered the Zone Fund in accordance with the terms of the MOU and the 1986 City Council Resolution creating the Bay Street District. The City staff’s rationale is their inability to find documentation that the City Council ever formally approved the MOU. However, the 1986 City Council Resolution clearly specifies that the express purpose of the District was to provide “enhanced maintenance” on the block, and that the “special assessments for enhanced maintenance” were to “annually be determined by the property owners and City staff.” The MOU simply provides further detail on the process for carrying out the 1986 Resolution, including how property owners would determine what “enhanced maintenance” they wanted and would be willing to pay for through Member-approved special assessments.
In any event, the City never notified the Members that it was ignoring the MOU until we received the April 13, 2023 letter from Public Works Director Erin Smith. The City’s sole communications had been with two District representatives, to whom it was not apparent that anything had changed or that Member funds were being used for improper purposes – until just prior to April 13. Meanwhile, for many years the Members have paid the special assessments they themselves had proposed, in reliance on the MOU and 1986 Resolution, and with the understanding that these voluntary special assessment payments beyond their regular property taxes would be used only for enhanced and optional landscape and lighting purposes. The City had a duty to inform all Members as taxpayers of any change in basis or use of the special assessments, but it never did so. Instead, it continued to collect the special assessments voted on by the Members themselves up through FY 2020-21, and in doing so ratified the MOU by its conduct. It cannot now use those special assessment monies for purposes different than the purposes for which they were collected. This would in effect result in an improper double taxation of our Members and would clearly be unlawful.
Our Members strongly object to using their special assessment monies for tree testing, removal, and replacement as reflected in the FY 2022-23 budget. The City Council approved expenditure of these funds in February 2023 without meaningful notice to our Members or an opportunity to respond. Our Members also strongly object to the use of their special assessment monies as proposed in the Engineer’s Report for FY 2023-24, which is presented to the City Council for final approval at the June 20 meeting, to the extent those expenditures cover tree removal and routine replacement, which are the City’s responsibility to us as property owners. Instead, we ask the City Council to direct City staff to use General Funds to pay for testing, removal and replacement of trees on our block in both FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 to the same extent these services would be funded by the City for residents on any other block.
It is clear to the Members that the current situation is untenable due to the commingling of our special assessment contributions with City monies, the lack of a complete accounting, and even now the City staff’s complete disregard for the purpose of the special assessments. The Members are therefore additionally requesting that the City dissolve the Bay Street District and refund to the Members the monies remaining in the Zone 7 fund. The Zone 7 fund balance is currently about $98,000. Unless the City can establish through a complete and appropriate accounting what portion, if any, of the fund balance is attributable to unspent City contributions to the Zone 7 fund (thus not attributable to Members’ special assessments and Member-approved expenditures), it is our position that the entire Zone 7 fund balance should be refunded. The Members are currently in discussions about creating a homeowner’s association or trust dedicated to enhanced maintenance to receive these refunded monies so as to ensure that they are used properly and in accordance with the purposes for which they were collected from Members.