From: Christi Toa
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] File 2026-6158 - Final Passage of the GO Bond Ordinance and Resolution Calling the November 3, 2026 Election (SAFER Alameda Act)
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 9:43:19 AM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers, I live in Alameda Landing, and I support fixing Alameda's infrastructure. I am not asking you to stop this measure. I am asking for one thing before it goes to the voters: put on the record why a fairer, cost-linked funding structure was not evaluated, and what it would actually cost, so residents can cast an informed vote in November.
BOTTOM LINE
- The bond is repaid by one citywide tax on assessed value. Per the Tax Rate Statement (Exhibit 1 to this item), that is about $47.97 per $100,000 of assessed value on average, up to a maximum of $49.49, levied through about 2061, and $662,197,756 in total debt service to repay $300 million.
- By law that levy cannot be tailored by neighborhood or made less regressive. The City's own presenters confirmed this on July 7: with an infrastructure bond, the tax "must be based on the assessed valuation."
- Fairer, cost-linked options exist, and the City already uses one. A tax based on lot size or square footage, whether through a parcel tax or a Community Facilities District (CFD), can be pledged to repay bonds just like this one, but ties what an owner pays to the burden the property creates. Alameda Landing's own CFD No. 13-1 already finances infrastructure this way, and the City's own December 2025 poll tested a square-foot parcel tax to repay bonds. - None of those alternatives was evaluated in this measure's materials, and the fairness of the mechanism is not analyzed in them. Two councilmembers said so on the record on July 7.
WHY THE ASSESSED-VALUE STRUCTURE IS A PROBLEM
Alameda Landing already paid for its own infrastructure. As a condition of development, our neighborhood pre-funded its public improvements through CFD No. 13-1, whose special tax bonds we are still repaying, and we pay a second CFD for ongoing services. The citywide bond now asks us to also fund the rest of the city's needs, at our recent-purchase assessed values, on top of a neighborhood burden most of the city does not carry, with no credit for having already paid our own way.
It also runs backwards on cost. Because Proposition 13 ties assessed value to purchase price, this tax falls hardest on recent buyers and on newer, denser, smaller homes, even though those households place less strain per unit on streets, parking, and infrastructure than large, low- density lots. The residents doing what good planning asks get the largest bill.
FAIRER, COST-LINKED OPTIONS EXIST, AND THEIR REAL COST
A lot-area or square-foot parcel tax, or a Community Facilities District, can tie cost to the burden a property creates, and can be structured so that neighborhoods already funding their own infrastructure pay only their fair share of citywide needs rather than a full assessed-value levy on top. Each of these can be pledged to repay bonds, so this is not a choice between fixing infrastructure and being fair. On July 7, the City's team told the Council that a comparable parcel tax "would cost taxpayers more on average." A general obligation bond is generally the cheapest way to borrow, but the gap is modest, and the City has not shown the public the numbers. Alameda Landing's own CFD is a useful yardstick: its 2021 Special Tax Bonds carried 4.00% coupons with reoffering yields up to 2.45% on the 30-year maturity, and those were high-risk, developer-stage, subordinate bonds; a citywide approach over thousands of existing homes would likely borrow on better terms. A small cost difference should be weighed openly against a real gain in fairness.
THE CONCERN WAS RAISED, AND IT IS NOT IN THE RECORD
I raised this through the City's community survey, using the survey's "Comments/Questions" space. The City reports that survey drew about 1,700 responses and more than 675 public comments, but the survey only asked residents to rank project priorities, and the content of those comments was not summarized or included anywhere in the materials the Council received, even as the plan is described as "anchored in community feedback." It was also raised out loud. At the July 7 meeting (video timestamps in parentheses), resident Mitch Ball urged a lot-area parcel tax for three reasons: it ties cost to the burden a property creates, it falls more lightly on the least wealthy, and it encourages housing rather than discouraging it; he also noted a bond need not be repaid by a property tax at all (about 2:04).
Councilmember Boller pressed on whether the tax could be made less regressive, and the City's team answered that a general obligation bond leaves no choice, and that a fairer square- foot parcel tax had been dropped because it did not poll near two-thirds, not because it was less fair (about 1:38). Councilmember Jensen stated that there may be less-regressive, more robust revenue options, that "those options were not considered," and that this is "the only one put forward for consideration by Alameda residents" (about 2:33).
WHAT I AM ASKING, BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE ON JULY 21
1. Direct staff to state on the record either why a fairer, cost-linked alternative (such as a lot- area or square-foot parcel tax or a Community Facilities District) was not evaluated, or that it simply was not, and to quantify the actual cost difference between such an approach and the assessed-value bond.
2. Commit to evaluating a fair, cost-linked alternative that credits what neighborhoods like ours already pay toward our own infrastructure, so we pay a fair rate rather than the full citywide levy on top of it. I want to pay my fair share, not avoid it. This can be done within the time the November ballot requires.
This measure is very likely headed to the November ballot, where residents will decide it. All I am asking is that the record, and what voters are told, be honest and complete about the alternatives: whether fairer, cost-linked options were evaluated, and what they would actually cost. That is what lets us cast an informed vote. Thank you for your time and your service.
Respectfully,
Christi Toa
SOURCES
- Exhibit 1 Tax Rate Statement, File 2026-6158 (source of the $47.97 average, $49.49 maximum, and $662,197,756 total debt service figures):
https://alameda.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15683768&GUID=519111AE-2C84- 45E6-9672-6ACF01DAAD37
- July 7, 2026 City Council meeting record, including the supplemental memo that reports about 1,700 survey responses and more than 675 public comments, both FM3 poll question sets, the presentation, ordinance, and
resolution: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=8120940&GUID=0FEE9222-1348-4A4B-9FB2-
F6E62760BB5A&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
- July 7, 2026 meeting video (Councilmember Boller ~1:38; resident Mitch Ball ~2:04; Councilmember Jensen ~2:33): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYJgDo8431k - City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements), 2021 Special Tax Bonds, interest rates and yields (base CUSIP 010780):
https://emma.msrb.org/P31526796.pdf
and https://emma.msrb.org/P31532269.pdf
--
Regards,
Christi Toa