the time is 749. This is the regular city council meeting for the city of Emoryville. Adam Clark, I'd like to note that all members are still seated. At this time, I will take a approval of the final agenda. We do have one modification and this is to enter agenda item 12.2 exhibit C fiscal year 2025 mid-year budget adjustments. So please consider that for the approval. Motion to approve the final agenda as amended with the attachment. Second. Now, I'm clerked the roll. Council Member Price Force. Aye. Council Member Solomon. Hi. Council member Welch. Hi. Vice Mayor Carr. Hi. And Mayor Mora. Hi. Motion carries. Special orders of the day. The proclamation of the city of Emoryville. Recognizing April 6 through 12th as National Crime Victims Rights Week. Whereas more than 26 million people become victims of crimes each year and these crimes affect family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, victim witness assistance division is dedicated to ensuring the rights of crime victims and their families by providing services to aid in their recovery from the emotional psychological, social, and economic impact of crime as they reclaim their sense of safety, well-being, and dignity. The victim witness assistance division staff assists victims of crime without regard to a person's race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity or immigration status. And victims are faced with many challenges because of crime, oftentimes victims enter systems that fail to meet their needs, provide appropriate services and fail to treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. And involving survivors helps victim service providers and criminal justice professionals understand the culture, values, and expectations of underserved victims who seek assistance and justice. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Victim Witness Assistance Division, was the first such program established in 1974, beginning with one victim advocate. Today, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Victim Witness Assistance Division, employs more than 50 individuals, dedicated to working with victims of crime. And in 1984, the Crime Victims Fund was established by Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, to provide a permanent source of support for crime victim services and compensation. Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Victim Witness Assistance Division, partners with survivors, community justice providers, criminal justice professionals and victim advocates that work together to enhance a criminal justice system response that is accessible, culturally competent, and appropriate for all victims of crime. In 2024, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Victim Witness Assistance Division, provided over 721 services to more than 105 crime victims in Emoryville, including but not limited to, child victims of violence and sexual abuse, stalking victims, survivors of homicide victims, human trafficking, crimes against elders, and dependent adults, sexual assault, domestic violence, robbery, and other crimes. For victims of crime without independent financial means, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office victim witnessed assistance division, facilitated financial support through the California Victim Compensation Board program, Cal VCB. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office victim witness assistance division has been a leader in outreach and services to underserved populations, including commercial sexual exploitation of children, sexual assault victims from cold hit DNA cases immigrant victims urban youth victims in the LGBT QIA a plus community and victims with physical intellectual and or developmental disabilities. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office, victim witness assistance division has been bridging the gap between law enforcement and the community and building the community's trust in the criminal justice system, and whereas National Crime Victims Rights Week, April 6 through 12 2025, presents an opportunity to victim rights week in the city of Emeryville and the city council affirms its commitment to the city of Emeryville and the city council affirms its commitment to the city of Emeryville and Victim Rights Week in the city of Emryville and the city council affirms its commitment to the respect and to respect and enforce victim rights and address their needs. We express our appreciation for those victims and survivors of crime who have turned personal tragedy into a motivating force to improve the response to victims of crime and build a more just community. As proclaimed by the mayor of the city council of the city of Emoryville at Dixon, we receive this proclamation. We thank you for the proclamation and we really are excited about the work that they do as we do. And as a victim witness advocate, I am one that deals with mainly the homicides. And so it is an excellent program and has helped many people. And we just thank you for the recognition and all that you do. Thank you so much. Next we have announcement of commission and committee vacancies. I don't have report this evening. Thank you. Council members special announcements or reports on meeting attendance. City managers report. Thank you Mayor. No report this evening. Do Any questions? Any questions? Any questions? Any questions? Any questions? Any questions? Any questions? Any questions? Any questions? Any for the public. Any exparte communications. Now is the time for public comment on the consent agenda or items not on the agenda. Seeing the members of the public. Next is the consent calendar. Members, are there any items that you'd like to pull from the consent calendar or do we have a motion to approve? Member price. Yes, I'd like to pull 10.7. This is the resolution of the city council of the city of Emoryville authorizing a grant agreement for $266,000. Okay Okay let's do we have a motion for the consent calendar excluding 10.7? Motion to approve consent calendar excluding 10.7. Seconded. We have a motion and a second. Madam clerk the roll. Council member privars. Aye. member Solomon. I council member Welch. I vice mayor car. I and mayor moira. I motion carries. Next we have public hearings. The first item is a. We do have to review and then vote on 7.7. Yes, as are for the action. I'll discuss it with the action items. Thank you. Sorry. Item 11 is the noise waiver hearing. Members, are you amenable to waving presentation for this noise waiver? Yes. Yes. No presentation needed. Thank you. This being a public hearing. The time is now. The public hearing is now open at 7.59 p.m. Are there members of the I'm looking forward to seeing you again. Thank you. I'm looking forward to seeing you again. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.59pm. Are there members of the public wishing to comment on the noise waiver request? Seeing no members of the public, the time is 7.59. This is now closed. Members, are there any questions or discussion on this item or a motion? Motion to approve the noise weaver Resolution we have a motion the second madam clerk the role council member pry force Aye, council member Solomon aye council member Welch aye vice mayor car aye and mayor moira aye motion carries Next is action items and let's take the pulled action item from the consent calendar 10.7. Do we have a presentation on this item or should we? Happy to answer any questions you may have we do not have a prepared presentation for this item as it's a consent item. There enough. Do we have any questions from council on this item? Amber Price Force? Yes. Before we approve of this funding, I wanted to ask if there has been a history with this development as it relates to issues that this funding could or could not, cannot address. Like to ask economic development manager. Valerie Bernardo is she's working closely with this property owner. Good evening. So yes, there were some tenant complaints that came in in 2024 related to some concerns at the property. There was a code enforcement violation notice that was issued related to some of the items that they identified. This funding could have been used to address some of those issues, but the property is going to use their remaining reserves to address those issues. So these funds would come in to provide additional funding to address some additional maintenance issues that the property has. Thank you. Number Car. Valerie, I just like to ask one more question. So are you going to have a timeline for accountability of how the funds are being used just like you had before for the PIP for those you gave the loans to? So it comes to accountability because it will be used as a capitalized reserve. They will have to submit a request anytime they want to withdraw the funds from their reserve account related to the $266,000 that potentially will be providing to them. Any additional reserves that are in that account that come from the regular rent roll. They don't have to submit those to us, but yes, they would have to submit a request. The city would review that. We do that on a couple of other properties, and then we notify them. Yes, it's okay to withdraw the funds from their account. Thank you. Any other questions, members? Thank you, Valerie. We'll now take public comment on this item. Are there members of the public wishing to speak on 10.7? Seeing none, I'll move this back to discussion. Members, do we have a motion? Motion. Member Price Force. So I just want to stress to those who are residents of that property that this funding will be able to remedy some of the issues, but not all of the issues. We want to encourage you to keep fighting a good fight and then hopefully we'll get to a place where many of the issues that you have had concerning this property, concerning this owner and property manager will be remedied. Thank you. We have a motion from Vice Mayor. I'll make the motion to approve 10.7. Second. Madam Clerk, the roll. Council member Pryforce. Aye. Council member Solomon. Aye. Council member Welch. Aye. Vice Mayor Carr. Aye. And Mayor Mora. Aye. Motion carries. Next we have item 12.1. Resolution of the City Council authorizing city manager to commit to a permanent financing development loan. Welcome back. Thank you. So we do have a presentation this evening. So again, I'm Valar Bernardo, the Economic Development and Housing Manager. And tonight, I want to talk with you guys in regards to a request to authorize a permanent development loan and issue a second amendment to a lease disposition and development agreement for our 4300 sand Pablo Avenue affordable housing project. Next slide. So little background. This background does not go back as far as this project has been aroundize the release of an RFQP. And you'll see at the bottom of all of my slides, if there is an acronym, I've tried to identify it at some point at the bottom. So, release of that RFQ RFP for an intergenerational rental housing development at our 4300 San Pablo Avenue site. in July of 2020, the council did select EAH as the developer for the project. And in March of 2021, the city council committed the Alameda County Measure A1 bond to this project, which is about $2.5 million. In September of 2021, the state adopted SB Senate Bill 591, authorizing the creation of intergenerational housing. The reason that was so critical was because it previously was not an allowable use. It was a fair housing violation in the state of California because there are intergenerational projects elsewhere in the country, but in the state of California, there was a fair housing violation. So the city council in addition to the developer worked with the state legislators to get a legislation put in place so that we could actually do intergenerational housing. Also in September of 2022, the council authorized the execution of the land disposition and development agreement or the least disposition and development agreement. And then in December of 22, the community development department actually issued the entitlements for the project. They did that through a streamlined process to where the community development director was actually able to approve the project. In October of 2024, Alameda County extended the construction commencement date related to their A1 bond funding to October of 2027. Previously, it had a requirement that construction had to commence within three years, which would have been in 2024. There was no way that was going to happen and I'll get a little bit into later why. And so subsequently also City Council, you guys also authorized us to amend the construction loan closing deadline within our LDDA. We actually did a two year extension taking us to October, 2026. Next slide. So what was the 4,300 San Pablo intergenerational project? It was going to be a five story building with 68 units. A 13 of those units were gonna be dedicated towards transitional age youth. 54 of those units were set aside for seniors. And one unit was going to be set aside for the property management company staff. There's gonna be 7,000 square feet of amenity space. The courtyard was gonna be on the second level of the property. There were gonna be a minimum minimum of 17 parking spaces, maximum of 34, depending upon whether or not they actually did stack or parking. And then the units were going to be set aside for the rents, let me refer to that. The rents would be set between 20 to 60% of the area median income. Serving households between 0 and 60% of AMI, at least 35 of the 68 units were going to be specifically dedicated to serve those households between 0 and 30% of AMI and the rents would be set at that level. And there is a rendering of what the approved project looks like. Next slide. The financing that was proposed for this project was about $52 million, which is what was needed in order to develop this project. The land was going to come from the city. It was going to be a donation. We also had the Alameda County A1 bond that $2.5 million. They were going to seek funding from the State Department of Housing and Community Development through their multi-family housing program, MHP, for about 17 million. Look for federal home loan bank fundings of a million. Tax credits, 25 million. They were going to take on debt of about 4.4 million. We had received a HUD earmark for this project of 500,000. And then they were going to also contribute about $3.5 million in equity. The development timeline required that they would seek tax credit financing by March of 2024 and then of course originally they were going to have to close on construction by October of 2024. So that was what was originally proposed. Next slide. So what are the problems that we've had? So the first one I already mentioned, intergenerational housing projects were in a loud in California. We did solve that by getting SB 591 signed into law so that we could move forward with this project. That was the first delay we had in moving this project forward from when the developer was selected. The second issue we have is the measure A1 housing bond requires 20% of the units to be set aside for households at 20% of the area median income. Projects need rental subsidy programs like the project based voucher program in order to support units at 20% of the AMI. That's the only way a project serving that low level of income can move forward. Third problem, the developer cannot apply for financing for a project that does require rental subsidy until they were secure the rental subsidy. So what issue has that created? The Housing Authority of Alameda County or HACCA has delayed the release of a notice of funding availability for project-based vouchers since 2022. We've been in conversations with them since late 2021. Once we finally got the intergenerational housing project issue addressed and about every quarter or so they've identified that one is forthcoming and then they have delayed it. They probably since 2022 have delayed the release of that NOFA about five to six times. And at the end of 2024, they announced that they would not be issuing a NOFA that year. And potentially they would not be able to issue one in 2025 because they have a funding shortfall. They've also sent another notice reminding us that they still have that funding shortfall, so one will not come in 2025. So what does that mean without project-based vouchers? The project can't support any debt. Next slide. Then our fourth problem. The financing assumptions that were provided in the project are no longer accurate. It's been five years. So construction costs have risen 8% in five years. The project site is no longer located in a HUD designated difficult to develop an area, which results in a loss of tax credit funding that the project would be eligible for. The project also through the multifamily housing program, that program has changed its guidelines. So previously in the second round of funding for MHP guidelines, there was an additional $25,000 per unit that the project would have been eligible for because it was serving special need populations that is no longer an eligibility requirement for that additional $25,000. So we no longer have access to that funding. And then the last part of the MHP funding is, the last round of MHP funding is April 15th, 2025. And today is April 1st, 2025. This funding is set to be completely exhausted from the state. So whether or not this funding program will come next year, we just don't know. So what does that result in? Well, that gives us about a $12 million funding gap for this project. That's assuming without the rental subsidies, they can't support any debt that funding is gone. That project-based voucher is required in order to use the AC Valumina County A1 bond. So if that funding comes out of the project, and then the loss of the tax credits, the loss of the ability funds from MHP, it gives us a $12 million shortfall. Next slide. So what is our solution? We're recommending the first thing is that the city amends the least disposition in development agreement to revise the scope of development so that the project will have rent set between 30 and 60% of AMI and set of the 20 and 60% that no less than 14 of the units will serve households below 30% of AMI which we call extremely low income. low income that there will be 14, not 13 transitional age youth units. And we've also recommended that if the we call extremely low income, that there will be 14, not 13, transitional age youth units. And we've also recommended that if the developer EAH is able to secure project-based vouchers by some chance over the next couple years, if vouchers are available and they're able to secure them, that the developer will increase the number of units serving extremely low income households, so that at least 20% of the units will be set aside for the 20% AMI group. The second request is that the city commit an amount not to exceed the $12.7 million funding shortfall as a permanent financing loan for the 4,300 San Pablo project. We have reached out to the Alameda County and talked with them about whether or not a waiver is possible for the 20% AMI requirement, which is why this that was embedded into the project that would have to go before their board of supervisors, but the application is due April 15 for MHP funding. not enough time to go before the Board of Supervisors for that application. So we're recommending that City Council commit the full 12.5 and if the Board of Supervisors is a- before the Board of Supervisors for that application. So we're recommending that the City Council commit the full 12.5. And if the Board of Supervisors is able to issue a waiver that the city would then actually only commit 10.2 million, but we want authorization to do the full amount in case the county is not able to remove that waiver requirement of the 20% of AMI. Currently, the city does have about $14 million in uncommitted measure-sea housing bond funds and low-mod income housing asset funds that is available to support this project. Those funds under the measure-sea housing bond would come from our development opportunity program as well as our special need housing program. Third, we're recommending that the developer go ahead and move forward with submitting an application for MHP by the April 15, 2025 deadline, so that they don't lose this last opportunity to apply for MHP funds. Next slide. So what does that mean? How does that change the project? So the revised development scope would be that the units would be targeted to 30 to 60% of AMI, no less than again 14 units at that 30%. I provided a chart just to kind of show you what that means. They have units within the project that would be designated at 30, 40, 50 and 60% of AMI. And so you'll see for a studio unit, the 30% of AMI units would cost a tenant approximately $731 up to a household at 60% of AMI, the maximum rent would be 15, or the potential rent would be 1553. The incomes that would be served would be households up to $65,400. The city's investment into this project, instead of just being the land would be no more than the $12.7 million for this project to move forward. Next slide. So what would the impact of these requests being related to funding? The failure for the developer to apply for MHP by this April 15, 2025 deadline is going to delay the project from being able to move forward until another funding source has been identified and is released. That will result in further increased in construction cost and the ability to obtain a tax credit award by 2026 would require the funding to already be in place because tax credits is the last source of funding that a project seeks that would then require the City Council again to authorize us to revise the deadline to close on construction and would also require the county to require to do an extension of their timeline to commence construction. If funding for the project is not secured in 2025, they cannot apply for tax credits and both the council and the county would have to do another extension. Relarct guarding income targeting, there's no guarantee as to Wenhaka will have the ability to release a notice of funding availability for project-based vouchers. Thereby providing the rental subsidy that's required in order to support 20% of AMI rents. We've all heard of some of the challenges that have been happening in our current federal government system, programs have already been cut. And if they're already receiving an issue with funding for the project-based voucher program currently. That is a proposed reduction that will happen. And so I think this will be an issue that is around for several years. Additionally, households below 20% of AMI still can be served at the project. I wanna make sure that that's extremely clear what the rents would be set at 30% of AMI. So it's not that people at below 20 couldn't live at this project. It's just that the rent is set at the 30% of AMI level. Next slide. So we're again coming here today to request you guys to authorize the city manager to commit loan up to $12.7 million between the city and EAH for the development of the 4,300 San Pablo project as well as a second amendment to our least disposition and development agreement allowing us to change the scope of development that's been outlawing here tonight. And I'm available if there's any questions. Thank you Valerie. I just want to clarify in question upfront. This is essentially the same proposal that's been recommended or the same recommendation that was presented previously during the closed session. Apologies, questions, members? Thank you. So can you share a little more more so the number of apartments that are that would be to 30% that has shrunken right then the number of units available? Correct. Previously we required. And go back in my notes because right now it's not 35 of the units at 35. And now we're at 14. 14. Okay, okay. So with the 14% where am I getting 14% with the 20% of the AMI. So that means then that who are at 20% AMI, their cap in terms of the amount of income that it can earn will be set at 30% in the pricing of the unit will be at 30%. Correct. I think that that's great. I think that's a great compromise. But I'd like to also see a compromise in the number of units available. Should funding become available, that these units, that there is a target in the future maybe visited every two years wherein they're able to, if they're able to secure the funding, increase the number of units that serve that number. It's yeah, so is that possible for us to make that demand or have or set that expectation? 1000% in fact, we've already included it. So we did include the requirement that if they're able to receive project based in future, before they actually go to construction, commencing construction, that they would be required to ensure that, again, 20% of the units are set aside for household at 20% of AMI. In addition to the 14 we already have. So that would get us back to the 35. What about post construction after they built, they're fully operational, that sort of thing. Is that something that could be? That unfortunately is not something. So when financing, financiers look at the project, they're underwriting it based on the projections that are provided up front. So if there was some kind of requirement that in the future, they would want to underwrite it that way today. And that would change the entire landscape of how the project could potentially get funded. And whether or not it actually could generate enough revenue in order to be sustainable and again be qualified to receive funding. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Valerie. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you that the project has been a very important project. The project went through in order to explore the solutions to make the project happen and move it forward. And with that, I can make the motion unless someone has other comments. I just want to thank Valerie. I know it can be you know, something it's been very challenging. But I appreciate your work and Chad's work on pivoting to make sure that this project goes through. We've seen it not necessarily in Inriville, but across the region that when the funding trials and tribulations as they feel like come through, Many cities, they just, they hit a wall and then they just still abandon the project. And so this is something that's necessary, something that we've promised to our community, something that's going to be very necessary, something that we know is very necessary seniors and stage youth are to demographics that we know are highly housing insecure and make up a lot of the population that are experiencing homelessness here in the Bay Area and across the nation. And so I'm happy to see this project in forward and for just thank you for remaining flexible and trying to figure out how to keep this project moving forward and I will be happy to second at advice mayors motion. Adam Clerk, the role. Oh, member pry force, go ahead. So I want to to the comments that were shared earlier in terms of the pivoting. I do have my concerns about the number of units shrinking and I completely understand the the times that were in and then financially economically that securing as many units and in units of that number of the 20% AMI. But when it comes to the amount of units that the city of Emeryville promises to produce, we have fallen short. Even though this does meet the ELI, extra low income, that 20% population, AMI population is what I'm concerned about. And so, if there's a way that we can still secure, so that we are explicitly targeting 20% AMI residents to be able to qualify and fill those units, even though they'll be paying at 30% AMI that if there's a way to secure that to make sure that they are honoring that. I mean, because sometimes they'll be on paper, but in the actual practice of it may not look like what we want, what we desire. So I am leaning towards approving, but it is something that I'd like to take a look at, I guess, as this develops to make sure that that's something that we are, that that's being honored that we that they are targeting the 20% AMI and those who can meet that 30% AMI pricing. Okay. Madam clerk the roll. Council member pry force. Aye. Council member Solomon. Aye. Council member. I am I pricing. I'm clerked the role. Council member Pry force. Aye. Council member Solomon. Aye. Council member Welch. Aye. Nice mayor Carr. Aye. And mayor Mora. Aye. Motion carries. Next we have 12.2. The resolution amending fiscal year 2024 2025 budget. Thank you, Mayor Mremes, the council. Brian Moira from RGS, your finance consultant. On March 4th, we came before you to talk about the 2425 general fund major amendments. And we told you at at that meeting we'd be back this month to talk about the amendments for all funds. So that's what's up tonight. So just to go through some background, the 23-25 budget was adopted in June of 2023. And it covers both last fiscal year and this fiscal year. And as we note on the slide on March 4th, several general fund budget adjustments were made, bring the budget into balance, including reallocating all of the residual property tax funds to the general fund, rather than splitting it 50-50 with other funds, transferring $5 million from the economic uncertainty reserve and $2 million from the capital fund, and also establishing a 20% target for the general fund on assigned balance. What we're going to talk to you about tonight is a process where the finance department, city manager and city departments met over the last several weeks developing detailed bid your budget adjustments for all funds and those are shown in attachments one, two, and three. Next slide. So just to recap a little bit of what happened in March, this is a list of the general fund adjustments that you adopted as we noted, including the reallocation of the residual property tax funds reducing the expenditures this year by leaving $2 million worth of positions either vacant or operational cuts, the two transfers merging the economic uncertainty reserve and disaster reserves, establishing the 20% policy and also assigning $3.3 million from the economic uncertainty reserve for Social Security settlement in the future year. Next slide. So again, just recap here some of the results of those strategies. The residual property tax covers $3.2 million of the $8.7 million gap this year. It increases the general fund allocation balance to $11.5 million bringing it up to the 20% target. It decreases the capital improvement fund by $2 million. It also decreases the newly-murged economic uncertainty reserve from 29.8 to 21.5 million bringing it down from 53% to 40% at this point. Next slide. This is a slide updated that we showed you last time that showed you kind of the impact of some of these things in the current 24-25 year. And again, as you can see, the general fund unassigned balance is at 11.5 million, which is at 21%. And also the merged economic uncertainty fund is now at 40% next slide. And again, just to highlight some of the additional budget strategies we're looking at, we're doing analysis and audits in several areas, including sales tax, utility tax, business license, and property tax. We also are in the early phases of putting together an RFP for a cost allocation plan and fee study, and potentially looking at some grant assistance. Next slide. This is an updated version of the revenue measure options that we're looking at. We're continuing to refine this as we get closer and closer to budget time, the significant change on this slide is on the utility user tax. We did do a review of the utility user tax in neighboring cities and what we found was that the emery veil rate of 5.5% is a little on the low side that it is more typical in this area for that rate to actually be seven and a half percent and for it to include video and streaming services which are not included at the moment in Henryville. So if you made those two changes we estimate that would bring in $1.95 million in revenue. So that's been added to that slide. The one area where we don't have a number yet is in business license tax increases. And on that we are awaiting an estimate from HDL. We also would talk with them about reviewing the cap, although there's only one business in the Emoryville that's at the business license cap. So that's not likely to be a significant contributor. Next slide. So here's some highlights, the things that have occurred between last month and this month. Perhaps the most notable is the purchase of the biomed parcels by Sutter, which brought in $11.23 million roughly a week ago. And this will allow the city to push out the need for additional budget transfers to the general fund by a year is our current thinking. On the flip side, it's important to note that Sutter is a nonprofit health foundation and that means they are exempt from all property and business license taxes in the city. As soon as they take title which they have now done and so we are in the process of estimating what that be loss will be. And also we're trying to assert how I figure out how much of that revenue loss will go against the general fund versus how much of it will go against the successor agency to the redevelopment agency but there will be a revenue loss there. Also in the business license tax revenues we have lowered the estimate from 5.8 million to 5.1 million. The reason for that is for some reason this year we've seen a drop in renewals roughly 30 percent compared to the prior year. We're monitoring that to see if it's going to be necessary to do some follow-up audit and collection work later in the year. But we have some concerns about what's happening there. And the capital fund fund 254, the significant changes there relate to your 40th Street Project. Public Works has been able to secure two major grants for that work, namely a $13.1 million grant from MTC and another $8.2 million VRF grant which enables them to fully fund that project. And then finally, in the investment earnings category, we reported to you last month that there was a $400,000 increase in this category for the general fund. There's additional increases in other funds, and that's the reason that as you look at the detail for the other funds, you see investment earning increases repeatedly listed there. However, we do know that because we have some major projects coming online and also because of transfers into the general fund, we think that in future years, the investment earnings may be somewhat reduced for that reason, and also potentially there may be some changes as it interest rates. Next slide. So our recommendation tonight is to receive the staff report except any public comment you may receive discuss the proposal and then adopt the proposed resolution amending the budget with the adjustments shown and attachments one, two and three. And with that, be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Brian. Members, any questions? Members Solomon Solomon. Just a quick question on the previous slide, just the phrasing made me think, when you say that the set of purchase will defer, I mean, transfers to the general fund, that's not because we're spending that $11.2 million now. It's just that we have an additional batch of savings that means that we don't need to make those transfers for future years. Well, right. What happened is last month you transferred $7 million and then you had the additional $3 million. So you in effect, you moved $10 million over it. Now you have another $11 million was not anticipated. So without crunching the numbers yet, and again, we'll be back to you next month with the budget study session. Just with rough estimates, it would appear that you'll be able to move most if not all of the need for money next year. However, because this is a one-time revenue source in years 3, 4, 5, and beyond without either additional revenue measures and or cuts, you're going to have the problem again. That's one of the reasons that we've highlighted the fact that there's still money in the economic uncertainty reserve. There's still money in the capital and we would think that those are probably the places where we would look in succeeding years to find that amount in terms of the transfers. and that will be a continuing phenomena until such time as either you have revenue measures and or reduced expenses or some combination thereof. Number of pry force. Thank you. Could you tell us a little bit more about the utilities tax? Does that include PG&E and would that actually raise the rates that, potentially raised the rates? It will be the companies that actually raised the rates as a response, but could this potentially increase how much people pay in terms of their utilities? And specifically, streaming was mentioned, and so was that like internet, for example. Okay. The utility tax in Emeryville currently covers gas, electric, and telecommunications. That's it. In other cities, it covers video, cable TV, and streaming. It also, in some cases, includes water. It can include garbage. It can include recycling. When we looked at the surrounding cities, what we found was that streaming and video was very common. And so that would be one thing to add. And that's about $350,000 a year in revenue. The other $1.6 million would be increasing the rate from 5.5 to 7.5%. And to your question, you're right, that would increase the utility bills of the residents in those categories that are covered. I should also mention that in looking at other cities, while 7.5 percent seem to be sort of the average, and you're at 5.5 percent, there were some cities, I'm sure again, because the budget challenges that have gone beyond 7.5 percent. There's one city city at eight and I believe it was Richmond that is actually at 10 now. And our thought is that again, as we talk about potential revenue measures later in the year and obviously we'd want to discuss that with the council in terms of whether or not you had an interest in these different options that we showed earlier and what rates were considered. We also want to work with the outreach folks and the pollsters to see what the voters were thinking in these my experiences that the utility tax tends to be one of the more difficult revenue measures to pass as opposed to things like the quarter cent sales tax, the business license tax and the hotel which tend to be a bit easier, relatively speaking. However, given the size of your budget shortfall, I'm afraid that over time you may have to consider several, if not all, five of those options, because you are facing a pretty serious problem. So. Other questions? Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Seeing no members of the public, members, I'll bring this back for discussion or emotion. Member Price Force. So I am definitely not a fan of the utility tax that for many Californians, Emory Bill, this has been raised at our council meetings before I believe by Frank Quattell actually, which is the rate that PGE and E has been increasing our bills, all of our bills, and actually had a chat with the city manager about us actually allocating some of the tax that we currently receive of the funding that we receive towards a way to relief some of our residents. In addition to how it affects residents, it also affects businesses. We're increasingly becoming a video streaming society. And for businesses, I remember when looking at Oakland to set up my third company that we were concerned about some of the taxes in Oakland being intact. And for us to be a city of innovation and yet it's becoming increasingly expensive to be able to be part of innovation is the ability to have broadband. And I think that that, yeah, I'm, yeah, I'm definitely not a fan of, of anything that increases the utility rate for, for residents. And, and we're also just addressing the increase in fees that some of you have been experiencing from your landlords. And, yeah, I was just reading a report about certain cities where the amount of fees, and it's actually a term, I forget what the term is, but there's certain cities where fees have increased 200-300% within a single year. And so with it being focused on fees and utility bills, that are ready made it harder. And so that 20% or 30% a minor we just talked about with one of our future projects, that yeah, it's great that you can afford to rent in Emoryville under those income guidelines, but then can you really live in Emoryville when you were getting all those fees from your landlord that isn't covered that we don't talk about. And then you're also the cost of utilities and everything else. And so, which makes it a lot harder to live here. And so I can't and good conscious support anything related to utility fees and I definitely would fight it. Should that be a thing that comes up here in this day or out there in the streets. Thanks. Could we get the slide for the resolution back up on the screen? I just want to clarify. So we're not talking about approving any revenue measures. This is simply about adjusting the budget, right? Okay, so yes, that's correct. Thank you. So I think we got a little preview of potential revenue measures, but we're not discussing those and none are being proposed right now. Members, other discussion? Vice Mayor. If you have this information, Brian, you can maybe share it. What is the loss in the property tax from the transfer to, to center from bio-med reality? We don't know yet how much of it relates to the general fund and how much it relates to the successor agency. What we believe that the total could be something on the order of five or $600,000 a year. I should also mention that in some communities, what happens when one of these health foundations comes into town is if there is a development agreement in some cases the city might be able to negotiate a revenue in lieu payment on either a one-time basis or annual to offset that sort of loss. So that's also something that the city may wish to entertain. Some cities do that. Others don't. It's again, a discussion going forward, but we wanted to highlight it in the report just so that you understood not only was there this major one time revenue, which was following the parameters of your measure of from 2022, but also there was this loss and we're going to take both into account as we developed a. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, just to say a brief and I know we'll have time in a few weeks when we come back for an extra budget, but just to, I think we all know, but the set of payment is, as of right now, a one-time payment. So we should, you know, I'd like to avoid using that to balance one year of budget. As nice as that was as easy as that would make one meeting, it would make future meetings, which would difficult. So I think just to, you know, we will see what that development turns into, but, you know, being smart about using that money strategically and not getting ahead of ourselves in terms of spending big because, you know, it's a one time balance. Number of pry force. I know that fiscally that has been the guide and philosophy that has guided the city and that's how we ended up in a situation that we ended up in. And so I the use of one-time funds and that we definitely want to manage that appropriately at the same time we are in a difficult situation and so the best thing that we can do is not necessarily focus on spending that money but how do we invest that so that it can make more money for the city and so and that usually means spending but what they can about it as more so an investment how do we invest in an Emoryville how do we invest in the people of Emoryville in order to to not be placed in a situation that that that got us here. members any additional comments or a motion. I can make the motion to approve the item. Second. Madam clerk the roll. Council member Priforce. Aye. Council member Solomon. Aye. Council member Welch. Aye. Vice Mayor Carr. Aye. And Mayor Mora. Aye. Motion carries. Next we have department head reports. Thank you, Mayor. Chad Smolley, Community Development Director. This is my report on the Planning Commission actions taken at their March 27th, 2025 meeting. All six current members of the Commission were present with one vague and see. You made an appointment last month of a member of the commission and the commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. The commission is a member of the commission. for a major conditional use permit for a Rivian service center to be located at 1483, 1487 and 1499 67th Street. This is a location formerly occupied by engine world. The commission was generally pleased with the application requested additional information provided feedback to the applicant and we anticipate this item will be back to the commission for a public hearing tentatively in May of this year. This concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Chad. Members, any questions? Next, we have future agenda item requests from council members. Any future agenda items? Member, pry force. I'd like to place a future agenda item, land acknowledgement, particularly the Alonie people for that to be included in our openings when we start our meeting, our main meeting. So I like to place that as a future agenda item again. Members with a show of hands is their support for adding landic all achievements to a future agenda. Seeing no additional hands, the motion item. I would like to thank the members of the council for adding landic allegements to a future agenda. Seeing no additional hands, the motion fails. Any other future agenda items? Number pry force. I'd like to place if no one else has a future gen item. I'd like to place on the future gen item the discussion over the Pledge of Allegiance returning to City Council chambers as I will demonstrate. Pledge of Allegiance to deflate the United States of America. The Republic, for which it stands a nation, divisible with liberty and justice for all. Members with a show of hands is their support for adding the pledge of allegiance to a future agenda. Seeing no hands, the proposal fails. The time is 848, this meeting is adjourned.