pages: CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-01-19 | 19 | 45 Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (21-052) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced Tenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Rental Units in the City of Alameda. Introduced. The Chief Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Spencer stated opposition has been posed by the Alameda Realtors Group; comments received note concern about the amount to cover major improvements being too high; requested clarification for such opposition. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the $25,000 is a staff-driven number; the improvements ought to be substantial and most improvements listed in the ordinance are likely to cost $25,000; should Council not feel comfortable with the amount, the amount can be reduced. Councilmember Spencer inquired whether outreach was conducted to find a comfortable amount. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded staff met with the group in August and the amount was discussed; stated the amount was initially higher and had subsequently been reduced; should a new roof cost $15,000 it is possible subsequent capital improvements can also be made to meet the $25,000 threshold. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether anything prohibits delaying implementation of the pass-through given the COVID-19 crisis, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Knox White requested clarification of routine maintenance and large capital projects. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the need for new roofs occurs every four to five years and the improvements last 15 to 20 years; stated the amortization period for the capital improvements is 15 years, which is reasonable; staff looked at items generically and felt that the pass-through would not be high enough to encourage landlords to make improvements now as needed. Councilmember Spencer stated Oakland has a CIP modeled after Santa Monica which contains a list of approved improvements that can be amortized over different periods; inquired why Alameda is not using the same. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the Santa Monica ordinance is not the same kind of CIP plan being recommended; stated the Santa Monica ordinance is part of the fair return process; the amortized cost becomes an operating expense against the revenue which a landlord then uses to determine whether or not there is a fair return; the process is different and is more beneficial in encouraging landlords to make improvements rather than a fair return process which can be seen as discouraging landlords from undertaking repairs; the recommendation process can be performed administratively through the program administrator; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 19, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf |