body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the
Quarterly Sales Tax Report [paragraph no. 05-579], , the
recommendation to accept the Annual Review of fees [paragraph no.
05-582], and the Resolution to Apply for a Bicycle Transportation
Account Grant [paragraph no. 05-585] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from
voting on the Special Joint City Council and Recreation and Park
Commission Meeting.
[
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *05-577) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Recreation
and Park Commission Meeting held on November 30, 2005, and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on December 6, 2005.
Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Special
Joint City Council and Recreation and Park Commission Meeting. ]
( *05-578) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,152,381.22.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,2,"(05-579) - Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the period ending September 30, 2005, for sales transactions in
the second calendar quarter of 2005.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there has been a drastic 16.5%
reduction in tax revenue generation; requested a forecast for the
upcoming quarters.
The Finance Director stated that the sales tax consultant advised
her that sales tax receipts were not reported for the
transportation and business-to-business categories during the third
quarter the non-reporting occurred throughout the State; sales tax
receipts should be reported in the next quarterly report for
businesses headquartered in the southeast Gulf area; the report
should be received the first part of January.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was an 80% reduction in the
commercial production, an overall 21.8% reduction in business-to
business, and retail dropped 16.5% inquired what attributed to the
16.5% reduction in retail.
The Finance Director stated that the reported geographic areas show
downturns on Park Street and Webster Street as well as areas south
of Lincoln Avenue; the decline could be attributed to construction
activity as well as businesses coming in and out; stated that one,
specific business was not inordinately impacted; impacts were
across the board.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the sales tax for the area
north of Lincoln Avenue dropped immensely because of the economy.
The Finance Director stated that she did not know why there was a
decline in the area; under-reporting could have occurred.
Mayor Johnson requested more information on under-reporting.
The Finance Director stated that reports were late in coming to
California for some businesses such as a multi-state business
headquartered in Mississippi.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the report would be available, to which
the Finance Director responded the first part of January.
Mayor Johnson requested an update when the final figures are
received from the State.
The Finance Director stated that the figures would be included in
the next quarterly report.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,3,"Mayor Johnson requested that the update be provided in January.
Councilmember deHaan stated that a trend could be developing which
could have a major impact on the overall budget and general funds
;
inquired whether adjustments could be made to put the money into
the right quarter.
The Finance Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the forecast.
The Finance Director responded that the forecast looks on target
but would need to be reviewed after the next quarterly report.
Councilmember Daysog requested background data on comparing second
quarter 1999 to second 2004.
The Finance Director stated data is available.
Mayor Johnson requested an analysis be provided every six months ;
stated that businesses have suffered during the construction
process; the goal of economic development is to generate more
revenue; the Bay Area experienced a 2.3% growth and there was a
4.5% growth Statewide; Alameda is not keeping up; redevelopment
projects should help increase revenue in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not be surprised that
construction along Webster Street and Park Street influenced the
downturn.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the analysis be provided every
quarter with an eye on the forecast; stated that he could not
pinpoint any particular reason for the decline; a decline appeared
in areas that were not under construction.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*05-580) - Recommendation to appropriate in the General Fund the
2005-2006 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229)
Grant Funding to supplement frontline police services. Accepted.
(*05-581) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$386,969.05 to Libramation, Inc. for a Materials Security Inventory
System including five years of maintenance for the Alameda Free
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,4,"The City Manager stated that the correction would be made to the
report.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with a correction to list the Work/Live Citywide Development Fee
(CDF) under commercial [non-residential building space] instead of
residential.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-583) Recommendation to appropriate $49,000 from San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Grant and
$21,930 in Urban Runoff Funds for removal of existing dock and
placement of riprap adjacent to Bridgeside Center Project, No. P. W.
10-05-01. Accepted.
(*05-584) Recommendation to appropriate $40,000 in Measure B Funds,
adopt plans and specifications, and award a Contract in the amount
of $87,000, including contingency, to Richard Heaps Electric, Inc.,
for Pole-Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs Project, No. P.W. 06-05-
05. Accepted.
(05-585) Resolution No. 13914, ""Applying for a Bicycle
Transportation Account Grant to Enhance the North Approach to the
Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge, Appropriating Measure B Funds as
Local Match, and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute
all Necessary Grant Documents. Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the bicycle route is the primary
force in applying for the grant; inquired whether approved, solid
plans are in place.
The Public Works Director responded detailed plans are not in
place; an illustration has been developed to provide a cost
estimate; time would be spent on design after the grant is
received.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the timing for applying for
the grant, to which the Public Works Director responded by the end
of the month.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether specifics could be worked out
later.
The Public Works Director responded that some granting agencies
allow more flexibility than others; changing basic items such as
limits and width might not be possible.
Mayor Johnson stated the bike path is important; many children ride
bikes from Bay Farm Island to east end schools; inquired whether a
more detailed grant application would place the City in a better
position to receive the grant.
The Public Works Director responded that he did not think more
detail was needed; the agency wants to have a basic description of
the project and cost estimate; stated he would look into the
matter; an explanation of the benefits is required.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the grant could be used for
other projects, what is the scope of the project, and whether the
public has been involved.
The Public Works Director stated that the Public Works Department
does not have the money to pay for staff time until a project is
identified he assured a concerned resident that the loading and
unloading zones at Lincoln Middle School would be preserved and
that staff would meet with residents to seek input once the grant
is received and there is a preliminary design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the improvement was part of the
Master Bike Plan, to which the Public Works Director responded
improvements in the area are included in the Master Bike Plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Lincoln Middle School
Safe Routes to School project had funding.
The Public Works Director responded the project received a grant ;
the same process is being followed for the proposed project whereby
the City applied for the grant and then met with the school and the
residents.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the two projects would
dovetail together.
The Public Works Director responded that the two projects would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,6,"blend together and build on each other; the Safe Routes to School
project would come to the Council early next year; construction
should start in the summer of 2006; the proposed project would
follow.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the public process would be
the same, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that it is important that the two
projects dovetail together and marry in the proper way.
The Public Works Director ensured that the two projects would work
together.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the grant could be used for
another project.
The Public Works Director responded that the grant is not portable;
changes can be made based on constraints discovered while working
on the design.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there were any other proposed
bike projects that would require grants.
The Public Works Director responded that the proposed project is
one of the higher rated projects in the Bike Master Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that the proposed project was determined to be
a top priority based upon the Bike Master Plan; requested that a
process be established to allow the Council to prioritize projects
which could receive grant funding; stated the area is dangerous and
the proposed improvements are important.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution with the
caveat that the project be dovetailed together with the Safe Routes
to School project.
The Public Works Director stated that the projects would have
different schedules the proposed project would fall behind the
Safe Routes to School project.
Councilmember deHaan stated the problem needs to be cured in trying
to get the children to school safely, mitigating on-going problems
at Lincoln Middle School, and getting the community involved in
both projects so that the decision has continuity.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were discussions regarding
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,7,"field space being taken away at Lincoln Middle School.
The Public Works Director responded the School District discussed
the matter, not the City.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City received the grant; the Safe
Routes to School project was very controversial i it would take a
lot to convince her that there is a need to take open space away
from schools; she was concerned about how much grant money was
spent in considering whether field space should be taken away or
not.
The Public Works Director stated that consideration for taking away
open space was never envisioned and that staff did not discuss the
matter in depth.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review the
financial portion of the Safe Routes to School grant at a later
date.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether both projects would be
seamlessly executed when the grant was received, to which the
Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-586) - Resolution No. 19315, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the
Salary Range for the Classification of Plan Check Engineer. ""
Adopted.
(*05-586A) Resolution No. 13916, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications of
Development Services Division Manager, Golf Services Manager, Golf
Course Maintenance Superintendent, and Building Official. Adopted.
(*05-586B) Resolution No. 13917, ""Amending Exhibit A-1 of the
Executive Management Compensation Plan Established by Council
Resolution No. 13545 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 13626 and
13689, to Establish a Five-Day Workweek Alternative with
Corresponding Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Assistant
City Manager and Planning and Building Director. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-587 ) Recommendation to authorize a letter of welcome to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,8,"Asuchio, El Salvador Civic Leaders.
Stewart Chen, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) , stated
that the Sister City workgroup was established a year ago to
explore and expand Alameda's involvement in a global friendship
movement; the community and St. Philip Neri's parish are interested
in establishing a relationship with Asuchio, El Salvador stated
that an invitation to visit is the first step in formalizing a
friendship.
Rob Bonta, SSHRB, stated the key to a successful relationship is
having existing energy and support within the community; the goal
is to establish a non-profit organization that is run by community
members.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for their hard work.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for bringing
the matter forward; stated traveling to Asuchio was rewarding to
him; members in the audience have made trips to El Salvador ; there
is a good nucleus in gaining something for Alameda as well as
Asuchio.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that he
likes the idea of the City of Alameda having relations with a more
needy city.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( 05-588 - ) Consideration of a proposal for the City of Alameda, as a
participant in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program, to partially fund a survey to be used in analyzing the
feasibility of increasing the County Service Area fee for lead
abatement education and services.
Mayor Johnson stated that representatives from the Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) were present to answer any questions.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a better explanation regarding
whether there was any legal problem in agreeing to ask only
questions that directly relate to determining the viability of an
increase in the fee to fund the Lead Program; stated the thrust of
the last Council discussion was to only pay if the survey was
restricted to lead-related questions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,9,"Mayor Johnson agreed that the Council was looking for a commitment
on the matter.
Mark Allen, Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Board
stated the will of the Authority was to establish the requirement
in the Contract.
Mayor Johnson requested Mr. Allen to describe which Alameda
programs would be facing funding reductions and which programs
would be funded by the potential fee increase.
Mr. Allen stated cuts have already been implemented which would
have a negative impact on Alameda: free risk assessments have been
cut; the assessments were provided to the Housing Authority and
Development Services Department for free over the past five years
but now the City has to budget for the service; additional services
at risk are: technical assistance to property owners with an
identified lead poisoned child, free home renovation classes,
reduction in the number of lead safe painting kits, and elimination
of a one-day lead safe work practice workshop stated the survey
would indicate what fee the property owners or the general
electorate would be willing to bear; a $10 to $15 increase might
provide the cities with risk assessments.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what amount was being requested as
Alameda's share.
Mr. Allen responded $5,000; stated the City of Berkeley's share was
$10,000 and the City of Oakland's share was $14,9991 Alameda County
and SEIU Local 616 contributed $11,000 each; the City of Emeryville
contributed $3,000.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the consultant has been
selected, to which Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the County would go forward
with the survey without the City's contribution.
Mr. Allen responded not necessarily; further discussion would be
needed if one of the cities chose not to contribute; stated a
Contract has not been signed.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would approve the Contract, to which Mr.
Allen responded the Board of Directors.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was concern regarding the use of
the data and whether the data would be public information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the data could be used for anything
if the data was public information.
Mr. Allen stated that some of the work product could be kept
confidential ; the final product would be public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the County is a public entity and
the data should be public.
Mayor Johnson stated the Contract would identify ownership.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have expressed
concern regarding ownership.
Mr. Allen responded other cities have agreed with the concerns
raised by Alameda.
The City Attorney noted that the memorandum from the County stated
that information collected would be subject to the Public Records
Act.
Mayor Johnson stated the Authority would be subject to the Public
Records Request Act but not the consultants.
The City Attorney stated the data should be publicly available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the data could be provided to
the participants.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there was concern that a consultant
could ask a broad spectrum of questions, gain personal advantage in
running a County survey, and use the data for something else; a
condition should be that the data be published along with the
report.
Mayor Johnson stated that some information has been provided on the
election; inquired whether the Authority would pay for the
election.
Mr. Allen responded that the election cost would be paid by the
Authority as a straight charge from the fee.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the proposed assessment
did not pass, to which Mr. Allen responded the cost would come out
of the Authority's budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the election cost estimate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,11,"Mr. Allen responded the survey would determine the type of
election; stated that Oakland paid $125,000 to conduct a Fire
Prevention Assessment District election; the election covered
25,000 households and was a mail ballot to the property owners ; a
countywide election would cost approximately $1 per voter.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many households would be included in an
election covering the existing households only, to which Mr. Allen
responded considerably more than 25,000.
Mayor Johnson stated the cost is big for the Authority; inquired
whether anything would prevent the Authority from legally paying
for the election.
Mr. Allen responded in the negative; stated the survey would
determine whether there is interest in entertaining a more in-depth
discussion and strategy.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the report provided is very thin
on JPA's budget problem; funding for supplementary services has
been lost; services are cut when funding is lost; remaining funding
is used to provide core services people in Alameda feel overtaxed;
more information should be given.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Daysog wanted more
information on the cuts.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he would like more information
on what happened to precipitate the need for money.
Mr. Allen stated that the County has gone through three budget
processes identifying problems.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what voice Alameda would have after
the survey has been conducted.
Mayor Johnson responded there are four member cities have voting
representatives; the County has non-voting representatives; people
in the County area are not part of the program.
Mr. Allen stated that property owners in the County of Alameda':
unincorporated area do not receive any of the services ; the JPA
passes the budget for the program on an annual basis.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a way to satisfy
Councilmember Daysog's concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to know what
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,12,"precipitated the need for the requested funding and what type of
cuts have been made to deal with the current situation.
Mr. Allen stated that the $10 fee has not increased since 1992;
operating costs have increased; the fee was new and did not include
cost escalation; $19 million has been leveraged from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding into the four County
Service Area (CSA) cities; last year was the first year that the
program did not have a full year of HUD funding six out of
thirteen rounds of grants have been received from the Office of
Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control; program income has been
generated from of no-interest loans to property owners. payment is
made when the property is transferred; the loans need to be
recycled for the same type of activity services were carried for
three years on program income; six people were laid off last year
because all program income was used; efforts are being made to
identify whether there is a mechanism to correct the fact that
there has not been an increase in base funding since 1992; the
budget has been reduced from $5 million to $2.5 million over three
years; audits are preformed every year; the program has won
National awards.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the loss of HUD funding has
dropped the annual budget by $3 million; the policy question is
whether the residents should pick up the loss of the HUD funding.
Mr. Allen stated that the policy question is whether or not
property owners should have a say in whether they value the service
enough to increase the fee; questioned how the level of service can
be maintained when the service has exceeded $10 per year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether programs that have been funded
through HUD could not be funded because of funding source
limitations.
Mr. Allen responded yes and no; the program cuts from HUD took
place in one year; a $3 million HUD grant was received the next
year; the CSA fee is restricted to property owner services HUD
dollars are used for project remediation and tenant education;
State funding is received from the Department of Health Services
for case management of lead poisoned children; one fund does not
fund other categories.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the increase in the CSA fee would
pay for more assessments, not remediation and health treatment;
whether there would be a problem in bringing the matter back in
January, to which Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative to both
questions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,13,"Counci lmember Daysog stated that he understands the argument that
the 2005 $10 fee does not buy the same services as in 1992 and that
there were some shifts in HUD priorities resulting in loss of
dollars; taxes are an overwhelming concern; he is not convinced
that there is a strong argument for residents backfilling the
shortfall instead of the Board making cuts that others make when
funding is lost.
Mr. Allen stated the survey would ask the people whether they feel
the service is valuable enough to consider placing an increase on
the ballot; the survey is to test the waters and see if people feel
the service is worth the contribution; every other government has
raised fees since 1992.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the request is whether the City
should put $5,000 into asking a question to determine whether or
not increasing the assessment fee should go on the ballot ; the
program is valuable enough to invest $5,000.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating $5,000 for the
survey with the conditions that the JPA Board use an open bidding
process [or provide an explanation if there are impediments in
using the bid process]. and that the data and final report be a
matter of public record.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the open
bidding process would cause problems, to which Mr. Allen responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Contract has not come to the Board;
the process has been very different there would be no problem
under normal circumstances but there could be a problem in this
instance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a written explanation could be
provided regarding why the Board could not go out for an open
public bid before the Contract goes to the Board for approval.
Mayor Johnson responded that the Board has not been involved in any
process to select a consultant.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated her preference would be to request that
the process go out to open bid if the Board has not gone through a
process to either select a contractor or approve a Contract; she
would also like to know if there is some impediment in doing so.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,14,"Counci lmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; stated
$5,000 is a small amount to pay to ask the question.
Counci lmember Matarrese amended the motion to include Vice Mayor
Gilmore's caveat [that the process go to bid or the JPA provide a
written explanation if there is an impediment with using the open
bid process]
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is safeguarding itself with
the financial review process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote - Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember Daysog - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-589) louncilmember deHaan stated that the opening of the new
Alameda Towne Centre Safeway store was very successful; sale
estimates are between $40-50 million for the proposed Target;
Target states that 85% of all transactions would be coming from
Alameda which is the leakage the City is trying to capture; close
to a million $38 to $50 transactions would need to occur per year
to achieve $40 million in sales; Target states that the store is a
one-stop shop; transportation and corridor impacts could be derived
from the one-stop shop concept ; past studies indicate only 65% of
the transactions would be recaptured; Alamedans would need to make
over 900,000 transactions per year which means that every household
would have approximately 30 to 31 transactions per year questioned
whether said number of transactions is reasonable; stated a
consultant was used in the past everyone needs to understand the
dynamics of what is happening; Target knows exactly what is
happening but does not always provide information to the public; an
independent consultant is needed to establish some of the facts and
figures; every household in Alameda would have to spend close to
$1200 per year for a 85% recovery; the money would not be new money
but would be drawn from elsewhere.
Mayor Johnson stated that figures show that Alameda residents spend
millions of dollars at Target; new money would be residents
spending millions of dollars in Alameda rather than elsewhere if
the project goes forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,15,"Councilmember deHaan stated that $4.3 to $5.6 million is spent at
Target stores; the community is questioning the impacts; the
Council needs to ensure that the community's concerns and questions
are answered with an impartial consultant.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would need to be placed on an
agenda in order for Council to give direction.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to
Council in terms of an analysis and could be placed on an agenda if
Council action is needed.
Councilmember Daysog stated multiplying 900,000 trips against the
$50 transaction comes within the envelope that Target expects in
terms of store sales; the Board of Equalization's website provides
a breakdown on the typical per capita for sales of general
merchandise, which is $1200.
(05-590) Mayor Johnson stated that a lot has been accomplished in
the past year; wished everyone a happy holiday and happy New Year.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -5:31 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-573) ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
( 05-574) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City Council
meeting at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 9:15 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel;
regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council gave
direction to negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call -
Present Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *05-575CC/05-057CIC) Minutes of the Special Community
Improvement Commission meeting and the Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda and Reuse
Redevelopment Authority meeting held on December 6, 2005. Approved.
(*05-576CC/05-058CIC) Recommendation to accept the Community
Improvement Commission Annual Report and authorize transmittal to
the State Controller's Office and City Council. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf