{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- - -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-259) Mayor Johnson announced that she would present the\nProclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas & Electric and\nAlameda Power & Telecom [paragraph no. 05-260], the Proclamation\nrecognizing contributions to the City by our Gay and Lesbian\nCitizens [paragraph no.05-261] and the Resolution Commending\nOfficer Frank Damian [paragraph no. 05-262] prior to the Consent\nCalendar.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-260) Proclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas &\nElectric and Alameda Power & Telecom for the prompt response in\nrelocating a gas line, thereby greatly aiding the City's efforts in\nthe construction of the new Main Library.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Susan Yee and\nTom Gaurino from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Dean Batchelor\nfrom Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T).\nSusan Yee thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated PG&E's\npriory has always been to be customer focused and provide the best\nlevel of service possible.\nTom Gaurino thanked the Council for the recognition.\nDean Batchelor stated that AP&T appreciates the proclamation and\nlooks forward to working with departments to ensure the Library\nproject's success.\n05-261) Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by our\nGay and Lesbian Citizens and encouraging the community to recognize\nthese contributions particularly during the month of June, Gay\nPride Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Debra Arbuckle\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "from Out on the Island and the Alameda Lesbian Potluck Society.\nMs. Arbuckle thanked the Council for the proclamation and for the\nrecognition of the Gay and Lesbian citizens.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(05-262)\nResolution No. 13846, \"Commending Alameda Police\nDepartment Officer Frank Damian for His Contributions to the City\nof Alameda. Adopted.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Officer Frank\nDamian.\nOfficer Damian thanked the Council for the Resolution and stated\nthat it has been an honor to serve with such a great department.\nThe resolution was adopted by consensus - 5.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 9:55 p.m.\n***\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-263) Update on the new main library project.\nThe Project Manager provided a brief update.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for ensuring\nthat the project is on time and on budget; stated that it would be\nnice not to have to draw down on the $2 million fund redevelopment\nbond money that has been earmarked for the project.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the City\nof Alameda Long-Term Park Use Policy [paragraph no. 05-267] and the\nrecommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services [paragraph no. 05-\n270) ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 3, "text": "[Items so enacted or adopted are noted by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number. ]\n( *05-264) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on May\n12, 2005; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on\nMay 17, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-265) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,017,578.09\n(*05-266) Recommendatior to authorize the Acting City Manager to\nexecute a temporary Agreement with Alameda County for the exclusive\nprovision of ambulance services by the City of Alameda Fire\nDepartment to the City of Alameda. Accepted.\n(05-267) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Long-Term\nPark Use Policy.\nLoretta Ferraro, Alameda, requested that there be a provision in\nthe Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) which would allow the Gold Coast\nCoffee Mobile Expresso owner (proposed vendor) to use a parking\nspace at the Lower Washington Park area and operate his truck in\nAlameda.\nMichael Ferraro, Alameda, urged acceptance of the staff\nrecommendation; stated that there is no ordinance permitting mobile\nvendors to operate within the City; provided a handout regarding a\nRecreation and Parks Department public hearing on June 9, 2005.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the Council has been in contact\nwith the proposed vendor and staff has been requested to look into\nthe operational issues.\nSusan Potter, Alameda, stated that other trucks are doing business\nin Alameda without licenses which causes revenues leave the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the ordinance allows ice cream\ntrucks to roam through the City; the proposed vendor's request is\nfor parking; inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission\nwould address the matter.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that there is an ordinance that\naddresses mobile vendors; the proposed vendor's request is working\nits way through the system.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that there is a section in the\nAMC that prohibits rolling stores from using City streets, with the\nexception of selling fruit, vegetables, packed or labeled ice\ncream, peanuts or popcorn; the proposed vendor would like to park\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 4, "text": "in the parking lot near the Dog Park and then move from park to\npark; there is a Use Permit provision in the Open Space section of\nthe Zoning Code that allows commercial concessionaires the\nproposed vendor would need to get permission from the Recreation\nand Park Commission first in order to get a Use Permit from the\nPlanning Commission to vend from a City park.\nMayor Johnson suggested having a workshop involving the business\ncommunity and Recreation and Park Commission; stated that there is\na significant difference in using a park versus a City street; the\npossibility of 10 trucks selling coffee in one place needs to be\nconsidered.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there was a mobile canteen at Alameda\nPoint; it is important to review the whole picture.\nMayor Johnson stated that she was not clear on the recommended\npolicy.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe the draft\npolicy is ready for adoption; the policy does not establish or\ndefine standards for non-City use, long-term use, construction or\nrenovation, or private uses; concessionaire needs to be defined;\nstated that he would oppose any private use that is 25% of the\ntotal park acreage available; the park application and review\nprocess is a procedure and not a policy procedures and policies\nneed to be kept separate; suggested that the policy be sent back to\nthe Recreation and Park Commission.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; noted that\nthe statement regarding the Recreation and Park Department's\nauthority to deny non-City uses is unclear; Recreation and Park\nCommission decisions need to be able to be appealed to the City\nCouncil stated that it was not the Council's intent to have the\nRecreation and Parks Department have the sole determination to deny\nnon-City uses; the language needs to be changed; the Council did\nnot request a policy that limited any appeal rights or delegation\nof Council authority.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that it appears that the policy was\ncombined with the process and did not follow through on either one\ncompletely.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there is a need for a policy.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council was clear on direction\nregarding the Recreation and Park Commissions review the coffee\nvendor issue, to which the Acting City Manager responded the\nRecreation and Park Commission is currently reviewing the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it appears that the matter is farther\nreaching than just the Recreation and Park Commission and could\nspill over into other activities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is no need to change the\nordinance if the proposed vendor does not want to have a rolling\nstore; the proposed vendor's sole intent to park his truck would be\na separate issue.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter would come back to the Council if\nnecessary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Council's intent was to\nhave a policy in place before another request for use of parks was\nreceived which might cause some difficulty with the neighbors or\nthe use of the park; stated that he wants the matter to come back\nto the Council regardless of what the Recreation and Parks\nCommission determines.\n(*05-268) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to Agreement\nwith Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope\nof work and price for the New Main Library Project. Accepted.\n( *05-269) - Recommendation to set June 21, 2005 as the hearing date\nfor Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Charges. Accepted.\n(05-270) Recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services :\n(05-270A) Resolution No. 13847, \"Applying for Five Percent\nUnrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds\nfor Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda\nFerry Services, and Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Enter\ninto All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds. Adopted;\n(05-270B) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to\nexecute extension of the Ferry Service Agreement with the Port of\nOakland; and\n(05-270C) - Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to\nexecute extension of the Blue and Gold Fleet Operating Agreements\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 6, "text": "for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Services (AOFS) and adopt associated\nbudget.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that there was a public hearing\nregarding the Harbor Bay ferry which addressed increasing ridership\nand marketing services the public should know that the City is\ntrying to get as much grant money as possible to keep the ferries\noperating the ferries need to be in front of the public's eye;\nencouraged people to take the ferries.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Water Transit Authority (WTA)\njoined forces with the City in moving forward with publicity; noted\nthe Port of Oakland's $140,000 contribution is now reduced to\n$83,000; there is talk about the Port not contributing at all;\nnoted there would be a major glitch if the contribution amount was\nnot maintained at the current amount or higher.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the contribution was going to be a\nbudget cut for the Port of Oakland; the Port was persuaded to make\na contribution of $83,325 for the next fiscal year; getting the WTA\nto take over in the future would solve the problem with the Port of\nOakland funding the ferries.\nCouncilmember DeHaan stated that it appears that the WTA is going\nforward to establish runs in various directions inquired whether\nit was the Council's desire to join forces with the WTA at some\npoint.\nThe Acting City Manager responded that joining forces with the WTA\nwould be a Council decision; the WTA's first goal is to establish\nnew ferry services; the WTA is starting to look at the Harbor Bay\nFerry Service for merchandising and providing some other services\nto the City.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA would have\njurisdiction over funds.\nMayor Johnson responded that the WTA is a transit agency and would\nhave access to funding that the City does not have.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that the WTA has access to Regional\nMeasure 2 Funds which are difficult for the City to access except\nthrough the WTA; the City is currently using Regional Measure 1\nFunds through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution and\nacceptance of the staff recommendations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 7, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council\nneeds to be careful with the WTA taking over the Harbor Bay ferry\nor any of the ferries; the Blue and Gold ferry, and to some extent\nthe Harbor Bay ferry, are locally controlled; the WTA might decide\nto have the ferry leave from somewhere else.\nMayor Johnson stated the level of service and location can be\nnegotiated.\nOn the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *05-271) Resolution No. 13848, \"Approving the Paratransit Service\nPlan and Applying for Measure B Paratransit Funding. Adopted.\n(*05-272) Resolution No. 13849, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Cogent Systems, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda\nCity Charter, of Cogent Automated Palm/Fingerprint Identification\nSystem Upgrade in the Amount of $37,815. \" Adopted.\n(*05-273) Resolution No. 13850, \"Adopting an Agreement for\nParticipation in Alameda County Operational Area Emergency\nManagement Organization. Adopted.\n(*05-274) Resolution No. 13851, \"Designating All Alameda Fire\nStations as Receiving Points for Surrendered Babies Under the\nCalifornia State Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7 known as\nthe Safely Surrendered Baby Law. \" Adopted.\n( *05-275) Resolution No. 13852, \"Requesting and Authorizing the\nCounty of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property\nin the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General\nObligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held\nNovember 7, 2000. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05 5-276 - ) Ordinance No. 2941, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nto Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission\nfrom Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2\n(Membership; Appointment; Removal), 2-7.3 (Qualification; Voting)\nof Section 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) . \" Finally\npassed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 8, "text": "(05-277) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical\nAdvisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two\nCoast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.\nThe submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development\nproposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a\ncondition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001 and\nadoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce\nStreet within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nApplicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant Patrick Lynch and\nJeanne Nader. Continued to June 21, 2005.\n05-278 ) Resolution No 13853, \"Confirming the Business Improvement\nArea Report for FY 2005-2006 and Levying an Annual Assessment on\nthe Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY\n2005-2006. Adopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n( 05 -279 - ) Recommendation to accept the Donor Recognition and Names\nGifts Policy for the Library.\nThe Library Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the $30,000 contribution for the\nmural was reflective of the cost.\nThe Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated that four\nor five works of art have been selected for the new Main Library ;\nthere is funding for only one.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed policy has been\npatterned after other libraries, to which the Library Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan commended the Library Director's ingenuity\ninquired whether plaques would be placed in appropriate spots\nreflecting the donation.\nThe Library Director responded there would be a donor wall;\nindividuals who donate $5,000 over their lifetime would be\nrecognized on the donor wall; rooms and pieces of furniture would\nalso be recognized; areas of the library will be built without\ndonations; donations can specifically name and honor the donor in a\nparticular area of the Library.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired who would decide on the wording and size of\nthe plaques.\nThe Library Director responded that there would be different sizes\nfor different donation levels; the donor and the Foundation will\nwork together to finalize wording and ensure appropriateness.\nMayor Johnson stated the size and approved wording should be\nestablished; inquired whether there would be a provision to not\naccept a donation.\nThe Library Director stated that the final bullet in Exhibit A of\nthe staff report states that final approval rests with the City\nCouncil; inquired whether the Council would like to review the\npolicy again.\nMayor Johnson responded that the Council would like to review the\npolicy when the finer details are in place.\nThe Library Director stated that the named gift list is not final.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the Council might want to move\nslower and get more public input.\nThe Library Director stated that there has been a public process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Library is public space and almost\nbecomes a quazi-privatized space with all the donation recognition\nmarkings it is important to have balance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the criteria regarding the ability\nto refuse a contribution, prohibiting corporate logos, and\nappropriate recognition should be spelled out.\nMayor Johnson stated criteria for appropriate wording should also\nbe included.\nThe Library Director stated some suggested wording could be \"Gift\nfrom\" or \"In honor of. \"\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a wall of recognition was considered\ninstead of plaques on objects throughout the Library.\nThe Library Director responded the wall recognition was also\nintended.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether it was necessary to have both the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 10, "text": "wall recognition and the plaques, to which the Library Director\nresponded that having both is usual.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council is concerned with\npositioning too many plaques through various areas of the Library;\ninquired whether the donor plaque recognition would be replicated\non the wall.\nThe Library Director responded that any donor who gives $5,000 or\nmore would be recognized on the donor wall; noted the Library\nFoundation has begun to schedule meetings with donors.\nMayor Johnson stated she likes the idea of the large item and area\nrecognition; inquired whether fund raising efforts would be\nimpacted.\nThe Library Director responded that having recognition for large\nitems and areas might be an incentive.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the Council should get\nclarification on the legal issues of refusing a contribution.\nThe City Attorney stated that any reasonable rules could be\nimposed; the City cannot say no for the wrong reasons. parameters\ncan be drafted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with the concept and\nframework of the policy; inquired when the policy defining the\ncriteria to refuse a contribution and appropriate recognition would\ncome back to Council, to which the Library Director responded that\nshe would hope the policy could come back at a City Council meeting\nin July.\nCouncilmember DeHaan stated how the plaque would read is important.\nMayor Johnson stated she would like to have a recognition wall only\nas long as there would be no fundraising impact; suggested looking\ninto what other libraries and public buildings have done.\nThe Library Director stated it was not unusual to place names on\nshelves.\n(05-280) Recommendation to accept the Webster District Strategic\nPlan Report.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that having a grocery store as a key\nanchor was not possible; inquired whether parking is being\nproposed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 11, "text": "The Business Development Division Manager responded she is talking\nto an owner.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated parking accommodations are all\nimportant for any business and retail area.\nCouncilmember Daysog encouraged doing an analysis on the demand for\nparking spaces.\nThe Business Development Division Manager stated that the report\naddresses the need to review parking in the entire area; when new\nbusinesses try to existing buildings to a new use, meeting the\nparking requirements is difficult; there is a need to look at\na\nparking policy for the area which would met the parking demand.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that quantifying is important; there\nare pros and cons; some neighbors might not want parking structures\nwhile businesses would.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council gave direction to purchase\nan existing parking area that was previously rented.\nSherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , expressed\nher appreciation for the support that WABA has received from the\nCouncil and City staff; stated WABA supports the goals of the\nStrategic Plan and urges implementation as soon as possible; WABA\ndoes not want the Plan to close off viewpoints for other\nopportunities; the funding for Goal #5 [Small Business Assistant\nProgram] has been eliminated because of reduced funding; there is\ncontinued funding for the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program and some funding for\na recruiter; noted the analysis of opportunity sites was limited to\nvacant land on Webster Street; there are other opportunities WABA\nwill address the need for long- and short-term parking solutions;\nstated she receives daily calls regarding parking issues; parking\nwill bring in additional business.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-281) The following speakers spoke in opposition to the\nproposed theatre multiplex and parking structure: Deborah\nOvergfield, Alameda Jay Levine, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda;\nRichland Tester, Alameda; Jennifer Van Airsdale, Alameda (submitted\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 12, "text": "Council.\n(05-284) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that public transit is\nstill a problem in Alameda; parking is allowed at bus stops;\ntemporary bus stops should be fixed to allow accessibility.\n(05-285) Michael Ferraro, Alameda, stated that the proposed coffee\nvendor [who would like to park near City parks] is seeking a\nworking permit for the whole City; he is not proposing to do\nbusiness within the Park Street or Webster Street areas; stated Mr.\nSiden, East Bay Regional Park District, suggested seeing if there\nwas a way the proposed vendor could have access to the park for his\nbusiness.\n(05-286) Sherri Stieg, WABA, stated that the Grand Opening of the\nWebster Street Farmers Market would be Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 13, "text": "8:00 p.m. i Friday night will be the first of the Concerts at the\nCove; the third Thursdays of the month will offer a variety of\nfestivities; encouraged everyone to attend.\n(05-287) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated\nthere is a misconception that the Park Street streetscape is being\ndone to eliminate parking in order to create a need for the parking\nstructure; two parking spaces have been lost on Santa Clara Avenue\nbecause of the new bus plaza and one parking space has been lost in\nfront of Bonniere Bakery on Park Street; stated he spoke in favor\nof the original Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the theatre\nfour years ago; a Request for Proposal was sent out and no one ever\ncame forward with any plans.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of addressing the Council\nCommunications items past midnight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-288) Discussion regarding City of Alameda Management Practice\n#37 : Staff-Council Communication Policy.\nMayor Johnson stated that an informational library is being\ncompiled which would allow Council to have access to information at\none location at City Hall; she feels that Alameda Management\nPractice #37 is more restrictive than what the Charter provides\nthe Practice should be reviewed and either revoked or replaced.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that issues that led to past\ndiscussions on the matter should be discussed when brought back to\nCouncil.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that everyone seems to agree to place the\nmatter on the agenda.\n(05-289) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Public Utilities Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Peter W. Holmes and John R. McCahan.\n(05-290) Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on the\nBridgeside Center; stated there were previous discussions regarding\nthe Video Station's ability to either occupy a space at the Center\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 14, "text": "and the possibility having a Blockbuster; requested an update on\nwhen construction would start and the leasing mix.\n(05-291) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review how\nexisting transit operations, such as paratransit and Kid's Coach\nservices, could provide inter-Alameda transportation intertwining\nwith Alameda Point.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 12:04 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- - -5:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(05-254) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nManager.\n( (05-255) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : McGee V. City of Alameda.\n(05-256) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators:\nHuman Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations :\nInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( IBEW) and\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA)\n.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee\nPerformance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of\nthe Acting City Manager; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel -\nExisting Litigation, the Council obtained briefing from Legal\nCounsel: and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the\nCouncil obtained briefing from the Human Resources Director.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:59 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent\n:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members\nDaysog, deHaan Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nMINUTES\n(05-257CC/05-029CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting of May 17, 2005. Approved.\n ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member deHaan moved approval of\nminutes with the amendment that the minutes state: \"Recommendation\nto receive and file revised Alameda West Strategic Retail\nImplementation recommendations.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nARRA Resolution No. 36 , \"Approving and Adopting the Operating\nBudget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures\nProvided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. \" Adopted\n(05-030CIC) Resolution No. 05-137, \"Approving and Adopting the\nOperating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for\nthe\nExpenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. \" Adopted; and\n(05-258CC) Resolution No. 13845, \"Approving and Adopting the\nOperating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the\nExpenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Adopted.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated that this is the\nfirst time that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\n(ARRA) Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and City Council\nbudgets have been presented at one time noted it is important to\nreceive the budgets together because there is a considerable amount\nof interaction between the three agencies; a long-term financial\nplan for ARRA is provided and a ten-year financial plan for the\nCity would be provided in the near future; additional CIC\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 17, "text": "information would lay the ground work for the next fiscal year\nbudget the balanced budget has no new or increased taxes; there is\na significant deficit in the infrastructure maintenance; the City\nneeds to spend considerably more than what is included in the\nbudgets to maintain the City streets, sidewalks, and trees; a\nproposal on how to approach the backlog will be presented to\nCouncil during the next six months; stated that service delivery\nimpact presentations will be presented to the Council by the\ndepartments with the most significant impacts.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation on the changes in\nrevenues for the next fiscal year.\nThe Fire Chief gave a brief presentation on the Fire Department's\nbudget reduction impacts.\nThe Police Captain of Bureau of Operations gave a brief\npresentation on the Police Department's budget reduction impacts.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the Police Department is being asked to\ndo more with less resources crime statistics and how the Police\nDepartment handles duties matter to the citizens in Alameda; that\nshe received an e-mail recently stating how well the Police\nDepartment fights crime and that overall crime statistics have gone\ndown; requested statistics be shared with the public.\nThe Police Captain of Bureau of Operations outlined the following\nstatistics for 2004: Part 1 crimes for more serious crimes\ndecreased by 16.5%; Part 2 crimes for misdemeanors decreased by\n4.6%; arrests were up 3.5%.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether 2005 statistics were available, to\nwhich the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that\nPart 1 and 2 crimes are down, but that he does not have the exact\nnumbers; arrests are on par with last year.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the hard work of\nthe Police Department and the pro active approach; Alameda has an\nearned reputation to be a place where people who have served time\ndo not want to come; reaching appropriate staffing levels is a\nchallenge; his suggestion [to increase the number of police\nofficers] addressed 18 months ago should be revisited.\nCounci lember Matarrese stated that he leaves the ability to keep\ncrime levels down to experts; Council should be advised when\nstaffing levels dip below 99 officers; stated the City has 5,000\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 18, "text": "marine slips for property tax paying boats; inquired whether the\nCouncil wants to make a policy decision not to have patrol boat\nservices; inquired what the cost would be to restore the police\npatrol boat to last summer's level.\nThe Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded the Harbor\nPatrol Program has never been full time; the Program takes two or\nthree officers out of patrol on weekends, which requires overtime\nbackfilling.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested figures on what it would cost to\nrestore the patrol operation to last summer's level.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Oakland Police Chief was advocating\nfor boat funding from Homeland Security; inquired whether the City\ncould join the Coast Guard, City of Oakland, and Sheriff's\ndepartment, to provide patrol services on the Estuary\nThe Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the\nSheriff's Department has been a wonderful resource for harbor\nassistance.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department has estuary\npatrol, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department performs\nenforcement patrols, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of\nOperations responded in the affirmative; stated that the Coast\nGuard's priorities are different from municipalities and counties;\nstated that he will research the Harbor Patrol Program costs.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland utilized their\nboat, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded\nthat the City of Oakland was not spending much time on the boat due\nto the shortage of patrol cars on the streets; the situation might\nhave changed; he would look into the matter and report back to\nCouncil.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the figures for revitalizing the\nestuary patrol should also include the boat repair costs.\nThe Police Captain of Bureau of Operations stated that the boat is\na very expensive piece of equipment; one of the problems with the\nboat program is that officers' skills diminish due to the limited\ntime spent on the boat; lack of expertise and training also add to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n3\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 19, "text": "the expense of the boat operation.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the City Attorney' S\noffice budget reduction impacts.\nMayor Johnson requested further explanation on the impacts of the\nCity Attorney's office reductions.\nThe City Attorney stated that the duties of two full-time positions\nthat are being cut would be absorbed within the existing staff and\nwould result in some delays in quantity and timeliness of the\nworkload.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the reduction would cause delays in\nreviewing contracts, to which the City Attorney responded that the\ncurrent contract review time is two days; contract review will\ncontinue to be treated as a priority.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether two days is an average time for\ncontract review, to which the City Attorney responded the two-day\nturnaround time was the average time for contract review during the\nlast five months.\nMayor Johnson inquired what service impacts the City departments\ncould expect; stated that a Charter change might be necessary if\nthere was a delay in the City Attorney's office approving a\ncontract.\nThe City Attorney responded that the existing workload would be\nspread among existing staff; phones may need to be placed on voice\nmail at lunch time there may be a delay in document production and\nroutine tasks; stated the City Attorney's office is trying to work\nsmarter the workload that is handled by the Administration\nManagement Analyst would need to be spread among the remaining\nstaff; there would be a need to have Department Heads do more in\nterms of contract preparation and review.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was a way to advise the\nDepartment Heads which contracts need to be approved by the City\nAttorney's office and which do not.\nThe City Attorney stated that she has tried to triage the contracts\nby preparing a training program and getting forms and options on\nline to enable the departments to do more of the routine tasks; the\nlevel of the budget cut requires that things be done differently.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n4\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a separate\npresentation for Risk Management, to which the Acting City Manager\nresponded that Risk Management has been included in the City\nAttorney's presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would address the litigation\ncontingency account issue later.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that service to the departments is an\nimportant issue; every Councilmember is in agreement with\nstreamlining efforts; the Council appreciates the service that the\nCity Attorney's office has rendered to the public on issues such as\nthe Casino and the Oakland Airport; an 18% cut is a huge hit;\nstated that the value of the City Attorney's service to the\ncitizens could not be overstated.\nThe Acting Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation\non the impacts of the budget reduction.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the cost would be to implement the Park\nMaster Plan.\nThe Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded estimates are\nbetween $75,000 and $125,000, depending upon the number of public\nmeetings, the review process, and the number of times the matter is\nbrought back to various entities.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether maintenance would be included in the\nPark Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director\nresponded the Park Master Plan would be an overall park plan\ncovering almost every detail of the park system.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many grants are successfully\napplied for each year, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks\nDirector responded that the City received approximately $860,000 in\ngrants from the last two State bonds [Propositions 12 and 40]; the\nthree grants pending are Estuary Park, Paden School Trail, and\nAlameda Point Gym.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there has been a full-time\ngrant writer in the past, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks\nDirector responded in the negative; grant writing has been divided\namong the administrative staff.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that a grant writing position might be\nworth reviewing.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n5\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 21, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether a grant writing position could be\nutilized by all departments.\nThe Acting City Manager responded there has been consideration to\nhave an experienced grant writing volunteer; stated grant\napplication opportunities will not be missed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are consulting companies that\nprovide grant search and administration services and only charge a\nportion of the grant amount.\nMayor Johnson stated that a professional grant writer might be more\naware of grant opportunities the possibility of contracting out\nCitywide grant writing services should be reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $75,000 to $125,000 for the\nPark Master Plan consulting services is included in the budget, to\nwhich the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether anything has been done on the\nPark Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director\nresponded the initial research has been performed; a Citywide needs\nassessment was performed a few summers ago.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation on the Human\nResources Department's budget reduction impacts.\nThe Building Official gave a brief presentation on the Planning and\nBuilding Department's budget reduction impacts.\nMayor Johnson stated that there are part-time planners at Alameda\nPoint and City Hall: inquired whether having all planners at one\nlocation would be more efficient.\nThe Building Official responded there is one Planner working two\ndays a week at Alameda Point and the rest of the week at City Hall;\nthe schedule has worked out well; the Planner will need to spend\nmore time at City Hall because of the Planning Services Manager\ncut.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Department's cost\nrecovery is still at 90%, to which the Building Official responded\ncost recovery is at 100%.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n6\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 22, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that cutting a position that generates\nrevenue may need to be re-thought the City needs to be business\nfriendly.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City uses contract\nassistance when there are surges in the workload and whether the\ncosts would be covered by the fees, to which the Building Official\nresponded in the affirmative.\nlouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cut of the Planning\nServices Manager would slow down the permit and plan review\nprocess, to which the Building Official responded that there would\nbe a slow down in plan review with a ripple effect on advanced\nplanning projects.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the cut is not large enough to\njustify the slow down; the costs incurred due to the cut would be\nfar greater than the savings.\nMayor Johnson inquired about the possibility of utilizing outside\nconsultants.\nThe Acting City Manager responded that surges and decreases in\nactivity make it difficult to maintain even staffing levels;\noutside consultants are used to staff up for surges and are paid\nfor by the applicant.\nMayor Johnson stated that staffing should not be leveled to meet\nthe peak demand.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that the new Planning and Building\nDirector could determine the right amount of staffing to handle the\nworkload.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with the\nintermediate and smaller projects whose proponents and owners do\nnot have the ability to absorb the delay; doing work without\npermits might be encouraged and cause a deterioration of the\nhousing stock across the City; the City should be mindful in trying\nto save a small amount of money and paying a large price in the\nfuture.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what the status was for establishing\na one-stop permit center and whether it was within the budget.\nThe Building Official responded that staff is working with the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n7\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 23, "text": "Acting City Manager to determine where an appropriate one-stop\npermit center could be; funding has been set aside.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an improvement in\nthe vver-the-counter permit processing.\nThe Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated front\nline staff upgrades have freed up Planners' time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether goals could be met with\nstreamlined staffing, to which the Building Official responded in\nthe affirmative.\nThe Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation\non the Development Services Department, CIC and ARRA budget.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (MTC) grant available for the Phase 2 of\nthe Park and Webster Streets Streetscape Projects next year, to\nwhich the Development Services Director responded that MTC believes\nthe City would be a better candidate once the project has been\ncompleted.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the City would apply for grant\nfunding next year, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the City's match would be.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the formula\ncriteria is not known; stated that a number of funding options have\nbeen identified, such as supplemental tax increment payments or\nunused redevelopment bond money earmarked for the Library project.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is important to ensure that\nmoney is budgeted for Phase 2 next year.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the City needs to be\nvery careful in Fiscal Year 2005-061 what happens in the coming\nyear will ripple into the following years; stated there are a lot\nof committed projects.\nThe Development Services Director concurred with Commissioner/Boar\u00f3\nMember Daysog; stated that the Development Services Department is\nanticipating the resignation of a division director mid year; the\nposition will not be filled; a number of the Development Services\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n8\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 24, "text": "Department funds cannot cross pollinate into other activities; the\noverhead and staffing in the CIC budget is a little over 10%; there\nare very few bodies managing CIC projects Community Development\nBlock Grant (CDBG) funded staff cannot be moved to CIC projects\nbecause it is not eligible for them under the grant dollars; there\nis flexibility within ARRA and CIC staff; only four people are\nfunded through lease revenues; one person will be eliminated; the\nDevelopment Services Department will continue to morph throughout\nthe year; almost all of the cash flows have been completed, which\nwill provide a good picture of all obligations, pass-throughs,\ncontractual arrangements, etc.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated there is a greater control\nover the operating costs for staff; the City will need to keep a\nclose eye on projects.\nThe Development Services Director stated there is not a lot of\ncushion built in for all of the capital projects.\nCommissioner Daysog stated that the $2 million earmarked for the\nLibrary might not go for the Library because the money might be\nneeded for the redevelopment projects.\nThe Development Services Director stated the cycle is very common;\nwhen large construction projects are started there is a slip period\nof 18 months to three years before the projects hit the tax rolls.\nCommissioner Daysog stated that it is important to be very cautious\nwith the large budget projects; the Alameda Power & Telecom cable\ntelevision project was estimated at $16 million and cost $29\nmillion.\nThe Development Services Director stated that construction costs\ncontinue to escalate.\nCommissioner Daysog thanked the Development Services Director for\nthe leadership shown.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the budget is fragile at\nthe best; any Alameda Point glitches would be a major concern;\nnoted he has deep concerns for the future years; stated that he\nwould like to see budgeting for the retail recruiter position in\nthe future.\nThe Development Services Director stated that a retail recruiter\nhas been funded for one year.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n9\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 25, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that if recruiter benefits are realized,\nfunding can be added for the future years re-emphasized that 2005,\n2006, and 2007 will be extremely lean years ; stated that she\nappreciates the complex and difficult work done by the Development\nServices Department; efforts will help to bring Alameda back to the\nviable community and good business center of 20 to 50 years ago.\nCommissioner/Boar Member Gilmore thanked the Acting City\nManager/Acting Executive Director and Department Heads for an\nextremely useful budget presentation; requested additional\ninformation on the COPS Unit and additional staffing of the DARE\nProgram.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report providing up to\ndate information on the issue of telephone tax for public safety.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the proposal to fund\ninfrastructure included an increase in the property transfer tax\nand the legality of using the funds for streets and sidewalks.\nThe Acting City Manager responded that he would include the\nproperty transfer tax increase in the proposal; the City Attorney\nwill look into the legality of the matter Proposition 218\naddresses what can and cannot be done.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would like to continue to look\nat attorney and risk management costs; she would like to spend as\nlittle as possible on attorneys so that the money could be spent\nelsewhere; stated that it is important to be efficient with money\nand not cut in ways that eventually lead to spending more; stated\nthat the Council needs to exercise some oversight over the\nlitigation contingency budgets; the total amount budgeted for Risk\nManagement is approximately $470,000 and approximately $350,000 for\nAlameda Power & Telecom; suggested that the money be allocated as\nproposed in the budget but that the City Attorney bring requests\nto hire outside counsel to the City Council; the City Attorney\ncould be authorized to spend around $2500 for emergencies until the\napproval to hire outside counsel can be brought to Council. stated\nshe is open to suggestions from the City Attorney noted that the\nCharter gives the Council oversight of hiring outside counsel.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning and Building\nreduction is a lay off or an unfilled position, to which the Acting\nCity Manager responded the position would not be filled; stated he\nwould like to fill the Planning and Building Director position\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n10\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 26, "text": "first and then get staffing recommendations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese reiterated that the dollar amount of the\nreduction is small. that he likes the idea of contracting services;\nhaving a reduction in the processing of permits and review of plans\ncosts the City and customer money in the long run; other budget\nissues are hard realities; stated City services cost a lot of\nmoney.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was $150 million in\npermits this year, to which the Building Official responded permits\nhave totaled $138 million.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that there was not a budget for FY\n2004-05 for nine months the ten-year plan will give better\ninsight he is concerned with the future years; praised the efforts\nof all involved with the budget preparation; stated the information\nprovided is good, hard data; it is important to have some balances\nin equity within pay structures and labor management agreements.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was glad that the public was\npresent at tonight's meeting; she hoped that more people attend\nwhen the ten-year budget is presented; the City's past commitments\nwill pay a big role in the future.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that having a ten-year budget is great\nbut it is important to have a strong hold on the budget situation\nfor the next 6 to 18 months suggested devising a system to track\nspending and see how the budget is evolving every two weeks.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that he always reviews the budget\nwith the Finance Director. stated that said information can be\npassed on to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report on grant models\nand payment options; stated he looked forward to the City\nAttorney's review on how to handle the budget issues regarding", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 27, "text": "would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog\ndown the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent\nmatters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to\ndelegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council\nshould consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for\nAlameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over\nspending in the City Attorney's office.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget\namount she is trying to follow the Charter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the\nGeneral Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt\nservice, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to\na\ncertain extent and have impacts on each other.\nBoard Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority Resolution.\nBoard Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement\nCommission Resolution.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-031CIC) - Recommendation to approve the Determination that\nplanning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004-05 are\nnecessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low-\nand moderate-income housing.\nCommissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n12\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 28, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 9:54 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n13\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}