{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the\nQuarterly Sales Tax Report [paragraph no. 05-579], , the\nrecommendation to accept the Annual Review of fees [paragraph no.\n05-582], and the Resolution to Apply for a Bicycle Transportation\nAccount Grant [paragraph no. 05-585] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from\nvoting on the Special Joint City Council and Recreation and Park\nCommission Meeting.\n[\nItems so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n( *05-577) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Recreation\nand Park Commission Meeting held on November 30, 2005, and the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings held on December 6, 2005.\nApproved.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Special\nJoint City Council and Recreation and Park Commission Meeting. ]\n( *05-578) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,152,381.22.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 2, "text": "(05-579) - Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the period ending September 30, 2005, for sales transactions in\nthe second calendar quarter of 2005.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that there has been a drastic 16.5%\nreduction in tax revenue generation; requested a forecast for the\nupcoming quarters.\nThe Finance Director stated that the sales tax consultant advised\nher that sales tax receipts were not reported for the\ntransportation and business-to-business categories during the third\nquarter the non-reporting occurred throughout the State; sales tax\nreceipts should be reported in the next quarterly report for\nbusinesses headquartered in the southeast Gulf area; the report\nshould be received the first part of January.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there was an 80% reduction in the\ncommercial production, an overall 21.8% reduction in business-to\nbusiness, and retail dropped 16.5% inquired what attributed to the\n16.5% reduction in retail.\nThe Finance Director stated that the reported geographic areas show\ndownturns on Park Street and Webster Street as well as areas south\nof Lincoln Avenue; the decline could be attributed to construction\nactivity as well as businesses coming in and out; stated that one,\nspecific business was not inordinately impacted; impacts were\nacross the board.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the sales tax for the area\nnorth of Lincoln Avenue dropped immensely because of the economy.\nThe Finance Director stated that she did not know why there was a\ndecline in the area; under-reporting could have occurred.\nMayor Johnson requested more information on under-reporting.\nThe Finance Director stated that reports were late in coming to\nCalifornia for some businesses such as a multi-state business\nheadquartered in Mississippi.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the report would be available, to which\nthe Finance Director responded the first part of January.\nMayor Johnson requested an update when the final figures are\nreceived from the State.\nThe Finance Director stated that the figures would be included in\nthe next quarterly report.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Johnson requested that the update be provided in January.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that a trend could be developing which\ncould have a major impact on the overall budget and general funds\n;\ninquired whether adjustments could be made to put the money into\nthe right quarter.\nThe Finance Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the forecast.\nThe Finance Director responded that the forecast looks on target\nbut would need to be reviewed after the next quarterly report.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested background data on comparing second\nquarter 1999 to second 2004.\nThe Finance Director stated data is available.\nMayor Johnson requested an analysis be provided every six months ;\nstated that businesses have suffered during the construction\nprocess; the goal of economic development is to generate more\nrevenue; the Bay Area experienced a 2.3% growth and there was a\n4.5% growth Statewide; Alameda is not keeping up; redevelopment\nprojects should help increase revenue in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would not be surprised that\nconstruction along Webster Street and Park Street influenced the\ndownturn.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the analysis be provided every\nquarter with an eye on the forecast; stated that he could not\npinpoint any particular reason for the decline; a decline appeared\nin areas that were not under construction.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(*05-580) - Recommendation to appropriate in the General Fund the\n2005-2006 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229)\nGrant Funding to supplement frontline police services. Accepted.\n(*05-581) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$386,969.05 to Libramation, Inc. for a Materials Security Inventory\nSystem including five years of maintenance for the Alameda Free\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 4, "text": "The City Manager stated that the correction would be made to the\nreport.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith a correction to list the Work/Live Citywide Development Fee\n(CDF) under commercial [non-residential building space] instead of\nresidential.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-583) Recommendation to appropriate $49,000 from San Francisco\nBay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Grant and\n$21,930 in Urban Runoff Funds for removal of existing dock and\nplacement of riprap adjacent to Bridgeside Center Project, No. P. W.\n10-05-01. Accepted.\n(*05-584) Recommendation to appropriate $40,000 in Measure B Funds,\nadopt plans and specifications, and award a Contract in the amount\nof $87,000, including contingency, to Richard Heaps Electric, Inc.,\nfor Pole-Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs Project, No. P.W. 06-05-\n05. Accepted.\n(05-585) Resolution No. 13914, \"Applying for a Bicycle\nTransportation Account Grant to Enhance the North Approach to the\nBay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge, Appropriating Measure B Funds as\nLocal Match, and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute\nall Necessary Grant Documents. Adopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the bicycle route is the primary\nforce in applying for the grant; inquired whether approved, solid\nplans are in place.\nThe Public Works Director responded detailed plans are not in\nplace; an illustration has been developed to provide a cost\nestimate; time would be spent on design after the grant is\nreceived.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the timing for applying for\nthe grant, to which the Public Works Director responded by the end\nof the month.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether specifics could be worked out\nlater.\nThe Public Works Director responded that some granting agencies\nallow more flexibility than others; changing basic items such as\nlimits and width might not be possible.\nMayor Johnson stated the bike path is important; many children ride\nbikes from Bay Farm Island to east end schools; inquired whether a\nmore detailed grant application would place the City in a better\nposition to receive the grant.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he did not think more\ndetail was needed; the agency wants to have a basic description of\nthe project and cost estimate; stated he would look into the\nmatter; an explanation of the benefits is required.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the grant could be used for\nother projects, what is the scope of the project, and whether the\npublic has been involved.\nThe Public Works Director stated that the Public Works Department\ndoes not have the money to pay for staff time until a project is\nidentified he assured a concerned resident that the loading and\nunloading zones at Lincoln Middle School would be preserved and\nthat staff would meet with residents to seek input once the grant\nis received and there is a preliminary design.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the improvement was part of the\nMaster Bike Plan, to which the Public Works Director responded\nimprovements in the area are included in the Master Bike Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Lincoln Middle School\nSafe Routes to School project had funding.\nThe Public Works Director responded the project received a grant ;\nthe same process is being followed for the proposed project whereby\nthe City applied for the grant and then met with the school and the\nresidents.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the two projects would\ndovetail together.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the two projects would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 6, "text": "blend together and build on each other; the Safe Routes to School\nproject would come to the Council early next year; construction\nshould start in the summer of 2006; the proposed project would\nfollow.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the public process would be\nthe same, to which the Public Works Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that it is important that the two\nprojects dovetail together and marry in the proper way.\nThe Public Works Director ensured that the two projects would work\ntogether.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the grant could be used for\nanother project.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the grant is not portable;\nchanges can be made based on constraints discovered while working\non the design.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there were any other proposed\nbike projects that would require grants.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the proposed project is\none of the higher rated projects in the Bike Master Plan.\nMayor Johnson stated that the proposed project was determined to be\na top priority based upon the Bike Master Plan; requested that a\nprocess be established to allow the Council to prioritize projects\nwhich could receive grant funding; stated the area is dangerous and\nthe proposed improvements are important.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution with the\ncaveat that the project be dovetailed together with the Safe Routes\nto School project.\nThe Public Works Director stated that the projects would have\ndifferent schedules the proposed project would fall behind the\nSafe Routes to School project.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the problem needs to be cured in trying\nto get the children to school safely, mitigating on-going problems\nat Lincoln Middle School, and getting the community involved in\nboth projects so that the decision has continuity.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there were discussions regarding\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 7, "text": "field space being taken away at Lincoln Middle School.\nThe Public Works Director responded the School District discussed\nthe matter, not the City.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City received the grant; the Safe\nRoutes to School project was very controversial i it would take a\nlot to convince her that there is a need to take open space away\nfrom schools; she was concerned about how much grant money was\nspent in considering whether field space should be taken away or\nnot.\nThe Public Works Director stated that consideration for taking away\nopen space was never envisioned and that staff did not discuss the\nmatter in depth.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review the\nfinancial portion of the Safe Routes to School grant at a later\ndate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether both projects would be\nseamlessly executed when the grant was received, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-586) - Resolution No. 19315, \"Amending the Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the\nSalary Range for the Classification of Plan Check Engineer. \"\nAdopted.\n(*05-586A) Resolution No. 13916, \"Amending the Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by\nEstablishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications of\nDevelopment Services Division Manager, Golf Services Manager, Golf\nCourse Maintenance Superintendent, and Building Official. Adopted.\n(*05-586B) Resolution No. 13917, \"Amending Exhibit A-1 of the\nExecutive Management Compensation Plan Established by Council\nResolution No. 13545 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 13626 and\n13689, to Establish a Five-Day Workweek Alternative with\nCorresponding Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Assistant\nCity Manager and Planning and Building Director. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-587 ) Recommendation to authorize a letter of welcome to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 8, "text": "Asuchio, El Salvador Civic Leaders.\nStewart Chen, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) , stated\nthat the Sister City workgroup was established a year ago to\nexplore and expand Alameda's involvement in a global friendship\nmovement; the community and St. Philip Neri's parish are interested\nin establishing a relationship with Asuchio, El Salvador stated\nthat an invitation to visit is the first step in formalizing a\nfriendship.\nRob Bonta, SSHRB, stated the key to a successful relationship is\nhaving existing energy and support within the community; the goal\nis to establish a non-profit organization that is run by community\nmembers.\nMayor Johnson thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for their hard work.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for bringing\nthe matter forward; stated traveling to Asuchio was rewarding to\nhim; members in the audience have made trips to El Salvador ; there\nis a good nucleus in gaining something for Alameda as well as\nAsuchio.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that he\nlikes the idea of the City of Alameda having relations with a more\nneedy city.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n( 05-588 - ) Consideration of a proposal for the City of Alameda, as a\nparticipant in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention\nProgram, to partially fund a survey to be used in analyzing the\nfeasibility of increasing the County Service Area fee for lead\nabatement education and services.\nMayor Johnson stated that representatives from the Joint Powers\nAuthority (JPA) were present to answer any questions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested a better explanation regarding\nwhether there was any legal problem in agreeing to ask only\nquestions that directly relate to determining the viability of an\nincrease in the fee to fund the Lead Program; stated the thrust of\nthe last Council discussion was to only pay if the survey was\nrestricted to lead-related questions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Johnson agreed that the Council was looking for a commitment\non the matter.\nMark Allen, Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Board\nstated the will of the Authority was to establish the requirement\nin the Contract.\nMayor Johnson requested Mr. Allen to describe which Alameda\nprograms would be facing funding reductions and which programs\nwould be funded by the potential fee increase.\nMr. Allen stated cuts have already been implemented which would\nhave a negative impact on Alameda: free risk assessments have been\ncut; the assessments were provided to the Housing Authority and\nDevelopment Services Department for free over the past five years\nbut now the City has to budget for the service; additional services\nat risk are: technical assistance to property owners with an\nidentified lead poisoned child, free home renovation classes,\nreduction in the number of lead safe painting kits, and elimination\nof a one-day lead safe work practice workshop stated the survey\nwould indicate what fee the property owners or the general\nelectorate would be willing to bear; a $10 to $15 increase might\nprovide the cities with risk assessments.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what amount was being requested as\nAlameda's share.\nMr. Allen responded $5,000; stated the City of Berkeley's share was\n$10,000 and the City of Oakland's share was $14,9991 Alameda County\nand SEIU Local 616 contributed $11,000 each; the City of Emeryville\ncontributed $3,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the consultant has been\nselected, to which Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the County would go forward\nwith the survey without the City's contribution.\nMr. Allen responded not necessarily; further discussion would be\nneeded if one of the cities chose not to contribute; stated a\nContract has not been signed.\nMayor Johnson inquired who would approve the Contract, to which Mr.\nAllen responded the Board of Directors.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there was concern regarding the use of\nthe data and whether the data would be public information.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the data could be used for anything\nif the data was public information.\nMr. Allen stated that some of the work product could be kept\nconfidential ; the final product would be public.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the County is a public entity and\nthe data should be public.\nMayor Johnson stated the Contract would identify ownership.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have expressed\nconcern regarding ownership.\nMr. Allen responded other cities have agreed with the concerns\nraised by Alameda.\nThe City Attorney noted that the memorandum from the County stated\nthat information collected would be subject to the Public Records\nAct.\nMayor Johnson stated the Authority would be subject to the Public\nRecords Request Act but not the consultants.\nThe City Attorney stated the data should be publicly available.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the data could be provided to\nthe participants.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there was concern that a consultant\ncould ask a broad spectrum of questions, gain personal advantage in\nrunning a County survey, and use the data for something else; a\ncondition should be that the data be published along with the\nreport.\nMayor Johnson stated that some information has been provided on the\nelection; inquired whether the Authority would pay for the\nelection.\nMr. Allen responded that the election cost would be paid by the\nAuthority as a straight charge from the fee.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the proposed assessment\ndid not pass, to which Mr. Allen responded the cost would come out\nof the Authority's budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the election cost estimate.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. Allen responded the survey would determine the type of\nelection; stated that Oakland paid $125,000 to conduct a Fire\nPrevention Assessment District election; the election covered\n25,000 households and was a mail ballot to the property owners ; a\ncountywide election would cost approximately $1 per voter.\nMayor Johnson inquired how many households would be included in an\nelection covering the existing households only, to which Mr. Allen\nresponded considerably more than 25,000.\nMayor Johnson stated the cost is big for the Authority; inquired\nwhether anything would prevent the Authority from legally paying\nfor the election.\nMr. Allen responded in the negative; stated the survey would\ndetermine whether there is interest in entertaining a more in-depth\ndiscussion and strategy.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the report provided is very thin\non JPA's budget problem; funding for supplementary services has\nbeen lost; services are cut when funding is lost; remaining funding\nis used to provide core services people in Alameda feel overtaxed;\nmore information should be given.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Daysog wanted more\ninformation on the cuts.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he would like more information\non what happened to precipitate the need for money.\nMr. Allen stated that the County has gone through three budget\nprocesses identifying problems.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what voice Alameda would have after\nthe survey has been conducted.\nMayor Johnson responded there are four member cities have voting\nrepresentatives; the County has non-voting representatives; people\nin the County area are not part of the program.\nMr. Allen stated that property owners in the County of Alameda':\nunincorporated area do not receive any of the services ; the JPA\npasses the budget for the program on an annual basis.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a way to satisfy\nCouncilmember Daysog's concerns.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to know what\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 12, "text": "precipitated the need for the requested funding and what type of\ncuts have been made to deal with the current situation.\nMr. Allen stated that the $10 fee has not increased since 1992;\noperating costs have increased; the fee was new and did not include\ncost escalation; $19 million has been leveraged from the Department\nof Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding into the four County\nService Area (CSA) cities; last year was the first year that the\nprogram did not have a full year of HUD funding six out of\nthirteen rounds of grants have been received from the Office of\nHealthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control; program income has been\ngenerated from of no-interest loans to property owners. payment is\nmade when the property is transferred; the loans need to be\nrecycled for the same type of activity services were carried for\nthree years on program income; six people were laid off last year\nbecause all program income was used; efforts are being made to\nidentify whether there is a mechanism to correct the fact that\nthere has not been an increase in base funding since 1992; the\nbudget has been reduced from $5 million to $2.5 million over three\nyears; audits are preformed every year; the program has won\nNational awards.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the loss of HUD funding has\ndropped the annual budget by $3 million; the policy question is\nwhether the residents should pick up the loss of the HUD funding.\nMr. Allen stated that the policy question is whether or not\nproperty owners should have a say in whether they value the service\nenough to increase the fee; questioned how the level of service can\nbe maintained when the service has exceeded $10 per year.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether programs that have been funded\nthrough HUD could not be funded because of funding source\nlimitations.\nMr. Allen responded yes and no; the program cuts from HUD took\nplace in one year; a $3 million HUD grant was received the next\nyear; the CSA fee is restricted to property owner services HUD\ndollars are used for project remediation and tenant education;\nState funding is received from the Department of Health Services\nfor case management of lead poisoned children; one fund does not\nfund other categories.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the increase in the CSA fee would\npay for more assessments, not remediation and health treatment;\nwhether there would be a problem in bringing the matter back in\nJanuary, to which Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative to both\nquestions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 13, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog stated that he understands the argument that\nthe 2005 $10 fee does not buy the same services as in 1992 and that\nthere were some shifts in HUD priorities resulting in loss of\ndollars; taxes are an overwhelming concern; he is not convinced\nthat there is a strong argument for residents backfilling the\nshortfall instead of the Board making cuts that others make when\nfunding is lost.\nMr. Allen stated the survey would ask the people whether they feel\nthe service is valuable enough to consider placing an increase on\nthe ballot; the survey is to test the waters and see if people feel\nthe service is worth the contribution; every other government has\nraised fees since 1992.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the request is whether the City\nshould put $5,000 into asking a question to determine whether or\nnot increasing the assessment fee should go on the ballot ; the\nprogram is valuable enough to invest $5,000.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating $5,000 for the\nsurvey with the conditions that the JPA Board use an open bidding\nprocess [or provide an explanation if there are impediments in\nusing the bid process]. and that the data and final report be a\nmatter of public record.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the open\nbidding process would cause problems, to which Mr. Allen responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Contract has not come to the Board;\nthe process has been very different there would be no problem\nunder normal circumstances but there could be a problem in this\ninstance.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a written explanation could be\nprovided regarding why the Board could not go out for an open\npublic bid before the Contract goes to the Board for approval.\nMayor Johnson responded that the Board has not been involved in any\nprocess to select a consultant.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated her preference would be to request that\nthe process go out to open bid if the Board has not gone through a\nprocess to either select a contractor or approve a Contract; she\nwould also like to know if there is some impediment in doing so.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 14, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; stated\n$5,000 is a small amount to pay to ask the question.\nCounci lmember Matarrese amended the motion to include Vice Mayor\nGilmore's caveat [that the process go to bid or the JPA provide a\nwritten explanation if there is an impediment with using the open\nbid process]\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council is safeguarding itself with\nthe financial review process.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote - Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nMayor Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-589) louncilmember deHaan stated that the opening of the new\nAlameda Towne Centre Safeway store was very successful; sale\nestimates are between $40-50 million for the proposed Target;\nTarget states that 85% of all transactions would be coming from\nAlameda which is the leakage the City is trying to capture; close\nto a million $38 to $50 transactions would need to occur per year\nto achieve $40 million in sales; Target states that the store is a\none-stop shop; transportation and corridor impacts could be derived\nfrom the one-stop shop concept ; past studies indicate only 65% of\nthe transactions would be recaptured; Alamedans would need to make\nover 900,000 transactions per year which means that every household\nwould have approximately 30 to 31 transactions per year questioned\nwhether said number of transactions is reasonable; stated a\nconsultant was used in the past everyone needs to understand the\ndynamics of what is happening; Target knows exactly what is\nhappening but does not always provide information to the public; an\nindependent consultant is needed to establish some of the facts and\nfigures; every household in Alameda would have to spend close to\n$1200 per year for a 85% recovery; the money would not be new money\nbut would be drawn from elsewhere.\nMayor Johnson stated that figures show that Alameda residents spend\nmillions of dollars at Target; new money would be residents\nspending millions of dollars in Alameda rather than elsewhere if\nthe project goes forward.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated that $4.3 to $5.6 million is spent at\nTarget stores; the community is questioning the impacts; the\nCouncil needs to ensure that the community's concerns and questions\nare answered with an impartial consultant.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter would need to be placed on an\nagenda in order for Council to give direction.\nThe City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to\nCouncil in terms of an analysis and could be placed on an agenda if\nCouncil action is needed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated multiplying 900,000 trips against the\n$50 transaction comes within the envelope that Target expects in\nterms of store sales; the Board of Equalization's website provides\na breakdown on the typical per capita for sales of general\nmerchandise, which is $1200.\n(05-590) Mayor Johnson stated that a lot has been accomplished in\nthe past year; wished everyone a happy holiday and happy New Year.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:10 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\n15\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -5:31 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 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(05-573) ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9; Number of cases One.\n( 05-574) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.\nMayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City Council\nmeeting at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 9:15 p.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal\nCounsel, the Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel;\nregarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council gave\ndirection to negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:10 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\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-20", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call -\nPresent Councilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese,\nand\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n( *05-575CC/05-057CIC) Minutes of the Special Community\nImprovement Commission meeting and the Joint City Council,\nCommunity Improvement Commission and Alameda and Reuse\nRedevelopment Authority meeting held on December 6, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-576CC/05-058CIC) Recommendation to accept the Community\nImprovement Commission Annual Report and authorize transmittal to\nthe State Controller's Office and City Council. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 20, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf"}