{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 4, 2008- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:50\np.m. Vice Mayor Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-094) Proclamation declaring March 2008 as American Red Cross\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Helen Knudson\nand Cortes Sanders with the American Red Cross Leadership Council;\nand Jim Franz, Alameda American Red Cross Director.\nMs. Knudson thanked Council for the proclamation; stated the Red\nCross responded to ten events within the City in the past ten\nyears; the annual CPR instruction will be held on March 8 in all\nsix counties.\nMs. Sanders thanked Council and the community for partnering with\nthe Red Cross.\nMr. Franz stated that volunteers are the lifeblood of the Red\nCross; the Red Cross started in 1898 and in Alameda also.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*08-095) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting the Special\nJoint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting; and the Regular City\nCouncil Meeting held on February 19, 2008. Approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 2, "text": "(*08-096) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,452,067.26.\n(*08-097) Recommendation to approve amendments to existing\nProfessional Services Agreements with Lamphier Gregory and Harsh\nInvestment Realty for the evaluation of potential environmental\nimpacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Alameda Towne\nCentre. Accepted.\n( (*08-098) Recommendation to allocate $860,522 from Fund 310.1 Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center Catellus Traffic Mitigation Fee for the\nconstruction of Bayport traffic mitigation improvements at Ralph\nAppezzato Memorial Parkway and Webster Street, Constitution Way and\nMariner Square Drive. Accepted.\n(*08-099) Resolution No. 14186, \"Approving the Power Purchase\nAgreement between Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) and\nWestern GeoPower, Inc., for the Purchase of Power from a New\nGeothermal Power Plant at a Fixed Price of $98.00/MWh Over an\nInitial 20-Year Term and Authorize the General Manager to Execute\nthe Third Phase Agreement for Members of NCPA to Participate in the\nProposed Project. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n( 08-100) Recommendation to consider an appeal of the\nTransportation Commission's decision to install parking\nrestrictions at the existing westbound bus stops on the northerly\nside of Encinal Avenue at the intersection of Mound Street.\nThe Program Specialist II gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many parking spaces would be\nremoved by red curbing the Mound Street bus stop, to which the\nProgram Specialist II responded three.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many riders use the bus stop.\nThe Program Specialist II responded five people board and three\npeople get off at the Encinal Avenue and Mound Street bus stop per\nday.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any safety issues were\naddressed; further inquired whether there are any problems with\nwhere buses stop now.\nThe Program Specialist II responded that he has not heard of any\ncomplaints.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired when parking was observed.\nThe Program Specialist II responded parking was observed at 3:00\np.m. on a Tuesday ; 9:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on a Wednesday; and 9:30\np.m. on a Sunday .\nCouncilmember deHaan stated parking is critical on Sundays.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether ridership is fairly high on the\nthree bus lines; stated the OX Transbay line operates during the\nmorning peak times and always seems to be fairly full.\nThe Program Specialist II responded the bus line has good\nridership.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : Mark Betz, Alameda; Brad Ashmore,\nAlameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Deborah James, Alameda.\nNeutral : Susan Decker, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how far along is the red curbing\npolicy.\nThe Program Specialist II responded there are approximately twenty\nstops left stated approximately half are on the list Council\nrecommended in January.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether distinctions were made\nbetween storage of vehicles and parking.\nThe Program Specialist II responded there is no way to judge\nwhether vehicles are stored or parked.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a boat trailer is taking up a\nparking space on Encinal Avenue; storage space should not be\nprovided; taking parking away from a neighborhood is not easy.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has ordinances regarding\nstoring vehicles.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative. stated Alameda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 4, "text": "was constructed when cars were not prominent i people are jockeying\nfor parking spaces on the main thoroughfares on Sunday mornings; he\nis concerned with ridership and noise; parking is the major issue;\nenforcement needs to be done on illegal vehicles stored on streets.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she takes the Mound Street route often;\nshe concurs with staff's observation regarding available parking ;\nthe City established a long-range transit plan and is sending the\nmessage that a viable transit system is needed; she appreciates the\nefforts of staff and the Transportation Commission.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Transportation\nCommission's decision.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion\nincluded the enforcement issue.\nVice Mayor Tam responded that she hopes enforcement is happening\nirrespective of being included in a motion.\nMr. Ashmore inquired why three parking spots are needed instead of\ntwo.\nMayor Johnson responded staff would be able to answer the question.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the ordinance is strong enough for\nenforcement of illegal vehicles stored on streets.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded enforcement is done on a\ncomplaint basis.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that ticketing vehicles stored on\nstreets over seventy-two hours becomes a game vehicles are moved\nand then put back in the same spot he would like to see how the\nexisting ordinance can be strengthened; fines should be increased\nafter three violations per year; requested that the Police\nDepartment provide Council with recommendations.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-101) Recommendation to request placement of a Ballot Measure\nResolution proposing non-substantive changes to the City Charter on\na City Council Agenda no later than July 15, 2008, and to\nprioritize and provide direction on future substantive changes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam stated that Councilmember Gilmore, Senior Assistant\nCity Attorney, and Deputy City Clerk have been meeting following\nthe December 5, 2007 workshop; the subcommittee consolidated the\nproposed changes into three different categories: nonsubstantiv\nrevisions; substantive revisions; and revisions that Council and\nthe City Manager suggested after the workshop.\nCouncilmember Gilmore outlined the proposed nonsubstantive\nrevisions.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the deadline to pass a\nresolution.\nVice Mayor Tam responded Council needs to pass a resolution no\nlater than August 7, 2008, to qualify for the November consolidated\nelection; stated the subcommittee recommends placing the matter on\nthe July 15, 2008 City Council agenda.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee wanted to ensure that\nthere was enough time to provide the public with information.\nVice Mayor Tam outlined the proposed substantive revisions.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the proposed language for Article\nIV, Auditor, and Article V, Treasurer, was drafted in consultation\nwith the current incumbents.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Article 28-5 has an extra provision\nfor removal of a Historical Advisory Board Member, to which\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whom the Charter designates as officers;\nstated the term \"officer\" seems to be broader than just people\nelected or appointed by Council.\nThe Senior Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-12 adds\nassistants and deputies.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the revision would not change who is\nor is not an officer, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese questioned whether there is a way to\noverride the formal bidding requirement while still requiring\nCouncil approval ; no bid would be required to get work started,\nthen a Council meeting could be called to approve the expenditure.\nThe Public Works Director stated that 2005 had some very bad storms\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 6, "text": "which led to excessive bank erosion; the award of a contract had to\nbe suspended until a Council meeting could be held; further erosion\noccurred; the intent of the proposed revision is to mitigate a\nsimilar situation.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired what was the cost [to repair the erosion].\nThe Public Works Director responded $150,000 at the time and\napproximately $300,000 to $350,000 later.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a twenty-four hour notice is needed\nfor an emergency Council Meeting; someone could start the work for\n$75,000 and then a Council meeting could be called to get approval.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the sub-committee has requested the City\nAttorney's office to reference the definition of what constitutes\nan emergency which is taken directly from State law.\nMayor Johnson inquired when an emergency would end; stated normal\nrequirements could be in place after a certain number of days of\nthe expenditure.\nThe City Manager stated the City Attorney could review restrictions\nin terms of number of days or require that the matter come back for\nCouncil confirmation by the next regular Council meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated that defining when an emergency ends is\nnecessary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated inserting language to have the\nmatter come back for Council confirmation is a good idea; a quorum\nmay not be available; the intent is to be able to address a\ncatastrophe.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City Manager has authorization up\nto $75,000; inquired whether past emergencies have warranted a City\nManager to make decisions immediately.\nThe Public Works Director responded there have been numerous sewer\nbackups; stated the situation at Washington Park was just under\n$75,000, but could have been more if the large Palm tree was lost.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated things could change ten years from now;\nthe $75,000 threshold has been in place for many years; the numeric\nvalue does not have a lot of value.\nMayor Johnson stated that the dollar amount should be set by\nordinance, not the Charter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 7, "text": "The City Manager stated the dollar amount is not in the Charter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the ability to override the\nbidding requirements is fine as long as a confirmation occurs\nwithin a given amount of time.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the subcommittee will work with the City\nAttorney's office to prepare language to seek Council confirmation\nat the earliest opportunity following an expenditure.\nMayor Johnson inquired who has the authority to bind the City in\nthe event of an emergency, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded\nthe City Manager.\nThe City Attorney stated it is not uncommon for a City Manager to\nauthorize an emergency contract, start work to protect things from\ngetting worse, and then bring a contract to Council for\nratification at the next available Council meeting; the City would\nonly be obligated to pay for services rendered; if a contract is\nnot ratified, the Contract would end.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether issues would be brought to\nthe public for review and recommendations\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded the subcommittee wanted direction\nfrom Council on whether any of the eight substantive revisions\nshould move forward on the November ballot ; input is requested on\nthe items that came up after the December workshop and on how to\nmove forward with public discussions between now and the time\nCouncil has to vote to put the matter on the ballot.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that his current recommendation is to\namend Section 2-11 to have consistency between boards and\ncommissions; a future recommendation would involve the selection of\nboards and commissions and allowing Council to make nominations.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would strongly oppose the\nrecommendation.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is comfortable\nwith the eight substantive revisions.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated he\nsupports the November timeline. commended the subcommittee on\nefforts made.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee discussed voter\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 8, "text": "fatigue; inquired whether Councilmember deHaan has a priority\npreference.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded that he did not view the issue in\nterms of priorities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that his top priority is the formal\nbidding requirements because the matter is emergency preparednessi\nItem 4 [governing the elected position of Auditor], Item\n5\n[governing the elected position of Treasurer], and Item 6\n[eliminating \"transportation\" from Article XII, Section 12-1(A) - are\nclean up items.\nCouncilmember deHaan excused himself from the meeting at 8:58 p.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that her top priority is that\ncontracts be in writing.\nThe Senior Assistant City Attorney stated that there was a range of\ntwo to eight Charter revisions per ballot over a thirty-year\nperiod.\nBill Smith, Alameda, stated that he supports the recommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the Charter references the\npractice of requiring bonds for individual performance; the\nlanguage is obsolete; the practice is to protect the City by\ncarrying an insurance policy; inquired whether a provision should\nbe added requiring that the City have appropriate insurance if\nreferences to bonds are eliminated.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the liability insurance would be for\nemployees.\nThe Senior Assistant City Attorney responded the City carries crime\ninsurance which cover instances such as embezzlement or someone\nabsconding with checks.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has an insurance policy, to\nwhich the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has used the insurance\npolicy, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded that\nshe did not know.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Johnson questioned whether the City should have an insurance\npolicy if claims are not made; inquired what is the loss limit on\nthe policy.\nThe Senior Assistant City Attorney responded she does not know the\nlimit; stated the deductible is $10,000.\nMayor Johnson stated the City should use the policy or not have\none; inquired when was the last time the City made a claim, to\nwhich the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded that she did not\nknow.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee and City Attorney's\noffice would discuss the matter with the Risk Manager and provide\nmore information to Council.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the Charter stipulates that the City has\nperformance bonds ; the recommendation is to have some type of\ninsurance policy instead.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the bond is intended to cover theft,\nto which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Councilmember Matarrese submitted a\nproposed revision to Article VII that would require the appointment\nof department heads to be on the advice and consent of Council the\nsubcommittee noted that the proposal would need to be harmonized\nwith Article VII, Section 3, which prohibits Council from\ninterfering with the execution of the City Manager's powers or\nduties the proposal would substantially change the form of\ngovernment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed revision would provide\nfor more accountability.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the Charter is based upon a strong City\nManager form of government; the City of Oakland passed a strong\nMayor initiative that allows the Mayor to be more deeply involved\nin the City's management and operations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the matter needs extensive\ndiscussion.\nMayor Johnson suggested looking at the City of Berkeley's form of\ngovernment.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the matter should go straight to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 10, "text": "public discussion.\nVice Mayor Tam concurred with Councilmember Gilmore.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated workshops could be held if revisions\ncould be pared down to a workable mass.\nVice Mayor Tam stated other cities, such as the City of Albany,\nformed a Charter Review Committee that has the specific task of\nreviewing the Charter on an on-going basis.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City of Santa Ana has an on-going\nCouncil Subcommittee.\nThe City Manager stated the City of Santa Ana has an ad-hoc\ncommittee that meets on a periodic basis.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that Article IX subjects the\nappointment, discipline and removal of a deputy city clerk to the\napproval of Council; the subcommittee suggests deleting the\nprovision to be consistent with other Charter provisions; suggested\nthat the matter be a cleanup item.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that Councilmember deHaan seeks to amend\nSection 2-11 to have the Charter preclude any incumbent of any\nelective federal, State, County, or local office from serving on a\nCity board or commission that was created by the Charter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that Councilmember deHaan also wants\nthe provision to include any board or commission created by the\nCouncil.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a Task Force committee would be\nincluded.\nVice Mayor Tam responded the intent is for a standing boards or\ncommissions.\nThe City Clerk stated that all bodies created in the Charter are\nboards, everything else is a commission; commissions are created by\nordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated one example that Councilmember deHaan used\nwas the Hospital Board, which is elected; having someone serve on\nthe Hospital Board and also hold a position on a City board would\nnot be a violation of the Charter.\nMayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict of interest issue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 11, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam stated the issue is a compatibility of office.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Vice Mayor Tam.\nVice Mayor Tam stated a person serving on the Hospital Board could\nserve on the Economic Development Commission because the Commission\nis an advisory body, but could not serve on the Planning Board\nbecause there would be potential conflict of land issues.\nCouncilmember Gilmore suggested that the discussion be held when\nCouncilmember deHaan is present.\nMayor Johnson stated that there is no restriction on a person\nserving on more than one board or commission, but is a practice.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City Manager proposes to amend\nSection 22-8 to provide flexibility to close offices, such as\nduring winter holidays.\nMayor Johnson stated that opening and closing times should not be\nin the Charter the matter should be covered by ordinance or\nresolution.\nThe City Manager stated that she sees the issue as being similar to\nsetting of Council meetings in order to provide flexibility.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue is a cleanup item.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Councilmember deHaan wants\nCouncilmembers to have the ability to nominate members of boards\nand commissions, not just the Mayor; the matter should be brought\nback to Council for further discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the job that the\nsubcommittee has done; issues are sifting down to be presented to\nvoters; inquired whether the subcommittee is requesting approval of\nthe resolution for non-substantive revisions along with additional\ncleanup items.\nVice Mayor Tam responded that issues have been bifurcated; stated\nthe subcommittee is seeking Council approval of non-substantive\nrevisions, as well as what Council considered to be additional\ncleanup items; adoption of a formal resolution is not needed until\nthe July 15 City Council Meeting; items that were brought up after\nthe December workshop can be tabled and discussed separately.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the item requiring contracts to be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 12, "text": "in writing is a new provision or cleanup.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded there is consensus on what is being\npresented in terms of cleanup; stated Article IV, V and a new\nprovision requiring contracts to be in writing should be added to\nthe cleanup list.\nMayor Johnson stated that Item 6 [eliminating \"transportation\" from\nArticle XII, Section 12-1(A) ] and Item 8 [eliminating three reasons\nfor removal of Historical Advisory Board Members) should be cleanup\nalso.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that consensus indicates that Item 3\n[formal bidding requirements) should be on fast track but some\nlanguage should come back to Council before further action is\ntaken; the City's insurance policy would be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated the insurance policy should not be discussed\nbecause the issue is not a Charter issue; bond requirements need to\nbe removed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether insurance language should be\nadded to protect the City if bond requirements are removed.\nVice Mayor Tam responded removing the bond language would be more\nmodern; stated thirty years from now insurance may be replaced by\nsomething else; inquired whether there would be any downside by not\nhaving specific insurance requirement language.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the issue could be deferred\nto an ordinance.\nThe Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nstated the matter could remain silent also.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether closing offices is considered a\ncleanup issue.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that the\nfollowing items will be discussed further : board and commission\nnominations; amendments to Section 2-11 regarding federal, State,\nCounty or local office incumbents holding City board or commission\npositions; City Manager appointments of department heads to be on\nthe advice and consent of Council; stated the City of Berkeley's\nform of government will be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the elimination of the provision\nthat subjects the appointment, discipline and removal of a deputy\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 13, "text": "city clerk to the approval of Council should be a cleanup issue.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether alternatives should be\nprovided for public discussion forums.\nVice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative; stated it is hard to\ngenerate interest on Charter issues at regularly scheduled\nmeetings; it would be helpful to have focused citizen interest and\nexpertise.\nMayor Johnson thanked Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Gilmore for\nthe hard work.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the Senior Assistant City\nAttorney has been excellent in keeping the subcommittee on track\nand on task; the Deputy City Clerk has provided much needed\nhistory.\nMayor Johnson stated the subcommittee would bring the matter back\nto Council.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08-102) - David Howard, Alameda, stated $6 million was transferred\nfrom the Business Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) to two\ntrust accounts for the School District. the balance is now $2\nmillion; the accounts have very little transparency; the accounts\nare managed by the City; the money is not segregated; questioned\nwhy the Finance Department is unable to answer questions regarding\nthe matter; stated an audit report needs to be provided to the\npublic; people might question management of the funds and not\napprove the parcel tax.\n(08-103) - Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Base reuse.\n(08-104) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated the City entered into an\nagreement with the School District in 1991; Municipal Officers for\nRedevelopment Reform (MORR) has done a lot of research regarding\nthe impacts of redevelopment money on public schools; the intent of\na 1991 Agreement between the Community Improvement Commission and\nSchool District was to provide affordable housing for School\nDistrict employees and was never met; requested an audit; stated\nthe money should be put into the School District's budget.\nMayor Johnson requested that the City Attorney's office provide\nCouncil with a copy of said Agreement.\n(08-105) - Ken Peterson, Alameda, stated Los Angeles and the City of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 14, "text": "Roseville recycle polystyrene; some places recycle post food\nservice materials provided a list of web site addresses that offer\npolystyrene recycling.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Peterson had any information on\npolystyrene recycling costs.\nMr. Peterson responded in the affirmative; stated Los Angeles pays\n$3,000 per ton; polystyrene is approximately 90% air and is fifty\ntimes the volume of comparable waste material. a comparable solid\nmaterial cost is $7 per ton; $98 per ton is charged at Davis\nStreet.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(08-106) Consider directing the City Manager to have staff and the\nEconomic Development Commission research and proposed projects and\npolicies in order to attract, retain and expand marine related\nbusiness for Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have marine\nrelated services expanded from the commercial side and more\nextensively from the pleasure boat side; Pleasanton had a Boat\nShow; a local broker advised him that the Boat Show was a bust\nbecause there is no water in Pleasanton; he would like to have the\nEconomic Development Commission (EDC) and staff come up with some\npotential projects to meet the updated Economic Development\nStrategic Plan; three marine related services left when the Grand\nStreet housing project was developed; two left the island; he would\nlike to have the EDC come up with some ideas and present the ideas\nto Council.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was\nreferring to marine related businesses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded marine related businesses and\nservices include yacht brokers, yacht repairs, part services such\nas hull cleaning, and training the commercial side involves berth\nleasing to commercial boats; the City has a commercial shipyard;\nthe issue is how to increase business in order for businesses to\ncontribute to the City's tax base.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter seems like a large project and\nshould be reviewed in light of other Council priorities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he feels the matter is a fairly\ngood size priority; he wants to stay away from the approach that\nsays the City becomes dependent on one industry; no one industry is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 15, "text": "going to carry the economic health of the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether yacht sales generate sales tax.\nThe Development Services Director responded yacht sales are\napproximately 9% of the City's sales tax revenue; stated the\npercentage is cyclical because yachts are a luxury item; boat shows\nare not a point of sale trigger brokers report into the County\nwhere the business is registered; local businesses report at the\npoint of origin; she will provide more information on the impacts\nof boat shows; a Revenue Enhancement Committee has been created to\nreview different revenue enhancement ideas the Committee could\nreview the matter and see whether priority time should be spent on\nthe matter currently, the Development Services Department has\nstaffing issues and is slow in providing detailed information on\nthe matter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the matter warrants some study\nboat shows are not for sales tax but are for bringing people into\nan area to show case marine facilities the constant flow of goods\nthat go into keeping a boat are a hidden source of revenue.\nMayor Johnson stated that the matter could come back to Council\nafter Committee review; inquired whether the sales tax trigger\ncould be requiring a business license, to which the Development\nServices Director responded that she would check.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to receive\nfeedback from the Revenue Enhancement Committee; the health of the\nCity's economy depends on being as diverse as possible.\nThe Development Services Director stated job creation is a\npossibility.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated business license contributions are\nalso a factor.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-107) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she has been attending the\nAlameda Education Foundation strategy sessions regarding the School\nDistrict's funding crises; Councilmember Matarrese and\nCouncilmember Gilmore also attended a meeting on February 28;\ndiscussions involved reviewing BWIP redevelopment funds accrued and\nmanaged by the City to see if there are opportunities to work with\nthe School District within the parameters of State Redevelopment\nLaw, which is very constraining.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 16, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated staff has been talking with\nSchool District staff to see if there are creative ways to have\nBWIP housing funds more immediately available for School District\nuse.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the money has to be used for housing or\ncapital improvement; restrictions preclude the City from\nautomatically shifting the funds directly to the School District\nfor operation costs.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated affordable housing funds need to\nbe used for affordable housing staff is exploring ways to get the\nfunds in use for said purpose.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City can post the\naccounting of funds and use restrictions on the website and provide\nsome impetus to get the project started.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff has prepared a number of\nquestion and answer sheets over the last two years; stated\ninformation can be centralized on the website.\nMayor Johnson stated that consolidating redevelopment information\nis a good idea; examples of redevelopment projects should be\nprovided also.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the School District is meeting tonight ; the\nSchool District is looking at severe cuts; an emergency parcel tax\nwill be considered; she would like to see the community and Council\nsupport the School District's actions.\n(08-108) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she and the Deputy City Manager\nattended the League of California Cities East Bay Division meeting;\nCarl Guardino, Executive Director for the Silicon Valley Leadership\nGroup, was the keynote speaker; Mr. Guardino brought up some\nintriguing ideas regarding developing public and private\npartnerships for things such as affordable housing and retention of\nteachers; Silicon Valley companies pay a stipend to have teachers\ncome and work at their company during the summer breaks; she would\nbe happy to talk with any community member interested in a\nbriefing.\n(08-109) - Mayor Johnson requested a briefing on the East Bay\nInteroperability Program; stated all jurisdictions have not paid\nassessments for last year; the City should wait to pay the new\nassessment until other jurisdictions have paid last year's\nassessment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 17, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:09 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\n17\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-04", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 4, 2008- -6:00 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(08-091) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9; Number of cases One.\n(08-092) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9) i Name of Case Collins V. City of Alameda.\n(08-093) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:\nHuman Resources Director; Employee Organizations International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,\nCouncil received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a matter of\npotential litigation; no action was taken; regarding Existing\nLitigation, Council received an update on the status of litigation,\nincluding settlement negotiations; no action was taken; regarding\nLabor, the matter was not heard.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 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\nMarch 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf"}