{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 15, 2008- -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(08-302) - Mayor Johnson announced that Resolution Commending Alameda\nChief Financial Officer [paragraph no. 08-305] would be heard\nbefore the Consent Calendar.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-303) Introduction of Fiscal Sustainability Committee Members.\nMayor Johnson introduced Committee Members; stated educating the\npublic is one of the committee's purposes choices will need to be\nmade once options are known.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the committee has a fine\nrepresentation of expertise; he has confidence that the City\nAuditor and Treasurer will help guide the processi it is important\nthat staff provide needed information; thanked the members for\nvolunteering.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated this year's budget process is a\nreflection of decisions made ten to twenty years ago; ensuring that\ntoday's decisions will be easier to handle in the future is\nimportant.\n(08-304) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on\nthe 24th Annual Art and Wine Faire.\nRobb Ratto presented wine glasses to Council. stated the Art and\nWine Faire will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on July 26 and\nJuly 27.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(08-305) Resolution No. 14243, \"Commending Alameda Chief Financial\nOfficer Juelle-Ann Boyer for Her Many Contributions to the City of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 2, "text": "Alameda. Adopted.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the resolution to Ms. Boyer.\nMs. Boyer stated that she has enjoyed working for the City; thanked\nCouncil for the resolution.\nKevin Kearney, City Auditor, stated that he has enjoyed working\nwith Ms. Boyer; Ms. Boyer has done an outstanding job and will be\nsorely missed.\nThe City Manager stated Ms. Boyer has helped her tremendously; that\nshe has relied on Ms. Boyer's advice and assistance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan 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(*08-306) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 17, 2008.\nApproved.\n(*08-307) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,346,956.64\n(*08-308) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for traffic striping, Phase 6 , No. P.W. 10-\n07-31. Accepted.\n(*08-309) - Resolution No. 14244, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nSubmit Two Grant Applications to CalTrans for the Federal Safe\nRoutes to School Program for Fiscal Year 008-2009, and to Execute\nAll Necessary Documents to Implement the Project. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-310) Recommendation to adopt the City's Americans with\nDisabilities Act Transition Plan update.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 3, "text": "The Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator gave a brief\npresentation.\nJim Fruit, Sally Swanson Architects, gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that retrofitting costs are pretty daunting;\nrequested confirmation of the total estimated cost.\nMr. Fruit stated that costs cannot be nailed down to the penny\nbecause there are so many variables; an averaging was done; some\ncosts may be underestimated but become closer to actual costs\nbecause of inflation.\nThe Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated the\nPublic Works Department set aside $250,000 each year for the next\ntwo years; future improvements would be based on when funding\nbecomes available.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that costs could add up to approximately $20\nmillion by using today's dollar.\nThe Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated the\nCity is not required to spend a certain amount of money or complete\na certain amount of work; the City needs to show the Department of\nJustice that consistent efforts are being made toward making\nimprovements and removing barriers.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated an unfunded liability exists; it is\nimportant to know what the cost would be to completely comply\ntoday.\nThe Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated the\nTransition Plan totals $29 million, which includes $9 million in\nconcrete work and $20 million in public right-of-way work, which is\nbased on a five-mile sample of one hundred and thirty miles.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to know that the\nCity would be cutting $29 million of unfunded liability.\nMayor Johnson stated the Fiscal Sustainability Committee should\ntake the matter into consideration.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how priorities are set.\nMr. Fruit responded City Hall and Alameda Power and Telecom would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 4, "text": "be the highest priority and provide the most accessibility for the\nleast cost; stated priorities are listed on a scale of one to five.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated City Hall was renovated approximately\nfifteen years ago and was ADA compliant.\nThe Administration Management Analyst ADA Coordinator stated laws\nhave changed.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-311) Resolution No. 14245, \"Submitting to the Electors at the\nConsolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November\n4, 2008, a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Municipal Code to\nIncrease the Real Property Transfer Tax. \" Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what is the timeline for getting\nthe proposed measure on the November ballot.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded August 8 is the deadline for\nsubmittal stated a real property transfer tax is a general tax and\ncan only be placed on a general election ballot.\nCurt Below, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of individuals polled\nwere owners, to which Mr. Below responded 68%.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the recent [School District] parcel tax\nmeasure had a low-income and senior exemption; the parcel tax and\nproposed real property transfer tax would be limited to twenty\nyears; inquired whether the time limit is common or whether cities\nhave the option for a CPI increase over time.\nMr. Below responded both options are available.\nMayor Johnson stated that people seem to prefer cuts over paying\nadditional taxes to maintain services.\nMr. Below stated results indicate that people support some cuts.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the survey addressed cuts to pay for\nunfunded liabilities, to which Mr. Below responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated reactions were strong regarding cuts\nto public safety and paramedic services; said services are the most\nexpensive to provide.\nMr. Below stated opposition to public safety cuts is common.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated everybody likes the level of City\nservices, particularly public safety, but nobody wants to figure\nout a way to pay for said service.\nMayor Johnson stated closing all libraries would not pay for what\nis needed to start paying unfunded public safety retiree benefits;\nCouncil needs to do a much better job of educating the public.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what was the exact question asked\nregarding Police and Fire salaries and benefits.\nMr. Below responded the question was \"The City of Alameda currently\nhas a budget shortfall of $5 million. If additional revenues are\nnot found, the City may have to make cuts in existing City\nServices. With this in mind, I am going to mention some of the\nservices the City provides its residents. After you have heard\neach one, please tell me whether you think large cuts should be\nmade to that service in order to balance the budget, or just some\ncuts should be made, or no cuts at all should be made to that\nservice to balance the City budget.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that retiree benefits should have\nbeen separated out.\nMr. Below continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the public understands the\nramifications [ if the proposed tax does not pass].\nMr. Below responded generally no; stated more detail could have\nbeen given if the proposed real property transfer tax was the only\nissue surveyed.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she sees very little elasticity within\nthe margin of error by going from a $5.40 tax rate to $12.00 or\n$15.00.\nMr. Below concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated that he could not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 6, "text": "say points would be gained by dropping the amount a few dollars.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether lack of elasticity is typical, to\nwhich Mr. Below responded definitely.\nMr. Below continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Tam requested clarification on projected revenue\ngeneration; stated the City would expect to receive $4.1 million by\nusing the $5.40 per $1,000 value calculation. $14.50 per $1,000 of\nvalue would generate $6.9 million.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated $6.9 million would be added to the\n$4.1 million.\nVice Mayor Tam stated $4.1 million is based on a conservative\nassumption that real estate turnover would continue at the current\nlevel.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated that she did not make any market\nslowdown or turnaround adjustments.\nThe City Manager stated the $4.1 estimate is less than what was\nanticipated for last fiscal year; assumptions were made that the\ntransaction volume would stay the same.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council knew that the budget would\nneed to be revisited in three months all realistic cuts have been\nmade that would not greatly affect the level of City services.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the budget is affected by mutual aid\nresponse costs.\nThe City Manager responded State mutual aid costs are reimbursed at\nthe overtime rate.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the State reimburses the City for\novertime incurred within the City when mutual aid calls are\nrequested.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is reimbursed at the\nCity's rate, not the State flat rate.\nThe City Manager responded information would be provided.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a list of\ncomparables [tax rate for other Alameda County cities] .\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 7, "text": "The Deputy City Manager responded real property transfer tax is\nonly an option for Charter cities; stated currently, Albany's tax\nrate is $11.50 per $1,000 value; Albany voted to place a measure on\nthe ballot to increase the tax rate to $14.50; Berkeley's tax rate\nis\n$15.00; Hayward's tax rate is $4.50; Oakland's tax rate is\n$15.00; Piedmont's tax rate is $13.00; San Leandro's tax rate is\n$6.00.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the tax was raised last.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded initially, the tax was imposed in\n1967 and was fifty-five cents per thousand; stated the tax was\nraised to $2.20 per $500 value in 1978; the tax was raised to $5.40\nper $1,000 value in 1993.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether an option could be to raise the tax\nrate on a step basis.\nThe City Attorney responded a CPI adjustment is not recommended\n;\nstated a step base would require a very specific number on a\nspecific schedule.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a step percentage basis would be an\noption.\nThe City Attorney responded percentages are not done for real\nproperty transfer taxes.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated that Mayor Johnson was referring to\n$12.00 for the first $700,000 value and a different amount for the\nbalance.\nThe City Attorney stated such formula could be done.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated a $12.00 tax rate would generate an\nadditional $5 million for a total of $9. 1 million; Berkeley and\nOakland make fifty cents of the $15.00 rate available to property\npurchasers for seismic retrofits; adding fifty-cents for seismic\nretrofitting would turn the tax into a special tax and would\nrequire a two-thirds vote.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when Oakland's tax rate was\nincreased.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded that she did not know; stated\ninformation she has dates back to June, 2006.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether a comparison was made on taxing\nmechanisms in other cities.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded Alameda is relatively low for\nnorthern Alameda County stated Oakland and Berkeley have extra\ntaxes.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 52% support is a good\nthreshold.\nMr. Below responded 52% is a pretty soft number stated going\nforward would be risky, but could be done.\nMayor Johnson stated the margin of error is 5%.\nMr. Below stated that he would like to see definite numbers higher.\nThe Deputy City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nOpponents (Not in favor of resolution) : Rob Platt, Alameda\nAssociation of Realtors; Troy Staten, Alameda Association of\nRealtors; Steve Sorensen, Alameda (submitted document) .\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Alameda Association of Realtors\nsupported raising the real property transaction tax several years\nago.\nMr. Platt stated the market was different at that time.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated other tax mechanisms have less support\nthan the proposed real property transaction tax; inquired whether\nMr. Platt has any ideas on how the burden could be shared equally.\nMr. Platt responded that people who are forced to sell would bear\nthe burden of the entire budget deficit.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated citizens do not want public safety\nservices cut the City does not have the revenue to maintain the\nsame level of public safety services.\nMayor Johnson stated budget cuts were made by taking money out of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 9, "text": "the fund balance and refinancing bonds ; that she is surprised to\nhear that the Alameda Association of Realtors would actively oppose\nany increase.\nMr. Platt stated that the Alameda Association of Realtors opposes a\n$12.00 or $14.00 rate; there is an overwhelming opposition to any\nincrease given the current state of the economy.\nMayor Johnson stated that cuts would need to be made if revenue is\nnot increased; it would be helpful to know what the Alameda\nAssociation of Realtors would oppose or support.\nMr. Platt stated that he is not in a position to provide said\ninformation; he would guess that opposition would be less vigorous\nif the increase was lower.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is sympathetic to Mr. Platt's\nposition, but the membership should be concerned that potential\nbuyers would be faced with the possibility of closed parks,\ndecreased library hours, and possible fire station brown-outs.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council has been working through the\nbudget for quite a while; Council had discussions with the real\nestate community in the past and needs go through an education\nprocess regarding the current crisis.\nMr. Platt stated the City Manager spoke to the Alameda Association\nof Realtors last week; the Association did not have much time to\ndiscuss the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he apologizes for the short\nnotice.\nMayor Johnson stated budget problems have been discussed at many\npublic meetings.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the media reported that the City has a\nbalance budget, which is not the case.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council was very clear [regarding\nthe budget) ; funds are available for three months of Fire\nDepartment overtime before possible brown-outs; closing all of the\nlibraries and parks would not balance unfunded liabilities ADA\ncompliance requirements total $29 million.\nMayor Johnson stated Council was not happy with a band-aid approach\nto balance the budget and wanted to explore options for revenue\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 10, "text": "July 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 11, "text": "increasing the real property transaction tax to $10.00 would\ngenerate $3.5 million; all sales tax for the next fifteen years\nwould not equal said amount.\nMayor Johnson stated increased sales tax is not a viable solution\nto the problem; residents are contributing money to other cities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the real property transaction tax is\na sales tax on house sales; people need to know that the proposed\ntax would go for public safety services the proposed tax has not\nbeen raised since 1993 and is due; employee medical cost benefits\nhave risen by 600% since he was on Council a couple of years agoi\nthe approved budget was a three month budget because that is when\nFire Department overtime funds run out and brown-outs may occuri\nAlameda is comparable to the City of Vallejo; people were very\ngenerous on voting for Measure H; house values decline when\nservices deteriorate.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed real property transaction tax\namount needs to be discussed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of resolution with an\namendment to change the real property transfer tax rate to $12.00\nper $1,000 of value; requested that a Plan B be established prior\nto the election in case the measure does not pass.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he would prefer\na\n$10.00 tax rate; homes sold for approximately $120,000 in 1993;\nhomes sell for approximately $600,000 today.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would prefer no increase, but an\namount needs to be determined to help the budget situation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she supports the motion; that she\ncautions against lower amounts because some assumptions are built\nin regarding volume of home sales; depressed home sales would\ndecrease revenue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Alameda Point activity needs to be\nfactored in as well.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the motion needs to include\ndirection regarding preparation of ballot arguments.\nThe City Manager responded separate motions can be made; stated a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 12, "text": "subcommittee could write the ballot argument and rebuttal.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the motion stipulated the $12.00\nrate and included a Plan B.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the City Manager would present\nPlan B, which would address where cuts would be made if the ballot\nmeasure does not passi she does not want Plan B to be included in\nthe motion because it should be a stand-alone item as opposed to\nbeing bundled into the proposed real property transaction tax.\nOn the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City\nAttorney to prepare the impartial analysis.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of having Councilmembers deHaan and\nMatarrese prepare the argument in favor and having the Mayor sign\non behalf of the Council.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the Mayor could sign on behalf of\nall Councilmembers other signatures could be obtained to show\nbroad based support for the measure.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the subcommittee could organize a\ncommunity task force.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the\nsubcommittee would be preparing an argument in favor of the measure\nand a rebuttal if necessary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-312) Resolution No. 14246, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Amending Sections 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, -7(A), 3-\n7 ( (B) , 3 - (C), 3-7(F), - 3 - 7 (I), 3-15, 9-1 - (E) , - 3 (D) , 17-10, 22-4,\nand 28 - 6 (A) Thereof by Deleting Sections 3 - 7 (E) , 3-15.1, 17-11,\n23-4, - 23-5, - Art. XXV, and 28-6(B) Thereof and by Adding Section 2-\n16 Thereto, to Delete Obsolete and Unclear Language and Conform to\nGeneral Law and Other Sections of the Charter; and Proposing Said\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 13, "text": "Charter Amendments.' Adopted;\n(08-312A) Resolution No. 14247, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Requiring the Auditor to Have a Certified\nPublic Accountant License or a Related Degree, and Eliminating the\nBond Requirement; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. Adopted;\n(08-312B) Resolution No. 14248, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Requiring the Treasurer to be Licensed and\nRevising the Duties of the Office; and Proposing Said Charter\nAmendment. \" Adopted\n(08-312C) Resolution No. 14249, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Eliminating Transportation from the\nJurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board; and Proposing Said\nCharter Amendment. \" Adopted;\n(08-312D) Resolution No. 14250, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Requiring Contracts to be in Writing and the\nCity is not Bound by a Contract that Does not Comply with the\nCharter; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment.\" Adopted;\n(08-312E) Resolution No. 14251, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Deleting Reasons for Removal of Historical\nAdvisory Board Members; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment.\nAdopted;\n(08-312F) Resolution No. 14252, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Authorizing Council to Determine when City\nOffices are to be Open for Business; and Proposing Said Charter\nAmendment. Adopted; and\n(08-312G) Resolution No. 14253, \"Calling a Consolidated Municipal\nElection in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the\nPurpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City\nof Alameda Charter by Allowing the City Manager or Designee to\nExceed Sum Provided by General Law and Forego Competitive Bid for\nPublic Work or Improvement or Purchase of Materials or Supplies in\nan Emergency ; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 14, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese stated the subcommittee did a good job.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Gilmore gave a brief review of the Charter Review\nMeeting.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Council discussed potential, future Charter\namendments regarding Mayor and Councilmember compensation;\nauthority of Council over the appointment of department heads; and\nCouncil's role in the appointment of Board and Commission members;\ncomments received revolved around the form of government Alameda\nresidents want to see; empowering Council with more\nresponsibilities would require commensurate staffing support.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the public thought that the matter\nshould be a citywide discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the issue could be discussed in the\nnext wave.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of directing the City Attorney\nto prepare the impartial analyses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of having the subcommittee\n[Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Gilmore) prepare the arguments in\nfavor and having the Mayor and four Councilmembers sign.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(Public Comment)\n(08-313) Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA)\n,\ndiscussed contracting out services for the Golf Course to a private\nenterprise; requested that ACEA be allowed to provide input to any\nRequests for Proposals.\n(08-314) - Terry Flippo, ACEA, stated ACEA would like to be part of\nthe solution to the Golf Course situation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 15, "text": "(08-315) - Bill Hudson, Recreation and Parks Department employee,\nstated that the City's well-trained - workers would be sacrificed by\ncontracting out services at the Golf Course.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(08-316)\nICLEI update with specific auto use and congestion issues\nhighlighted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated cuts made to the tree program were\nalmost directly counter to what was approved in the Climate\nProtection Plan; requested a status report on 1) the City Vehicle\nUse Policy; 2) Eco-pass for City employees, including alternatives;\nand 3) biodiesel use in City vehicles; directed the Youth\nCommission and Transportation Commission work on an automobile trip\nreduction plan for various schools in time for the 2008-2009 school\nyear; stated Island Drive and Central Avenue and Oak Street have no\ntraffic problems during the summer; traffic problems come back when\nschool resumes the City discussed the matter at a joint meeting\nwith the School District in March 2007; Lincoln Middle School,\nAlameda High School, and Chipman Elementary School were recognized\nas areas that needed attention.\nMayor Johnson stated that Amelia Earhart Elementary School should\nbe added.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said school is tied to Lincoln\nMiddle School.\nMayor Johnson stated the Lincoln Middle School Parent Association\nperformed surveys and have encouraged students to ride bicycles and\ncarpool.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the ICLEI Plan is to be evaluated\nbi-annually.\nThe City Manager stated an update is scheduled for August ; she is\nnot sure whether anything could be accomplished before the\nbeginning of the school year.\nMayor Johnson stated School Board student representatives could\nmeet with Youth Commission members to start putting things in place\nto work on in the fall.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City Vehicle Use policy would be\ncoming back to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that the Eco-pass survey should be reviewed\nbefore other options are considered.\nThe City Manager stated the green building and landscaping\nordinance would be presented at the next Council meeting.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the Styrofoam ban goes into effect, to\nwhich the City Manager responded the ban went into effect on July\n1st\nMayor Johnson stated that the City of Oakland is going through\nlitigation regarding plastic bags; Alameda can move forward on the\nmatter when the coast is clear.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what policy is in place regarding\nemployee use of City vehicles.\nThe City Manager responded a number of administrative procedures\nare in place; information would be provided to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to know what steps are\ntaken when employees drive a City vehicle, such as determining\nwhether the trip is necessary or carpooling is available to reduce\ncosts and carbon footprint.\nVice Mayor Tam stated a complaint was received from an employee\nregarding being required to use an electric vehicle: inquired\nwhether there was a procedure requiring that the employee had to\nuse the electric vehicle.\nThe City Manager responded the electric vehicle was assigned to the\nfunction of the job.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether electric vehicles are stationed\nthroughout the City.\nThe City Manager responded various departments have been assigned\nelectric vehicles stated some are used for carpooling, others are\nassigned to individuals; the electric vehicles have charging\nissues; two electric vehicles are fast charging.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested an evaluation of electric vehicles\nto see whether the vehicles' purpose is being fulfilled; stated\nfuture decisions will need to be made.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 17, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-317) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Commission on\nDisability Issues and the Economic Development Commission\nMayor Johnson nominated Leslie Krongold for appointment to the\nCommission on Disability Issues and Donna Milgram for appointment\nto the Economic Development Commission.\n(08-318 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that a group went to\nAsuchio, El Salvador last week; a greeting card was sent back which\nhe will have translated and circulated to Council.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:11 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\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 15, 2008- -6:20 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 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(08-300) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9) i Name of Case: Hart V. City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council provided direction and\nauthorization to Legal Counsel regarding a potential offer of\ncompromise.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:05 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\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nPUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PUB) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 15, 2008- - -6:45 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson; Board\nMembers Hamm, Holmes, Kurita, McCahan,\nand McCormick - 10.\nNote: Board Member Hamm was present via teleconference from Royal\nMeridien Hotel, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400099,\nIndia.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to\nconsider:\n(08-301) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9 ) ; Name of Case: Vectren Communications Services, Inc. V.\nCity of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was\nreconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council and the PUB\nreceived a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding the status of the\nlitigation; Council and the PUB authorized expenditure of defense\ncosts.\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 Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nPublic Utilities Board\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 15, 2008- -7:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Community Improvement Commission Meeting\nat 11:11 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(08-37) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 17, 2008.\nApproved.\nCommissioner Tam moved approved of the minutes.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. .\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(08-38) - Public Hearing to consider the Periodic Review of the City\nof Alameda's Alameda Point Improvement Project Five-Year\nImplementation Plan.\nThe Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether any comments were received\nfrom the Economic Development Commission (EDC).\nThe Development Services Manager responded no specific comments\nwere received; stated the EDC appreciated being kept up to date.\nThe Development Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCommissioner Tam stated the staff report notes that SunCal would be\nupdating the Sports Complex Master Plan in September; inquired\nwhether the Master Plan would be previewed at the August workshop,\nto which the Development Services Director responded in the\nnegative.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated SunCal would be having meetings\nwith the Youth Commission and Recreation and Park Commission in\nAugust.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 21, "text": "Chair Johnson inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission\nwould make recommendations to Council and the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority (ARRA), to which the Development Services\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nChair Johnson stated the demand for athletic facilities has changed\nsince the mid 1990's\n(08-39) - Recommendatior to authorize the Executive Director to enter\ninto Contracts with the Park Street Business Association and the\nWest Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2008-2009.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the CIC budget increased by\n3%.\nThe Development Services Director responded the general tax\nincrement increased by approximately 3.5% overall ; stated the CIC\nbudget did not increase; business associations are important to the\nCity as an economic development engine.\nChair Johnson stated the City does not spend money on business\npromotion; grant funding allows the West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA) and Park Street Business Association (PSBA) to\nmarket City businesses.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the grants bolster business: the\nGeneral Fund budget is impacted because sales tax is generated;\nquestioned whether the proposed funding amount is enough; inquired\nwhether there is a way to quantify how the City's investment\ncorrelates to an increase in sales tax.\nThe Development Services Director responded that she did not know.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated said matter should be reviewed\nbecause the General Fund is impacted by investing approximately\n$225,000 [in the business associations].\nChair Johnson stated that she is comfortable with the grant funding\nincrease; business districts need to fund themselves; Alameda Towne\nCentre pays for maintenance and other costs; PSBA and WABA spend a\nlot of money on marketing and promotion; shopping centers are\nrequired to be open for certain hours and days per week; the City\ndoes not have the same control over the business districts; PSBA\nmembers contribute $140,417 to their own organization; WABA members\ncontribute $66,700 to their own organization.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 22, "text": "***\n(08-40) - Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past midnight.\nChair Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nChair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of the staff recommendation) : Robb Ratto, Park\nStreet Business Association (PSBA) (provided handout) ; Kathy\nMoehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) ; Patty Jacobs,\nGreater Alameda Business Association (GABA)\n.\nThere being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nChair Johnson inquired why is PSBA's Landscape and Lighting\nassessment reduced.\nMr. Ratto responded the assessment was not utilized for a number of\nyears and resulted in a surplus, which has run out PSBA was going\nto request a 100% increase in the Landscape and Lighting\nassessment; property owners are not in support of an additional fee\nsince the passing of Measure H.\nChair Johnson inquired how much PSBA spends on marking and\npromotion, to which Mr. Ratto responded approximately $90,000.\nChair Johnson inquired whether PSBA pays the electric bill [for the\nstreets ] through the Landscape and Lighting assessment, to which\nMr. Ratto responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Tam stated that Landscape and Lighting assessment\nincome is reduced from $69,850 to $57,417; the Business Improvement\nArea (BIA) income is reduced from $102,317 to $83,000; PSBA income\nis reduced from $147,755 to $121,500; and the grant fund amount\nwould be increased from $108,020 to $111,446.\nMr. Ratto stated PSBA leaves a $20,000 cushion when event budgeting\nis prepared just in case something happens most of the $20,000\ngoes back into the promotion budget.\nFollowing Ms. Moehring's comments, Chair Johnson inquired how much\nWABA spends on marketing and promotion, to which Ms. Moehring\nresponded $71,000.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 23, "text": "Commissioner Matarrese stated data needs to be gathered on the\ncorrelation of increased sales tax and the City's return.\nFollowing Ms. Jacob's comments, Chair Johnson stated WABA and\nPSBA's marketing, advertising, and promotion costs justify the\ninvestment; GABA provides an excellent service to its members\npublic benefit needs to be highlighted.\nMs. Jacobs stated that there is a direct correlation between\nstrong, healthy businesses and public benefit; GABA does not put on\npublic events; GABA's advertising remains consistent; a monthly\ntwo-page spread is placed in the Alameda Sun which lists all GABA\nmembers; GABA affords low-cost, full color advertising to any GABA\nbusiness.\nChair Johnson stated a certain percentage of grant funding should\nbe used for marketing and promotion; a threshold should be set.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the City receives three benefits from\nPSBA and WABA: 1) street maintenance; 2) sales tax revenue; and 3)\nbusiness license tax revenue; investments should be reviewed every\nyear to see the correlation with the return.\nChair Johnson stated GABA's administrative costs are funded that\nshe is not sure whether using grant funding for said purpose is\nappropriate.\nCommissioner deHaan stated GABA is a very small operation, but is\nviable and important; four members would be impacted when Orchard\nSupply Hardware moves into the Alameda Towne Centre; GABA's\nproposed grant amount is not that monumental.\nChair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with the\namount, but with funding administrative costs requiring that a\ncertain percentage of funding be spent on marketing, advertising,\nand promotion would satisfy the requirement of ensuring a return to\nthe public; the City does not fund the Chamber of Commerce and\nHarbor Bay Business Park.\nMs. Jacobs stated one of the reasons for the inception of GABA was\nto afford businesses outside the two districts an opportunity and\nvenue to be an association.\nChair Johnson stated GABA provides a very useful, valuable function\nto its members; the question is how to ensure that the public is\ngetting a return; Alameda has many worthy non-profits that are not\nfunded; inquired whether PSBA or WABA would have any problem with\nsetting a 40%-50% threshold [for advertising and promotion], to\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 24, "text": "which Mr. Ratto and Ms. Moehring responded in the negative.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nChair Johnson stated that a requirement should be added regarding\nspending a certain percentage of grant funding on marketing and\npromotion.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with inclusion of a\npolicy for promotion and evaluation for GABA [in addition to PSBA\nand WABA; stated the issue is a policy decision; a return is needed\nif the City invests approximately $225,000 in tax dollars; the\nreturn can be predicated on 50% of grant funding going to\npromotion; evaluations need to be performed.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the measurement [of success) would be\ndifficult for GABA because GABA is spread across the City.\nChair Johnson stated customer surveys could be performed.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated business license fees are calculated\non gross; increased performance could be reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred that an evaluation needs to be\nperformed.\nCommissioner Tam stated sales tax revenue has been flat for many\nyears; a better measurement would be the return to the City;\nbusiness districts take care of the street maintenance and\nadvertising, which the City cannot do; she does not want\nmeasurement tied directly to producing a business tax increment.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that business license tax and sales\ntax revenues are a bottom line measurement.\nCommissioner Tam clarified that the motion is to fund recommended\nlevels to all three business districts; inquired what would be the\nthreshold for advertising and promotion.\nChair Johnson responded 50%; stated GABA can advise how their\nsuccess would be measured.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated GABA is different from PSBA and WABA ;\nPSBA and WABA are spending an incredible amount of money on\nadvertising; GABA has never spent 50% of grant funding on\nadvertising.\nEric Kos, GABA President, stated that he has been GABA President\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n5\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-15", "page": 25, "text": "for four terms; grant funding was not provided in the first two\nterms; an attempt was made to provide a public event that benefited\nthe community; a successful location was not available; educational\nroundtables are being proposed.\nChair Johnson stated that having a public event would not be a\nrequirement the intent is to use some of the grant funding on\nmarketing and promotion; increasing membership would help.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated GABA is being requested to spend $6,000\non advertising.\nMr. Kos stated most promotions are done on a volunteer basis.\nChair Johnson stated dollar amounts could be assigned to in-kind\ndonations.\nCommissioner deHaan stated GABA could provide its own measuring\ndevise.\nCommissioner deHaan amended the motion to include that GABA would\ncome back with a measuring devise showing fulfillment to their\ncommitment.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the motion should include that PSBA,\nWABA, and GABA spend 50% of CIC grant funding on advertising and\npromotion; the policy is that the City would get a return when\ncontributions are made to business associations and requirements\nare in place.\nBy consensus, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:33\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n6\nJuly 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf"}