{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 6, 2009- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09-003) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing on the\nCommunity Development Block Grant [paragraph no. 09-017] would be\ncontinued to January 20; that the Resolutions of Appointment\n[paragraph nos. 09-006 and 09-006 A] would be addressed following\nthe Proclamation [paragraph no. 09-005]; and the meeting would be\nrecessed following the Resolutions of Appointment in order to hold\nthe Community Improvement Commission meeting.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-004) Mayor Johnson announced that the Community Action for\nSustainable Alameda (CASA) would hold a meeting at the Alameda Free\nLibrary on January 14, 2009 from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.\n(09-005) Proclamation declaring January as National Blood Donor\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Eversol.\nMs. Eversol stated last year the community sponsored nine blood\ndrives and collected approximately 900 units of blood which saved\napproximately 2,600 people; a blood drive will be conducted on\nSaturday at St. Barnabas Church; people can make appointments by\ncalling (800) GIVE-BLOOD.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(09-006) Resolution No. 14293, \"Appointing Horst Breuer as a Member\nof the Economic Development Commission. Adopted; and\n(09-006 A) Resolution No. 14294, \"Appointing Justin Harrison as a\nMember of the Economic Development Commission.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolutions.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "voice vote - 5.\nMr. Breuer thanked Council for the opportunity to serve; stated\nthat he hopes his business background will bring a positive aspect\nto the Commission.\nMr. Harrison thanked the Council for its trust; stated that he is\nlooking forward to serving the community.\nMayor Johnson thanked Mr. Breuer and Mr. Harrison for the\nwillingness to serve; stated serving on the Commission during the\ncurrent economic times will be interesting.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oaths of Office and presented\nCertificates of Appointment to Mr. Breuer and Mr. Harrison.\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Meeting at 8:37 p.m.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Noll & Tam Architects Contract\n[paragraph no. 09-009] and the Public Hearing on Tentative Parcel\nMap No. 9757 [paragraph no. 09-014] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*09-007 - ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Alameda\nPublic Financing Authority Meeting held on November 18, 2008; the\nRegular City Council Meeting held on December 2, 2008; and the\nSpecial Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on\nDecember 16, 2008. Approved.\n(*09-008) Ratified bills in the amount of 3,524,697.09.\n(09-009) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of\n$298,000, including contingencies, to Noll & Tam Architects for the\ndesign of the Neighborhood Library Improvement Program No. P.W. 08-\n08-21.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 3, "text": "The Public Works Director provided a handout and a brief\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the grades on the handout represent.\nThe Public Works Director responded the grades are for the written\nproposals; stated the grades established the short list of the four\nproposers interviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he requested the item be pulled\nfor discussion because the staff report did not include information\non the other proposals; the explanation provided in the handout\nanswered his questions.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she has no relationship to the\nproposer; there is $2.65 million in Measure O money; stated design,\nincluding contingency, is 11% of the total project cost; inquired\nwhether the amount is within the range that should be spent on\ndesign, to which the Public Works Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson requested that direction be given\nto watch the contingency closely and report any changes back to\nCouncil. the Council expects the project to come in within the\namount proposed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*09-010) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to Execute\nAgreements for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report\nfor the Proposed Project at 2229 Clement Street. Accepted.\n(*09-011) Recommendation to adopt the Legislative Program for 2009.\nAccepted.\n(*09-012) Resolution No. 14295, \"Setting the 2009 Regular City\nCouncil Meeting Dates. Adopted.\n( *09-013) Resolution No. 14296, \"Approving the Second Amended and\nRestated Northern California Power Agency Metered Subsystem\nAggregator Agreement. Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 4, "text": "(09-014 ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14297,\n\"Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 9757 for the Purpose of\nEstablishing a Subdivision of Ownership to Condominium Form for Two\nDetached Single-Family Dwellings on One Site Located at 1531 Morton\nStreet. Adopted.\nThe Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the next steps be expedited;\nstated the project is novel for Alameda; the historic house is\nbeing restored; the new house has many green features the\ncombination of common ownership of the land and separate ownership\nof the houses provides increased property tax; there is urgency to\nhave the houses sold.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-015) - ) Discussion on financial policies and principles.\nThe City Manager provided a statement about the City's financial\nstatus; in response to a television advertisement, stated the City\nis not filing for bankruptcy.\nThe Interim Finance Director reviewed the City's financial status.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much money would be left in the General\nFund after Planning and Building is removed.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded $8.5 to $8.7 million, not\nincluding the equipment reserve, which is the only reserve in the\nGeneral Fund; suggested that a special meeting be scheduled on a\nSaturday for a full review and discussion of the policies and\nprinciples.\nMayor Johnson obtained the consensus of the Council regarding\nholding a Saturday meeting.\nThe Interim Finance Director provided an overview of the policies\nand principles.\nDavid Howard, Save Our City Alameda, discussed the television\nadvertisement that he wrote and produced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 5, "text": "Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed partnerships.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to build the management tools\nthat the Council needs, such as financial analysts and people to\nanalyze data, keep track of money and know how much things cost;\nright now, the City does not have the management tools to the\nextent needed; a policy should be included that states the City\nwill maintain the ability to provide the management tools or\nanalytical data to ensure policies are not developed and then the\nball is dropped; further stated a plan is needed on how to create a\nsurplus in order to fund reserves.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated staff would provide\nalternatives depreciation is factored in as an expense in\nequipment replacement, which covers operations and creates a fund\nbalance; the same thing has been done for Information Technology\nand needs to be done for all internal service funds; departments\nneed to contribute proportionally to force starting savings.\nMayor Johnson stated the vehicle fund needs to be revisited; the\npolicy might need to be changed due to the current economic\nsituation; a policy should be established that workers compensation\nbe funded; incurring debt for Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB)\ncould exceed the amount. her first choice would not be to take out\ndebt, however, debt would force the discipline of paying for OPEB,\nwhich has not been done since 1989.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated detailed information includes\ncircumstances under which funding OPEB through a debt might be more\ncost effective; the decision could be made to increase the debt\npolicy because fully funding OPEB now would be more cost effective;\na cost benefit analysis would need to be completed; the issue would\nbe reviewed at the workshop.\nMayor Johnson stated a full cost recovery policy should be adopted\nthe full amount is not being recovered when police service is\ncontracted.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated charging for use of the service\nshould be a fully burdened rate; the calculations would be changed\nas soon as possible.\nMayor Johnson stated being able to identify costs by cost center is\nneeded in order to provide the ability to manage.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the policies would apply\nto Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T). .\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 6, "text": "The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated AP&T\nand the Housing Authority have a different budget process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated both are departments of the City and\nthe policies should be applied equally; a lot of the points in the\ndetail need to be tempered; in some cases, open and good government\ndoes not allow for full cost recovery, such as appeals; the\nrecommendation from the sustainability committee should be\npresented at the front end of the workshop or precede the workshop\nmore description is needed regarding a deferred maintenance fund\nCouncil had discussions about the value of having cash versus the\ndamage being done to the asset by deferring maintenance not making\nsense; that he does not understand why the City would save money\nwhen sidewalks and streets are crumbling to the point of\nreplacement rather than repair; some reserves depend on doomsday\nscenarios; assets should not be sacrificed to save money for\nsomething that could happen.\nMayor Johnson stated money needs to be budgeted for building\nmaintenance, which is not currently done; building maintenance is\ndeferred and there is no money or reserve to pay for it; a\ndisciplined system is needed with requirements to fund building\nmaintenance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated putting together a pile of money and\nnot doing any work to save the asset does not make sense.\nMayor Johnson stated similar to OPEB, a disciplined system is\nneeded to require the City to pay money for building maintenance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the item about delivering service in\nthe most cost effective manner needs to be visited; the Library\nContract approved tonight is an example of selecting the best fit\nfor the City, rather than the most cost effective; a policy has\npurposely been established to hire people at prevailing wage rather\nthan minimum wage.\nMayor Johnson stated expenditures need to be clearer; in the past,\nthe City has chosen not to pay for things, such as OPEB; things\nthat the City is obligated to pay for have to be counted in\nexpenditures to ensure the City pays for its obligations in the\nbudget.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated there is always going to be a need for\nmore money there has to be discipline about what will be paid for;\nthe Council also has to prioritize; rather than keeping money to\nsatisfy a doomsday scenario, money should be spent on something\nlike OPEB or resurfacing the streets before replacement is needed;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 7, "text": "the Council has to decide the order of funding priorities as\nreserves are established; clear operating expense policies need to\nbe established, such as using one time revenues for one time\nexpenses and not for ongoing expenses however, there may be times\nwhen cash flow is needed that it [using one time revenues for\noperations) is appropriate.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the policies capture the discussion from\nthe past four years; the policies are good fiscal management and\nwill force information back so that Council can make the right\ndecisions; many elements will have dollars and supporting data.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City has benefited from extremely\nconservative fiscal policies and has low debt with high reserves;\nin terms of prioritizing, she would like to understand soft versus\nhard earmarks in the fund balance and have a risk assessment done\nfor example, the amount needed for workers compensation reserve\nshould be determined; the City will have to use reserves to make up\nfor CalPERS's 30% value drop; a risk assessment is needed for\ndeferred maintenance to determine the amount that should be\nearmarked in a disciplined savings plan.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated capital projects and OPEB alone could\ncompletely wipe out the fund balance; the City has chosen not to\nspend or encumber funds, however, the entire amount [ fund balance)\ncould be spent tomorrow on existing liabilities.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated funds with a balance might have\ncome from something like the gas tax, which cannot be spent on\noperating expenses the majority of the money is restricted; the\nGeneral Fund is the only fund with flexibility.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a policy could be drafted on mid-\nyear budget reductions stated how the current fiscal year budget\nwas balanced is not understood; a list of bullet points were\nprovided; specific numbers were requested.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded $700,000 less in revenues is\nanticipated; the amount would be offset by a hiring freeze that\ncreates a salary savings and holding off on contracts.\nMayor Johnson stated numbers need to be put on the items so that\nCouncil knows where the savings come from.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the matter would be addressed\nFebruary 3.\nMayor Johnson stated a higher level of financial data is needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated doing a two year budget becomes concerning\nduring tough times; good estimates are needed while the City has to\nwait for reports to come from the County, etc. ; everyday that goes\nby without action while waiting for the shoe to fall causes the\nCity to always be behind; making it through the current year is not\na good way to run a budget; the Fiscal Sustainability Committee is\nlooking at ten years out and will provide a report on how to\naddress obligations.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the Saturday workshop would be\nscheduled as soon as possible.\n(09-016) Recommendation to receive a report on Fire Department\nresource allocation.\nThe City Manager provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public comment.\nSpeakers : Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters (submitted letter) ;\nDan Robertson, Oakland Firefighters Local 55; David Howard, Save\nOur City Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Local 689 Alameda City\nFirefighters; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Bill Smith, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\ncomment.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the world is not the same as it\nwas when the Measure P process began in April and May of last year;\non July 18, the Anderson School at UCLA indicated there would be no\nrecession in the balance of 2008 and 2009; then, the bottom fell\nout of the market in August and the country had the blackest\nOctober since the depression; if the Anderson School of Economics\ncould not have forecasted what occurred in the national and global\neconomy, no one working at the City or designing Measure P\ncalculations could have done any better; if the economy recovers in\n36 months, the City will reap the rewards of the effort; the tax is\na discretionary fund that the Council can allocate as desired; the\nCity is not in bankruptcy mode; however, times are tough; the City\nhired an economic firm to look at the property transfer tax because\nit is a compounded revenue source that depends on the number of\ntransactions, the value of the house, the time of the close of\nescrow and the ability to get financing; the revenues are not going\nto be as optimistic as estimated in April and May the City needs\nto remain cautious and retain the reserve; further stated the Fire\nDepartment budget is in line with appropriations and are on\nprojection; funding would require taking money from other\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 9, "text": "departments or the cash reserves ; cash reserves should not be used\nbecause there are too many unknowns and using reserves would go\nagainst financial policies; the funding deficit will not go away\nuntil the City has more discretionary resources in the General\nFund.\nMayor Johnson stated the current situation could continue for 36\nmonths and how bad it could get is not known; that she does not\nbelieve that the City is okay for this year; questioned why staff\nsays the City will be okay for this year just because a budget has\nbeen adopted.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded staff is saying the City\nwill survive this year with what Council appropriated as long as\nthe plan is followed and everyone is diligent about staying under\nbudget; drastic cuts were already made.\nThe City Manager stated Mayor Johnson is pointing out that the\nissue is on going.\nMayor Johnson stated perhaps more money should be saved this year\nso that cuts next year would not need to be as big.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated that she does not see a way to\nsave any more in the current budget; the budget is a very tight.\nMayor Johnson questioned why expenditures are not being dealt with\nmore; stated revenues and expenditures do not really balance\nbecause the City is choosing not to pay some obligations, like OPEB\nand the workers compensation reserve.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated said items would be dealt with\nin Fiscal Year 2009-10; the last budget cycle was difficult and\ninvolved lay offs; staff is trying to survive this year and come up\nwith a more comprehensive plan for next year; direction could be\ngiven to start making some changes now.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated there is no choice but to start addressing\nthe issues now; finding out the budget is $4 million short does not\nhappen overnight, which has been done continually; the focus should\nbe on making it through the next three to four years, rather than\nmaking it through this year; there is nothing on the horizon.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether one person was laid off in\nthe last budget cycle, to which the City Manager responded there\nwere a couple.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City has not really gone through\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 10, "text": "lay offs and that is what is being faced; the report is about the\ncurrent service level; requested a detailed description of\npreserving 95% of the current [Fire] service level; inquired what\nhappens when a brown out occurs.\nThe Fire Chief stated a lot of data was analyzed; not all data\ncould be obtained; two things affect service level : response time\nand getting the proper amount of resources to the incident his\nstatement that 95% of the current service level would be preserved\nis based on the two factors; the analysis for 2008 showed no impact\non resources; there was not a fire incident where the City was not\nable to provide the necessary resources; there will not be a\ncatastrophic shortage of resources when responding to fires;\nresponse time differs depending on apparatus; less than 5% of all\ncalls will be impacted with a higher response time.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of not obtaining\nall data wanted for analysis.\nThe Fire Chief responded staff hoped to obtain data for more years\nand by station and company; enough data was obtained to do adequate\nanalysis and back up the conclusions drawn.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what scenario would involve an\nincreased response time; stated the average response time is\ncurrently 4 minutes 30 seconds inquired what would happen during a\nbrown out when the City is in the 5% mode.\nThe Fire Chief stated that he would provide individual scenarios.\nfor medical calls, the Fire Department responds with an engine and\nan ambulance; there are paramedics on the engine and ambulance; if\nan ambulance were browned out, the impact would occur when there\nare three or more concurrent ambulance calls; said scenario\nhappened 241 times last year; based on the staffing pattern last\nyear, an ambulance would only be browned out 15% of the time or 50\ndays, which translates to about 36 delayed ambulance calls.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how long the delay would be.\nThe Fire Chief responded the delay would depend on the location of\nthe call and the ambulance; the range would be anywhere from one\nminute to 10 to 12 minutes if relying on AMR even if the ambulance\nwould be delayed, the first responding unit would not be delayed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the impact.\nThe Fire Chief responded the impact varies depending upon the\nmedical condition; the matter has been discussed with doctors; for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 11, "text": "cardiac patients, the engine needs to get there quickly with the\ndefibrillator transport is not as important because the patient\ncan be treated at the scene; getting an ambulance there quickly\nmight be more important for internal injuries statistically, only\n15 out of the 36 delayed calls would be critical incidents.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what is the $100,000 for training\nand contingency.\nThe Fire Chief stated $30,000 is for paramedic training; $20,000 is\nfor a recruit academy; the other $50,000 is to deal with major\nincidents and fire fighter call backs for fires; the overtime\nsavings comes from lowering daily staffing of stations; some money\nis needed for call back for major incidents and other activities.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired during what period of time did the\n$413,000 State reimbursement accumulate, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded the amount is for the current fiscal year.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what percentage of the overtime is used\nfor mutual aid.\nThe Fire Chief responded the amount of time varies; stated the\nmoney should be fully recovered.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated mutual aid agreements are a substantial\nportion of overtime and cannot be neglected.\nThe Fire Chief stated a Statewide agreement requires the City to\nrespond if able; the City uses resources from other communities,\ntoo.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the first response is an engine\nwith a paramedic, to which the Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City ever had four\nambulances, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the total overtime allocation for the\n2008-09 Fiscal Year was $1.013 million; $978,000 was used at the\nend of last year to maintain the minimum staffing level of 27, 33\npeople are required to be available; inquired whether the overtime\ncharges are primarily due to lack of staff from people out on\ninjury, people on leave, or various combinations.\nThe Fire Chief responded it is a little bit of all; stated the\ngeneral rule of thumb in most any industry is that employers have\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 12, "text": "25% over the amount of staff desired on duty to deal with vacancies\ndue to vacations, sickness, training, and whatever takes an\nemployee away from the job; the City staffs for 27 people; adding\n25% would be six to seven additional positions, which is how the\nnumber was reached; what leads to overtime is anything that takes a\nperson away from the workplace; in the City's case, it is primarily\nvacation and the usage of compensatory time that people have\nearned, secondly people on injury leave, and then sick leave; the\nCity only has 31 people assigned to a shift on average, which means\novertime is used if more than four people are off on any given day;\nthere were a lot of vacancies last year; nine people were hired in\nthe spring which cut the overtime in half; vacancies reduce salary\nspending and cause overtime to go up; hiring people causes salaries\nto go up, but lowers overtime.\nCouncilmember Tam stated standard procedure is to send an engine\nwith a paramedic as the first responder then, an ambulance is\nsent; inquired whether the full complement is sent for every case,\nsuch as an indigent, intoxicated person needing a ride to a medical\nfacility.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. stated the current\nCountywide practice set by the Medical Director requires that any\ntype of medical call, regardless of priority or severity, requires\nan engine and ambulance.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether there is any flexibility.\nThe Fire Chief responded currently, there is no flexibility; there\nare discussions to try to create some flexibility; the Medical\nDirector realizes the lowest priority of calls that might not be\ntrue emergencies do not need the same level of response.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether fire calls go to County\ndispatch, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether dispatch determines what\nneeds to be sent out, to which the Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether 18 people are sent to a\nfire, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what happens if all 18 people are\nnot needed.\nThe Fire Chief provided a Power Point presentation outlining the\nresponse.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many times the Fire Department\nbacked off of the full, initial response.\nThe Fire Chief responded there were 32 working structure fires and\n28 gas leaks, which would have require the full response resources\nsent.\nMayor Johnson stated AMR provides backup; inquired what are the\nresponse time requirements for AMR.\nThe Fire Chief responded the time requirements are the same as the\nCity's the City's average response time is much better than the\nrequirement; for ambulances, the City's average response time is 4\nminutes and the County standard is 8 minutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is trying to balance the\ndeficit of $344,000 against the 5% the Council's purview is\ndeciding whether or not to sacrifice response time 5% of the time;\nthat he does not have confidence that someone might not be injured\nseverely; $344,000 is a small amount against the General Fund; that\nhe is not willing to take the risk; the City responds faster than\nOakland, but Oakland does not have to cross a bridge to get to a\ntrauma center how the response is delivered is the purview of\nmanagement; that he expects management to come up with creative\nways to keep the critical level of service; cities are in place to\nkeep the peace, which is the job of the Police Department, to keep\npeople healthy and safe, which is the job of the Fire Department\nand sewer system, and to preserve infrastructure which is Public\nWorks' job; that he voted to take money from Golf in June because\nGolf is less important than maintaining fire response at the\ncurrent level; services should be prioritized; services that are\nless important should be cut to make sure that the [response] range\nis met 100% of the time the response time is an average that he\ndoes not want to play odds for $344,000; that he would like\ndirection given to the City Manager to look for a way to bridge the\n$344,000 at the same time, the City should look at how the service\nis provided, which is being done by an outside consultant. inquired\nwhen the report is due.\nThe City Manager responded the organizational review would be ready\nin late March or April.\nThe Fire Chief stated no city can ensure 100% safety for all\ncitizens from a risk management point of view; the City achieves a\nvery high standard of 90% currentlyi of the 15 critical incidents\nmedical calls being discussed, on average half would be trauma\ncases.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think the seven\ncalls are worth $344,000.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City of Alameda response time is\n4\nminutes; inquired the County's time.\nThe Fire Chief responded the County standard is 8 minutes.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what the County's actual time is, to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded that he does not have said\ninformation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a speaker addressed the City's obligations\nregarding an initiative; requested the City Attorney to provide an\nupdate.\nThe City Attorney stated the title and summary were prepared and e-\nmailed out today.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired when the City would start browning\nout an ambulance.\nThe City Manager responded the browning out of either an ambulance\nor rig, which is up to the Fire Chief, would begin at the end of\nthe month in order to meet the budget.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the Council to\nestablish the desired service level; he would like the issue to\ncome to Council before the service level changes, so that Council\ncan establish the service level and get alternatives to taking the\nservice level down by 5%.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue would have to be placed on an\nagenda; resources can be discussed at the mid-year budget review in\nFebruary.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired when various financial reports would\nbe provided in response to previous ouncilmember questions.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the reports being prepared\non the three revenue sources : property tax, property transfer tax\nand sales tax will be presented on February 3.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the reports would provide information\non the City's revenue status and indicate whether or not there is\nwiggle room.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 15, "text": "The Interim Finance Director stated the mid-year report would be in\nthe same format as the year-end report; the actual revenue for each\nsource would be extrapolated or projected out to provide a good\nestimate of fund balances; the information will indicate whether or\nnot there is wiggle room.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is a possibility that the\novertime in the Fire Department is increasing because of the normal\ncourse of business, such as retirements and injuries and that has\nbeen projected out for the remainder of the fiscal year.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the overtime amount projected\nout under the two scenarios did not include projection of\nadditional retirements or injuries.\nMayor Johnson stated nine firefighters were hired in the spring of\n2008; inquired whether the City has the ability to hire additional\nfirefighters this fiscal year if there are retirements.\nThe City Manager stated there is a hiring freeze.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is money to hire firefighters,\nbut the hire freeze is preventing hiring.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated there might be a vacancy in\ndeployment if someone is on leave, but the person is still paid.\nThe City Manager stated there are budgeted positions in order to\nhave 27 people on duty, some are filled through overtime.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the budget covers the authorized\npositions.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; requested the Fire\nChief to address whether there are vacancies due to retirements.\nThe Fire Chief stated there are two vacancies due to retirements.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether all the positions are funded even if\nthere are vacancies.\nThe City Manager stated using the Police Department for example, 99\npositions are funded and five are vacant.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the money to hire\nofficers since the positions are funded.\nThe City Manager stated positions are being left vacant in order to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 16, "text": "meet the $700,000 in decreased revenues.\nMayor Johnson stated the explanation provided is why she wants the\nCouncil to receive information on how the budget is being balanced;\nCouncil did not take action; the report did not include numbers.\nThe Fire Chief stated two funded positions in the Fire Department\nare vacant.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether money was included in the\nbudget and is not being paid out in paychecks.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. stated money might be\nspent in overtime.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is no money to hire staff\nbecause money is being used for overtime, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is money to hire two more if\ndesired, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the salary budget has money\nallocated that is not being spent.\nThe Fire Chief stated money from overtime would be used if a\nperson's absence causes staffing to fall below 27.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the salary savings would\nbe used to cover overtime.\nThe Fire Chief responded last year $2.2 million was spent on\novertime; stated $2.2 million was not budgeted; vacancies created\nconsiderable salary savings, which off set the increase in\novertime; the same could happen this year.\nMayor Johnson stated when money allocated for firefighters salaries\nis used to cover an overage in overtime, the issue needs to come to\nCouncil; the Council needs to be aware of the issue, even in an Off\nAgenda Report.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested an explanation of whether hiring\nadds to the OPEB liability.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the two vacancies could be\nfilled; the calculations in the [staff report] tables do not figure\nin vacancies; vacancies would only affect the numbers if more\novertime has to be hired, but the amount would be a push because\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 17, "text": "salaries would not be paid on the other side; not filling two\nvacancies and having to fill with overtime makes the overtime\nnumber increase.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether salary funds would be used\nto pay overtime.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the overtime amount would rise\nand the salary amount would still be there; if the position is\nfilled, the overtime number would remain the same; if the position\nis not filled, the overtime number would rise and cost more, but\nsalaries would be less.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated it balances out.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the funding is still there and is just\napplied differently.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated regarding OPEB, filling the\npositions would create an immediate present liability of $150,000\nthat is not budgeted this fiscal year.\nMayor Johnson stated the amount should be included in budgeting for\npositions in the future.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether $1 million was budgeted in\novertime for the current fiscal year, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated last year the amount was $2.2 million;\ninquired whether aspirations were to cut overtime in half.\nThe Fire Chief responded the amount of overtime was reduced in\norder to meet the necessary budget reductions.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the projection was unreal; close to the\ntotal amount was spent in six months.\nThe Fire Chief stated staff knew the 27 person staffing level would\nnot be able to be maintained for the year, which is why there was\ndiscussion back in June and Council was advised that brown outs\nwould occur.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether only half of the year was\ncovered, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated the initial budget proposal assumed less in\novertime and assumed staffing level would go from 27 to 24;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 18, "text": "additional funds were identified through the budget processi staff\nknew that it implementation of lowering staffing level would be\nnecessary at sometime halfway through the year; $413,000 of the\n$978,000 spent was expended for overtime related to mutual aid for\nwildfires and will be reimbursed by the State; the amount\n[$413,000] was not anticipated and would be credited back; the\nbalance of $317,000 is expected to be available; the amount cannot\nbe expended down to zero; an amount must be retained to keep the\nstaffing level at 24.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the actual amount spent for\novertime of the City's operation around $550,000 if the $413,000 is\nremoved, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding overtime last\nyear, the City Manager stated there were nine vacancies last year;\nthe overtime expenditure was high but salaries were less; now that\nstaff is on board, the money is coming out of salaries; salary is\nbeing spent on additional personnel, rather than overtime.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what the overtime projection would be\nfor the rest of the year if everything were left status quo.\nThe City Manager responded the amount is $344,277, which is in\nTable 1 [of the staff report].\nThe Fire Chief stated that he would like to make one correction;\nthere was an additional retirement on December 31, so there are now\nthree vacancies in funded positions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there are plans to fill positions.\nThe Fire Chief responded hiring is contingent on the OPEB decision.\nThe City Manager stated the Police Department positions are also\npart of the analysis; staff is trying to address OPEB pre-funding;\npre-funding will be required in future years; staff wanted to get\nthrough the revenue analysis; the hiring freeze was put into place\nto save money; the goal is not to take anything out of the reserve\nfor the current fiscal year.\nMayor Johnson stated it needs to be more than a goal; the City does\nnot have enough to start spending the reserves this year.\nThe City Manager stated not implementing the hiring freeze would\nimpact the ability to keep from hitting the reserve; staff is\ntrying its best to have expenditures equal to revenues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated one policy is that operating expenses\nand revenues should match; dipping into the reserve would be using\none time money to cover on going expenses.\nMayor Johnson stated everyone is concerned next year will be worse.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City does not know what the State\nis going to do.\nMayor Johnson stated taking money out of reserve to fund something\nfor a short period of time will not help next year, which is the\nsustainability issue in the budget policies the City has to live\nwithin its means.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the three revenue reports that will be\npresented in February are needed in order to have an informed\ndiscussion about the amount of money the City has to spend.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff is confident about the\n$700,000 figure.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the amount could be more,\nbut probably not significantly more; staff is trying to do internal\nmanipulations to prevent drastic cuts; positions are not being\neliminated; things are not being unfunded; the budget is very tight\nand staff is working very hard not to use one dime out of the\nreserves this year knowing that the City faces a larger issue in\nthe future; the dynamic for Fiscal Year 2009-10 changes if pre-\nfunding OPEB has to be included in Police and Fire budgets.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City would be stuck with\nits operating costs and have to look to the fund balance if the\nState decides to do the triple flip and issues an I.O.U. to the\nCity.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. stated\nthe fund balance would set the City into an equilibrium; service\nlevels would be retained while waiting for cash to come from the\nState; cash poor cities would end up cutting drastically.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the fund balance has to be taken care\nof until the unknown from the State becomes known; the City does\nnot have a say and just has to deal with the State's decision.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the State punted the problem\nfrom last year to this year resolution is not being reached this\nyear; the State cannot make payroll, which is a cash flow issue,\nand is debting to meet payroll.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 20, "text": "Counci lmember Tam stated the City is not insulated from the State\nrunning out of money; the $413,000 might not materialize.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the City is assuming the amount\nwill be received by close of books on June 30, but might have to\nfloat the cash; monies paid with an I.O.U. drain the City's cash\ntoday.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City was under the impression that it\ncould bond against the I.O.U., which will no longer happen.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated some of the smaller revenue\nsources are being held and the State is not indicating when payment\nwill be received.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City of Hayward is eliminating days of\noperation; Oakland is furloughing; inquired what other cities are\ndoing to maintain public safety.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated Hayward is requiring every\nemployee, except frontline Police and Fire, to take a mandated 52\nhours of unpaid leave; people could draw down on the time while the\nCity closed for the holidays; the City Manager has requested her to\nrun various scenarios.\nThe City Manager stated in Hayward, the amount would be taken out\nof paychecks over a six-month period and was a one-time effort to\nobtain savings in the current fiscal year.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated furloughs are being done at various levels\nthroughout the State; the City might be in a situation and have to\nclose City Hall down on a given day; there are a lot of options.\nThe City Manager noted there would be a decrease in service.\nMayor Johnson stated the mid-year budget report would be brought to\nCouncil in February and the issue would be dealt with again.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-017) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs\nfor Community Block Grant Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Annual Plan.\nContinued to January 20, 2009.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA\n(\n(09-018) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed energy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 21, "text": "COUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-019 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Historical Advisory Board and Youth Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Donna Talbot to the Historical Advisory\nBoard and Ellen Hui to the Youth Commission.\n(09-020) Councilmember Matarrese stated there was a Council\nReferral to have the Youth Commission look at reducing traffic\ncongestion around schools last year the Youth Commission sent him\na letter with its results; that he would provide the letter to the\nCity Manager; the Transportation Commission should review the\nletter to determine if any of the suggestions could be implemented;\nit was quite well done and should be shared with the Council.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:41 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\n21\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 22, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 6, 2009- - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 6:15 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to\nconsider:\n(09-01 - CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property\n1435 Webster Street Negotiating parties : Community Improvement\nCommission and Farrar Family Trust; Under negotiation: Price and\nterms.\n(09-001 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nInitiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: Two.\n(09-002 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nManager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was\nreconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Real\nProperty, the Commission provided negotiating direction to its Real\nProperty Negotiators; regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction\nwas provided to Legal Counsel regarding litigation strategy on two\nseparate matters of anticipated litigation.\n***\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 11:43 p.m.\n***\nMayor Johnson announced that regarding the Performance Evaluation,\nCouncil reviewed the City Manager's performance; direction was\nprovided to the City Manager.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 23, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 12:20 a.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\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 24, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 6 , 2009- - - -7:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:08 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent\n:\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nMINUTES\n(09-02) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and CIC Meetings held on December 16,\n2008. Approved.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n( 09-03) Recommendation to maintain the current fa\u00e7ade of the\nnorthern elevation of the Civic Center parking garage and re-\nallocate funds to other redevelopment priorities, including\nimprovement of the appearance of the Bill Chun Service Station.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how much of the planting area is\nwithin the City's jurisdiction.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the entire area; stated the\narea is narrow; trees are not a viable option; the City would need\nto acquire some of Long's property to plant trees; Long's uses the\narea for delivery.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether drainage is an issue, to which\nthe Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Redevelopment Manager\nreviewed the letter from Jennifer Bowles.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Ms.\nBowles expressed concerns regarding bamboo; the Architect noted a\nnumber of examples where bamboo has worked in the Bay Area.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 25, "text": "Commissioner deHaan stated bamboo is the least expensive option but\nrequires maintenance.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated bamboo is very difficult to\nremove.\nChair Johnson stated various options have been presented; inquired\nwhether an option could be to reallocate the money to other fa\u00e7ade\nprograms, including the Chun property.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the money could be reallocated\nto other CIC redevelopment priorities, including the Chun property.\nChair Johnson stated fixing the Chun property is important because\na lot of money has been spent in the area; the owners are\ncommitting to spend $200,000.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated the owners want to remediate\nbefore selling the site; plans include removing the chain link\nfence, repainting, and improving the interior; planters would be\ninstalled; the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) has agreed\nto maintain the planters.\nChair Johnson inquired whether benches would be allowed.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded benches would be a liability\nduring remediation.\nCommissioner Tam requested clarification on improvement costs for\nthe Chun property.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated costs are approximately $75,000 to\n$110,000.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether options include the northern\nfa\u00e7ade landscaping and esthetic improvements to the Chun property,\nto which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nSpeakers : Christopher Buckley, Alameda (submitted letter) ; Richard\nRutter, Alameda (submitted photo) ; and Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association.\nChair Johnson inquired whether staff is requesting funding re-\nallocation in general, not for specific projects.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded staff is requesting funding re-\nallocation for the Chun property; stated other funds would be\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 26, "text": "allocated on an as-needed basis.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of re-allocating funds for\nthe Chun property and reprogramming remaining funds to projects\nthat would provide an immediate return.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that he supports\nplanting vines.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated planting could always be an option in\nthe future; moving an economic project forward is important.\nCommissioner deHaan stated planting would be an inexpensive option;\nthe problem would be future maintenance.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the fa\u00e7ade grant program still has\nfunding, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nChair Johnson inquired whether remaining the remaining funds could\nbe used for the fa\u00e7ade grant program.\nThe Development Services Director responded the City had a couple\nof substantial fa\u00e7ade improvement projects; stated that she would\nnot advocate using the remaining money [ for the fa\u00e7ade program]\nbecause prevailing wages do not go very far; the program has been\nfunded with loans that have been repaid and other revenue sources\nwhich are not restricted by prevailing wages.\nCommissioner Tam stated that she concurs with Commissioner deHaan;\ntimes are tight, but the funds have been contemplated and dedicated\nfor theatre and garage improvements; a promise has been made ;\nspending money on vegetation is a minimal cost; that she is\ngrateful that the Chun property owners and staff reached an\nagreement; thanked PSBA for offering to provide planters and\nmaintenance; that she is supportive of doing both [planting and\nChun improvements).\nChair Johnson stated planting can be done later; no commitment has\nbeen made to the community spending needs to be prioritized; high\npriority projects need to be addressed.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated planting options can be made in the", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-06", "page": 27, "text": "Commissioner Tam stated northern elevation improvements were value\nengineered out i improvements are expected; plants are functional\nand remove toxins that she does not support the motion.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the strip needs covering; maintenance is\nan issue.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair\nJohnson - 3. Noes Commissioners deHaan and Tam - 2.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJanuary 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf"}