{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 21, 2009- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:43 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-146) The Interim City Manager introduced Glenda Jay, Interim\nFinance Director.\n(09-147) Proclamation declaring April through June 2009 as\nHistoric Preservation Season.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judith Lynch,\nHistorical Advisory Board Member.\nMs. Lynch thanked the Council for the proclamation.\nNancy Hird, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society President,\nstated Preservation Season is a celebration of the wonderful\narchitecture in Alameda; invited everyone to the Awards ceremony on\nJune 2, 2009.\n(09-148 - ) Proclamation declaring April 2009 as Fair Housing Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Angie Watson-\nHajjem, Echo Housing representative.\nMs. Watson-Hajjem thanked Council for the proclamation; stated that\nshe is honored to be serving Alameda.\n(09-149) Proclamation declaring May 2009 as Asian Pacific Heritage\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Benny Chin and\nMartin Fong with Buena Vista United Methodist Church.\nMr. Chin stated proclaiming May as Asian Pacific Heritage Month is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 2, "text": "an honor i thanked Council for the proclamation; invited everyone to\nattend the Annual Spring Festival on May 3, 2009 from 12:00 p.m. to\n5:00 p.m. at 2311 Buena Vista Avenue.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan 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(*09-150) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on April\n1, 2009; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on\nApril 7, 2009; and the Special City Council Meeting held on April\n14, 2009. Approved.\n(*09-151) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,596,912.29.\n(*09-152) Recommendation to authorize the City of Alameda's\ncontinued participation in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning\nPrevention Program for Fiscal Year 2009-2010/2011-2012. Accepted.\n(*09-153) Recommendation to accept $120,900 in Citizens' Option for\nPublic Safety Program Grant funding to supplement frontline Police\nservices. Accepted.\n(*09-154) Resolution No. 14323, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Submit an Application to CalTrans for $79,000 in\nCommunity Based Transportation Planning Grant Funds for Fiscal Year\n2009-2010 to Conduct a Citywide Transportation Systems\nManagement/Transportation Demand Management Plan, Commit $16,000 as\na Local Match Including $8,200 in Transportation System Management\nFunds and for $7,800 in In-Kind Staff Support, and to Execute All\nNecessary Documents to Implement the Project. \" Adopted.\n(*09-155) Ordinance No. 2993, \"Approving and Authorizing the City\nManager to Negotiate and Execute a Second Amendment to Modify and\nExtend the Franchise Agreement with Alameda County Industries AR,\nInc. \" Finally passed.\n( *09-156) - Ordinance No. 2994, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and\nRecycling) to Clarify the Definition of Customer and Customer\nResponsibilities. \" Finally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 3, "text": "(09-157 - ) Mif Albright Course Update.\nThe Interim City Manager stated $21,000 would be needed to bring\nthe Mif Albright Course back up to a reasonable play level; Kemper\nSports has offered to maintain the Course for approximately $1,000\nper month; water would be the biggest expense and would cost\napproximately $18,000 for six months. total costs add up to\napproximately $45,000; $69,000 was generated from June through\nNovember last year; Council would need to approve the expenditure\nat the May 5, 2009 Council Meeting to amend the budget the interim\nsolution would deal with the junior golf issue.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff would be working on a parallel\ntrack with Kemper Sports for a long-term solution, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nSpeakers : Glenn VanWinkle, Alameda; Gail VanWinkle, Alameda; Norma\nArnerich, Alameda; Stephen Burnett, Alameda High School Golf Coach;\nJane Sullwold, Alameda Golf Commission.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants numbers to be valid\nand validated; understanding that the data is good and applying\ncorrective actions to running the entire Golf Course is important\nthat he has to guess there are discrepancies for the other 36 holes\nif there are discrepancies for the 9-hole Course; that he would\nlike a cost comparison of having the City maintain the Course.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that issues would be reviewed.\nVice Mayor deHaan thanked the Interim City Manager for the quick\nresponse.\n(09-158) Information Technology Report.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the declining condition of the\nCity's Information Technology infrastructure was discussed at the\nFebruary 7, 2009 workshop ; upgrading technology would produce\nsignificant annual savings parts cannot be found for the current\nphone system.\nThe Information Technology Director gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed plan is good.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how \"911\" would integrate into the\nsystem.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 4, "text": "computer systems and at the same time create a fund so that there\nis a reserve.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City would be getting the\nbiggest bang for the buck by replacing the phone system as opposed\nto any other technological assets.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded the proposed plan\nwould have the greatest savings at this point; stated other\ntechnology would not provide any savings and would require capital.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a proposed Sunshine Ordinance will be\ndiscussed later tonight ; the Ordinance would provide readily\navailable web access information to the public; inquired whether\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 5, "text": "the City would need some major technological investments in order\nto facilitate posting scanned documents.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded a study has been done\nfor revamping the City's website; stated the study shows that the\ncost would be very high; the City has some scanning capability; the\nbackend hardware does not have a lot of capability.\nThe City Clerk stated the City Clerk's office has been using\nLaserfiche; IT is working on a web solution in order to have\nscanned documents online.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether using an outside service would be\nmore feasible, to which the Information Technology Manager\nresponded the City's web solution is outsourced.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the website is not as good as it\ncould be because of the hardware.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded the website needs\nrevamping and reprogramming.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether limited server capacity is a\nproblem.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded in the affirmative.\nstated a hosted solution could be used for the website, but\nreprogramming and redesign is needed.\nMayor Johnson stated all solutions should be reviewed; all Court\ndocuments are available online; the goal should be to make all\ndocuments available online.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired when staff would come back with a\nproposal.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the cost of the proposed plan\nwas put into the budget.\nThe Information Technology Manager stated implementation would take\nfour to six months.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired where the hub would be for the new\nsystem, to which the Information Technology Manager responded the\nnew system would be hosted by AT&T.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 6, "text": "(09-159 - ) Resolution No. 14324, \"Appointing Dean Batchelor as a\nMember of the Civil Service Board.\" Adopted; and\n(09-159A) - Resolution No. 14325, \"Appointing Dennis H. Viehweg as a\nMember of the Economic Development Commission. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of\nappointment to Mr. Batchelor and Mr. Viehweg.\nMr. Viehweg thanked Council for the appointment.\nMr. Batchelor thanked Council for the opportunity to serve.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-160) Financial \"State of the City\"\nThe Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the actual revenue [ Workers'\nCompensation Fund turned out to be lower than the budgeted\nrevenue.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the number will always be off\nbecause of how claims are charged back.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there is an explanation for the\nmajor fluctuation in actual expenses.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the actual expense is hit when\nthe claim is paid; stated it may take years for a claim to be paid.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Workers' Compensation Fund\nbalance is a negative $2,322,784.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the fund balance is a projected\nnegative on June 30, 2009.\nMayor Johnson stated a policy needs to be in place so that the\nsituation does not happen again.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a chalk talk presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated understating how the situation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 7, "text": "out the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 negative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Fiscal Year 2004-2005 shows a decline in\nthe cash balance but the fund balance grew; prior Councils and\nmanagers have made discretionary decisions on whether or not to pay\nback the deficit.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff is coming up with corrective\nactions to charge back fixed charges repayment would be considered\nan additional fixed charge to departments over three years; the\nhuge hit would not be absorbed in one year.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City has been living with budgets that\nhave had a 5% growth.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the projected property tax growth\nis 5%.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated cash reserves are down; there will easily\nbe a 10%-15% reduction; the books are still carrying $2. 1 million\nfrom Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) .\nThe Interim City Manager stated none of the $6 million owed to the\nCity has been written off; the Executive Management Team's job is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 8, "text": "to provide a sustainable approach for the next two years.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates staff highlighting\nthat the property transfer tax doubled; Measure P did not solve the\nCity's problems, but the situation would be much worse if Measure P\nhad not passed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that the City would be short an\nadditional $800,000 if Measure P had not passed.\nMayor Johnson requested an explanation of the Internal Services\nFund amounts shown on the Ten Year History graph, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded that she added a bar to show the\nexpenditure amount, including Internal Service Funds.\nMayor Johnson requested that the Interim City Manager recommend\npolicies or practices.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she is working on a Procedure\nManual with the Interim Finance Director the Procedure Manual\nwould become the rule.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and Fiscal Year\n2005-2006 had exceptional growth; expenditures were increased; poor\ndecisions were made in 2005-2006.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated during said time medical costs\nincreased by 10%; the City will have to live with a thirty to\nninety day delay if the State borrows money from the City; the City\nwill have to live off cash.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the State will pay at some point ;\nmoney is spent from the General Fund regularly; the General Fund\ncash needs help occasionally.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-161) - Recommendation to request staff to prepare a report on the\neffect of the proposed Alameda Point Development initiative measure\npursuant to Election Code Section 9212 and designate a response\ndate.\nThe Redevelopment Manager provided a revised staff recommendation.\nSpeakers : Jim Sweeney, Alameda, (provided handout) ; Jean Sweeney,\nAlameda; Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association;\nRosemary McNally, Alameda, (provided handout) ; Sharon Loshakoff,\nAlameda; Jean Graham, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Darcy\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 9, "text": "Morrison, Alameda; Elizabeth Krase, Alameda: Ashley Jones, Alameda;\nMary Fetherolf, Alameda; Dave Needle, Alameda; Pat Bail, Alameda;\nKathy McIntire, Alameda; Marcus Holder, Alameda: Former\nCouncilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda ; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda;\nDavid Howard, Alameda, Save Our City, Alameda; Noel Folsom,\nAlameda; Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Pat\nGannon, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda Corinne Lambden, Alameda;\nWilliam Smith, Alameda; Janet Davis, Alameda; Dana Sack, Piedmont.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the staff report notes that the initiative\nwould not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) if the initiative qualified for the November election.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated a subsequent Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA) would be subject to CEQA.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether an Environmental Impact Report\nwould not be available to the public prior to the November\nelection, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Fleet Industrial Supply Center has 175\nacres; the City gave an incentive of $56 million; Alameda Point has\n720 acres and has an incentive of $200 million; the City would be\nremiss by not making a complete financial analysis; questioned\nwhether the cart is before the horse. stated the proposed\ninitiative changes everything from the Master Plan to the Housing\nElement. that he questions whether transportation impacts can be\nevaluated for $60,000 to $100,000; the proposed initiative is\noverpowering; that he is concerned with having an initiative before\nhaving answers.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she views the initiative as ultimate\ndemocracy because voters would have a direct vote on the\ndevelopment; that she is sorry to hear that signature gathers have\nnot been polite and civil; that she has had a different experience;\nstaff is the most knowledgeable in understanding the Housing\nElement and different zoning ordinances that she agrees that the\ninitiative is complicated; an Executive Summary is needed, would\nreflect the City's assessment of the initiative and would be in\nkeeping with the spirit of the Election Code; that she is\nsupportive of having staff address Items 1 through 7 without\nrelying on SunCal funding; that she has sympathy in having to go\nthrough the complexity of the proposed initiative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with most of\nCouncilmember Tam's statements; an aggressive schedule was set in\norder not to repeat the same mistakes that Alameda Point Community\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 10, "text": "Partners (APCP) made by dragging out the processi Council stated\nthat an initiative process would be needed if Measure A was ever to\nchange that she is sorry that people are having bad experiences\nwith signature gatherersi the proposed initiative is the democratic\nprocess at work; citizens would be able to vote on what matters\nmost; every day of delay could result in a major breakdown that\nwould cost taxpayers; that she is concerned with carrying costs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the study should be funded by the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) not SunCal: that\nhe likes the idea of a two phase report; peer review information\nshould be rolled into the summary; that he would like to have a\nlegal analysis and explanation of the control mechanisms that the\nCity retains under the DDA; the initiative mentions \"developer\",\nnot SunCal; it is important to understand steps to identify the\ndeveloper through the DA and DDA; existing information should be\nused regarding cleanup below the ground which the Navy would be\nresponsible for and above the ground which would be the\nresponsibility of the that he would like to build on\nexisting traffic studies and have staff come back with a finer\nanalysis than $60,000 to $100,000 before Phase II; other big events\nin Alameda history have occurred without voter input ; an\nindependent study based on available information would ensure that\nissues are clear; that he endorses the staff recommendation for a\ntwo stage process with his additional comments, particularly the\ncontrol aspect of what legislative control would remain and the\nimpact of what would happen if it fails.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she assumes the Executive Summary\nwould reference detailed documents.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is\nrecommending adoption of staff recommendations 1 through 8 with\nadditional referenced points.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the\nstudy would be funded by ARRA.\nThe Redevelopment Manager inquired whether or not staff is directed\nto proceed with Phase 2.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like an interim report\nwith a more refined estimate before proceeding.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated ARRA approval would be needed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he has difficulty with staff\nperforming a land use review; that he thinks outside counsel is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 11, "text": "needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether SunCal deliverables have\nbeen reviewed by hired consultants, to which the Redevelopment\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the process has been reviewed, not the\ninitiative.\nThe tedevelopment Manager stated outside counsel has been\nsupportive in all efforts; staff always checks with the City\nAttorney and outside legal counsel if there are questions.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Interim City Manager has\never seen such a far-reaching initiative, to which the Interim City\nManager responded not in her travels.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that legal counsel needs to compare other\npetitions.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Council did not direct staff to\nwrite the initiative; the goal is to make the initiative\ntransparent and as easily understood as possible.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the staff recommendation is all\nencompassing and would put things in proper perspective, to which\nthe Interim City Manager stated the two-stage approach would.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the initiative could be\ncorrected if something is missing and whether SunCal would need to\nstart the process over again.\nThe City Attorney responded SunCal would need to start the process\nover again if an error is found.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council's job is to have an\nindependent analysis so that information can be offered to dispel\nmisconceptions.\nouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff's two Phase\nrecommendation with following direction: 1) ARRA pays for the\nstudy 2) specific components be addressed in additional to Items 1\nthrough 8 ; 3) an explanation of control mechanisms that would\nremain should the initiative pass, including zoning, DDA, and\nprocess of identifying the developer; 4) the report is to address\nenvironmental concerns regarding what the Navy would be responsible\nfor under the soil and what the developer/eventual landowner would\nbe responsible for above the soil 5) before launch, a finer\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 12, "text": "number than $60,000 to $100,000 be provided for additional\ntransportation studies and 6) outline what the scope of work would\ndeliver.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to repeat a\nprevious request to have a timeline published on the website, or\nprovided in an Off Agenda Report, that outlines events between now\nand Election Day\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat to include\nwhat would happen if major changes are made to the initiative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(09-162) Will Richards, Alameda, discussed security measures at\nTodd Shipyard.\n(09-163) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, discussed Alameda Point.\n(09 - 164 ) Noel Folsom, Alameda, stated that letting the fire burn\nfor nineteen hours at the Old Navy Hospital and Supply Depot was\nunacceptable.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(09-165) Consider the formation of a Sunshine Community Task Force.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the concept is to evaluate resources on\nwhether the City could support a Sunshine Community Task Force; the\nstate of the print media is declining online journalism is an\nemerging trend; having information more readily available and\ntransparent is needed; the community has been discussing whether\nthere is an adequate amount of time beyond the Brown Act and\nFreedom of Information Act requirements in terms of noticing\nagendas and creating an online system to post campaign finance\nreports.\nKate Quick, League of Women Voters of Alameda, stated the League of\nWomen Voters would be happy to participate in the formation of the\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Berkeley is in the process of developing a\nSunshine Ordinance; the Freedom of Information Act Coalition noted\nthat there are eight cities in the area that have a Sunshine\nOrdinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the\nInterim City Manager provide information on what it would take to\ndevelop a Sunshine Ordinance; most online journalism is\neditorialism; source documents need to be provided; facts need to\nbe made clear.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she has figures on how many\nman hours would be needed; that she assumes the proposed Task Force\nwould have a ninety-day target date; City staff could provide a\ncertain number of hours.\nMayor Johnson inquired what Councilmember Tam is thinking in terms\nof group size and scope.\nCouncilmember Tam responded each Councilmember could designate a\nresident; stated the Assistant City Attorney could help gather some\nof the pressing issues; that she is thinking more in terms of an\nordinance rather than a Charter amendment.\nMayor Johnson stated an ordinance is a good idea.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Interim City Manager would\nadvise how the proposed committee would be formed.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she could make an educated\nguess on staff involvement and number of meetings.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Interim City Manager is\nsuggesting that staff come up with some ideas, work with the\nproposed committee, and bring something back to Council.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff would come back with a\nreport; stated the deliverable would be very specific.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether said suggestion is what\nCouncilmember Tam has in mind, to which Councilmember Tam responded\nin the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the proposed committee would be\nsimilar to an Ethics Committee.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the proposed committee would\naddress access to information.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Dan Purnell, Executive Director of the\nPublic Ethics Commission for Oakland, noted that the first step is\na Sunshine or Code of Conduct Ordinance in order to have an ethics\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 14, "text": "review against some standard.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam wants to start\nwith the informational portion.\nCouncilmember Tam responded that she would like the ordinance to be\nfoundational\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of bringing the matter back\nin thirty days.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09 - 166) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Youth Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated McCaulay J. Singer-Milnes for appointment\nto the Youth Commission.\n(09-167) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the Legislative\nAction Day with the Deputy City Manager last week; having the State\nprotect any raids from city funds is not guaranteed; the State has\napproximately $4 billion available to borrow; efforts are being\nmade to ensure Assembly Members have an opportunity to look at what\nredevelopment funds do in Alameda; the Governor appreciates the\nLeague's support for Propositions 1A through 1F; the thinking is to\nestablish a spending cap under Proposition 1A so that any extra\nmoney would go into reserves ; opponents believe programs would be\nhurt by forcing funding into a reserve fund because the State would\nneed to live within a certain spending limit; the State has 31\nmillion people; the water infrastructure is built for 18 million;\nthe Governor is hoping to have a bond measure on water\ninfrastructure in June; the Governor would like to focus on health\ncare reform before leaving office; another session discussed\npotential solutions, including a constitutional convention to deal\nwith State budget issues, how government performs at the State\nlevel, looking at term limits, reforming the initiative process,\nand looking at a two-thirds versus majority vote on the budget.\nMayor Johnson noted that Senator Loni Hancock suggested that the\nCity implement requiring that initiatives include a financing\nmechanism.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that the matter is an opportunity\nfor Alameda in the future.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 15, "text": "There being no further business, Mayor Johnson convened the Regular\nMeeting at 11:51 p.m. .\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-04-21", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 21, 2009- -7:31 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:55 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(09-168 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations\n:\nAll Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council received a briefing on\nnegotiation status and requirements from its Labor Negotiators; no\naction was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 12:35 a.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\nApril 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf"}