{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -OCTOBER 6, 2009- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:48 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09-373) - Mayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Amend\nthe Measure WW Proposed Project List [paragraph no. 09-391] would\nbe continued; and the Resolution of Appointment [paragraph no. 09-\n377] was addressed before the Consent Calendar.\nThe Interim City Manager stated receiving the bond counsel opinion\n[ on Measure WW funding] could take thirty days; the item would be\nplaced on the next City Council agenda if the letter is received in\ntime.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-374) School Board Member Tracy Jensen stated tomorrow is the\nNinth Annual Walk & Roll to School Day the Alameda County Safe\nRoutes to Schools Program selected Alameda as one of the cities to\nwork with on a year-round basis; announced Councilmembers would be\nat various schools.\n(09-375) Proclamation Recognizing the Benefits of Public Power and\nHonoring Alameda Power and Telecom for Its Contributions to the\nCommunity.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Public\nUtilities Board Member Peter Holmes. stated Alameda is much greener\nthan other competitors.\nMr. Holmes stated approximately seventy percent of all energy used\nin Alameda is green, renewable energy; thanked Council for the\nrecognition; stated this week is the national celebration of Public\nPower Week.\nMayor Johnson inquired what percentage of Pacific Gas & Electric's\n(PG&E's) portfolio is renewable, to which Mr. Holmes responded\nsignificantly less than Alameda.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager stated PG&E's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "percentage is approximately 12% to 13% the State is setting a goal\nof 33% by 2020.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda is 83% carbon free and 63%\nrenewable.\nThe AMP General Manager stated that Alameda owns hydroelectric\npower, which counts as carbon free, but the law does not recognize\nit as renewable; Alameda is number one in the State in terms of\nrenewable power.\nMayor Johnson stated plugging in an electric car in Alameda is\ntruly green.\n(09-376) Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Audrey Lord-\nHausman, Commission on Disability Issues Chair.\nMs. Lord-Hausman thanked Council for the proclamation; stated that\nshe is accepting the proclamation in memory of Commissioner\nAdrienne Longley-Cook, who passed away two weeks agoi noted the\nSpecial Services Resource Faire will take place on October 24.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(09-377) Resolution No. 14387, \"Appointing Cullen L. Jones as a\nMember of the Housing Commission (Senior Tenant Seat) . \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a\ncertificate of appointment to Mr. Jones.\nMr. Jones stated that he is honored to serve.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize the\nPurchase of Four Marked Ford Crown Victoria Police Vehicles\n[paragraph no. 09-380] and Introduction of Ordinance [paragraph no.\n09-385 ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "Consent 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(*09-378) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nSeptember 15, 2009.\n(*09-379) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,936,123.46.\n(09-380) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Four Marked\nFord Crown Victoria Police Vehicles Through the Los Angeles County\nVehicle Bid Contract at a Cost Not to Exceed $100,000.00.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Dodge Charger models did not pan out;\ninquired whether Dodger Chargers [purchased in Fiscal Year 2007- -\n2008] would be replaced.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded in the negative; stated the four\ncars recommended for replacement are older Ford Crown Victoria's\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how many miles are on the older cars.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded three of the four cars have been\ntaken out of the fleet due to irreparable damage; stated two were\ninvolved in traffic accidents; another car has 135,000 miles and\nhas rear axel damage; stated the fourth car has 107,000 miles.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any purchases were made last\nyear, to which the Police Lieutenant responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff has been working with an\noutside consultant who has been very successful in converting large\nagency fleets to totally green; staff is committed to making the\nconversion over the next eighteen to twenty-four months currently,\nsome older cars are a challenge; opportunities exist for\ndepartments to go to clean fuel; petroleum based cars are needed\nsometimes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether two of the cars are old\nand two were damaged in accidents.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded all of the cars are old; two of the\ncars were damaged in accidents and not repaired.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "Replacement Project, No. P.W. 06-09-19. Accepted.\n( *09-382) Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid and Resolution No.\n14388, \"Authorizing Open Market Negotiations of a Contract Pursuant\nto Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Alameda Harbor\nBay Channel Dredging Project, No. P.W. 06-09-14, and Authorizing\nthe Interim City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement. Adopted.\n( *09-383) Resolution No. 14389, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager or Designee to Negotiate and Execute a Financial Assistance\nAgreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and Any\nAmendments or Change Orders Thereto and Certify Financial Agreement\nDisbursements on Behalf of the City of Alameda for the Installation\nof Mechanical Trash Racks at Storm Water Pump Stations. Adopted.\n(*09-384) Resolution No. 14390, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager or Designee to Negotiate and Execute a Financial Assistance\nAgreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and Any\nAmendments or Change Orders Thereto and Certify Financial Agreement\nDisbursements on Behalf of the City of Alameda for the\nRehabilitation of the Structural Stability of Approximately 3,000\nLinear Feet of the Southshore Lagoon Seawalls Adjacent to City\nStreets. Adopted.\n09-385) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2497,\nNew Series, By Amending Subsection 19 (a) (Medical Insurance) and By\nAmending Subsection 19 (b) (Dental) of Section 19 (PERS Pension\nFund) Regarding Public Safety Employees Hired After November 1,\n2009. Introduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the Public Safety contract process calls\nfor a committee to be formed to have management and public safety\nunions sit at a table and develop a mutually agreeable retiree\nmedical benefit. ; one of the public safety contracts states that the\ncommittee would begin meeting within thirty days of the Memorandum\nof Understanding (MOU) which was adopted on August 3 that she\nassumes the committee met.\nThe City Attorney stated the proposed ordinance is the first step\nnecessary to make changes to the retiree medical benefits for\nfuture public safety employees; public safety employees hired after\nNovember 1, 2009 would have medical retirement benefits suspended\nuntil the group meets to determine the benefits; the process may\ntake a while; the first step in the process is to have Council\nchange the benefits for future public safety hires.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether future negotiations would\nset benefits, not proposed ordinance, to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nlouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether amending the ordinance is a\nprerequisite to getting negotiators together.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated otherwise,\nan overlap would occur; until the ordinance is changed, the\nprovision for fully paid medical and dental benefits for retirees\nand spouses would apply to [public safety] employees hired; the\nordinance needs to be changed so that there is some certainty about\nbenefits for new hires.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether introduction of the\nordinance is being done as an abundance of caution, not necessarily\nbecause there are plans to add new hires to either of the public\nsafety units.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the\nordinance would also be a notice to future hires that retiree\nmedical benefits will be whatever is negotiated.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether [public safety] employees hired\nafter November 1, 2009, retiree healthcare benefits would be\npending and contingent upon the group reaching a mutually agreeable\nprovision, to, which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a mutually agreeable provision\nwould need Council approval and to go through the public safety\nlabor groups' process before being incorporated into the respective\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 6, "text": "MOU's, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would happen if a mutually\nagreeable option does not occur, to which the City Attorney\nresponded it is possible that it could reach an impasse.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether new hires are represented\nthrough a bargaining unit.\nThe City Attorney responded existing employees are represented by\nthe MOU; people who have not been hired have no rights under the\nMOU; amending the ordinance is important so that confer rights are\nnot placed upon people who have not yet been hired.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether an individual hired in\nDecember 2009 would take the position knowing that they are not\nentitled to any retiree healthcare benefits, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a new hire would not be entitled\nto healthcare benefits for five years, to which the City Attorney\nresponded it depends on the bargaining group.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does know of any other city that has\nthe same retiree medical benefits; hopefully, the committee can\nwork together to agree on a proposal to the Council that works for\nthe City long term; the current healthcare benefits provided to\npublic safety retirees and spouses is much too generous; other\nemployees' retirement benefits are much lower.\nThe Human Resources Director stated newly hired public safety\nemployees would be entitled to the same retirement healthcare\nbenefits as other [non public safety] employees, which is the\nminimum employer contribution of approximately $101 per month\ntoward the premium.\nMayor Johnson stated amending the ordinance would wipe the slate\nclean to work out a new agreement.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City cannot sustain the current\nbenefits provided to public safety; inquired whether the bargaining\nunits would need to ratify whatever the committee comes up with for\nCouncil approval.\nThe Human Resources Director responded the process would be very\nsimilar to any meet and confer issue; stated the matter would go to\nthe bargaining unit for a ratification vote and would then come to\nCouncil for a vote before being implemented.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 7, "text": "Counci lmember Tam stated that she would like clarification on the\nCity Attorney stating that a new hire [public safety would not\nreceive any benefits versus the Human Resources Director stating\nthat a new hire would receive the same benefits as other City\nemployees.\nThe Human Resources Director stated a newly hired public safety\nemployee who is vested and retires under PERS would be eligible for\nthe PERS medical retiree health benefit of approximately $101 per\nmonth that the employers pays toward the medical premium in\naccordance with the PERS contract.\nMayor Johnson stated moving forward on the matter is necessaryi\nretirees receive a more extensive benefit than employees because\nthere is no cap; taxpayers pay the full cost of whatever plan the\nretirees picks for themselves and their spouse; changes need to be\nmade; that she is glad the first step has come to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : buncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstention Councilmember Tam -\n1.\n( (*09-386) Ordinance No. 3001, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Adding Section 59 at Article IV to Chapter II Pertaining to\nContracts in Writing. \" Finally passed.\n(*09-387) Ordinance No. 3002, \"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to\nRezone Approximately 4.7 Acres Located at 1 Singleton Avenue, APN\n074-0905-010-01, from M-2-PD, General Industrial (Manufacturing)\nPlanned Development District, to R-4-PD, Neighborhood Residential\nPlanned Development District Zoning Designation. Finally Passed;\n(*09-387 A) Ordinance No. 3003, \"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.\nto Rezone Approximately 5 Acres Located at 2189 and 2201 Clement\nAvenue, APNs 071-0289-007-03 and 074-0289-004-00, from M-2, General\nDevelopment Residence District, to R-2-PD, Two-Family Planned\nDevelopment District Zoning Designation. Finally Passed;\n(*09-387 - B) Ordinance No. 3004, \"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.\nto Rezone Approximately 4.14 Acres Located at 2015/2025 Grand\nStreet, APN 072-0381-002-00 and 072-0381-001-00, from M-2, General\nIndustrial (Manufacturing District to R-4-PD, Neighborhood\nResidential Planned Development District. Finally Passed;\n(*09-387 - C) Ordinance No. 3005, \"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 8, "text": "to Rezone Approximately 2.78 Acres Located at 2100 Clement\nAvenue/1924 Willow Street, APN 071-0228-001-0 from M-1,\nIntermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-2-PD, Two\nFamily Residence Planned Development District Zoning Regulation.\nFinally Passed;\n(*09-387 D) Ordinance No. 3006, \"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.\nto Rezone Approximately 1.9 Acres Located at 1913 Sherman Street,\nAPN 074-0906-031-08, from M-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial\n(Manufacturing) Planned Development District to R-2-PD, Two Family\nResidence Planned Development District Zoning Designation.\" Finally\nPassed; and\n(*09-387 - E) Ordinance No. 3007, \"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.\nto Rezone Approximately 2. Acres 1590/1616 Fortmann Way, APN 072-\n0381-018-00, from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District\nto R-4-PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District\nZoning Designation to Bring Zoning Designations for Six Properties\ninto Conformance with the General Plan and Housing Element. \"\nFinally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n( 09-388) Telephone Contract Update\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the new system would provide\nthe exact location of a 911 call, to which the Deputy City Manager\nresponded that she would check.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she would like the new system to\nhave clear transfer and conference buttons.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the new system would have\nconferencing ability, to which the Deputy City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City has the bandwidth\nto handle everything.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff initially estimated a cost\nsavings of $165,000 per year; the $165,000 savings could be used to\ndo something with the overall City computer system, turning a\nliability into an asset.\n(09-389) Proposition 1A Securitization Proposal\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 9, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese inquired whether the State has to pay money\nback or can choose to keep the money until it borrows money again.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded the State has to pay the money\nback in three years; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Interim City Manager\nstated the State is running a revolving loan program at cities'\nexpense; the City should participate if there is no downside in\nterms of loss of money to the City; the City should participate as\nlong as the interest rate comes out in the City's favor; that she\nhas a philosophical problem with the issue.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the interest rate has been set.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded the interest rate has been set at\n2% the City is making a little more; the State Department of\nFinance rate will stay fixed through 2013.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the State would take three years\nto pay the money back, to which the Deputy City Manager responded\nin the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City participated in the program last\ntime, and then the State came up with the money within two months.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the State is paying the full cost\nassociated with the issue this time.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the construct is that cities would\nparticipate because the market is down; staff would not recommend\nparticipation unless it is in the City's best financial interest.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the State can take money within a ten year\nwindow; inquired when the ten year window is up.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded the first take was in FY 2004-\n2005 or FY 2005-2006.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the League of California Cities\nis contemplating any other action.\nCouncilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated that she\nwould report on the League proposed ballot measure [under Council\nCommunications].\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City has lost $6.8 this\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 10, "text": "fiscal year between property taxes and redevelopment funds.\nThe Interim City Manager responded $7.8 million has been taken in\nfifteen months.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff has any idea of what the\nState's shortfall will be next year.\nThe Interim City Manager responded estimates are approximately $15\nbillion; however the State's last error factor was 30%.\n(09-390) City-School District Linkages Update\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he hopes to discuss the notion\nof the State allowing school districts to dispose of assets for the\npurpose of funding operations; that he would not like to aid and\nabet something that five years from now would cause lots of\ntrouble.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a recurrent revenue streams\nsolutions are needed; housing has some opportunities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be discussed and\nproceeding needs to be done very careful.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the amount of funding the City\nprovides to support schools has been reviewed.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the list has not been updated.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-391) - Recommendation to Amend the Measure WW Proposed Project\nList to Include a $2 Million Grant to the Boys & Girls Club for the\nCompletion of Construction of Its Youth Development Center in\nAccordance with the Terms and Conditions Outlined Herein.\nContinued.\n(09-392) Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic\nDevelopment Commission's (EDC) Business Retention Subcommittee\nJustin Harrison, EDC Subcommittee Chair, gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the high start up fees are building\ndepartment fees.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 11, "text": "The Economic Development Director responded start up and build out\npermit fees are expensive in addition to the time involved; stated\nsome fees are out of the City's control, such as the Health\nDepartment, ABC Licenses, and School District.\nCouncilmember Tam stated people think that parking costs are an\nissue; the City's parking costs are only fifty cents per hour.\nMr. Harrison stated that people think costs businesses pay as fees\nfor providing clientele parking are high.\nMayor Johnson inquired Mr. Harrison is referring to an in-lieu fee,\nto which Mr. Harrison responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated most of the positive survey responses seem\nto be around 22% to 24% : inquired at what threshold does the EDC\nconsider a matter to be worth addressing.\nMr. Harrison responded the survey revealed that a lot of people do\nnot know about certain programs.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the public loves the Police Department\nthat she is puzzled to find that over sixty percent do not want to\nbe contacted by a City representative or EDC member.\nMr. Harrison stated a lot of people participated in the anonymous\nsurvey; a lot of people just wanted to provide input.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated past EDC surveys indicated a strong desire\nfor an ombudsman; inquired whether there is better interface with\nretailers now.\nThe Economic Development Director responded assistance is provided;\nstated the idea of having one person take an individual through the\nwhole process for a fee still is mentioned; working with the same\nperson and having consistency are importanti hopefully, merging\nEconomic Development with the Community Development Department will\nimprove customer service.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated for years the Community Development\nDepartment had a customer service team; the one stop permit center\nwas one of the recommendations; inquired whether the EDC reviewed\nthe matter; stated many areas overlap.\nThe Economic Development Director responded one of the EDC\nrecommendations is to continue customer service review; stated the\nreport provides helpful recommendations, such as updating the\nCity's website.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Harrison stated the Subcommittee did not receive responses on\nimmediate issues, such as advertising or City help to attract new\nbusinesses; responses dealt with long-term issues; a separate\nSubcommittee reviewed at business attraction; the process will be\nrefined in the future.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the EDC for the hard work; stated\nhaving permit information available on the website is necessary\npeople expect to do business through mobile locations; that he\nwholeheartedly supports the website recommendation which could reap\nbenefits with a relatively small output.\nMayor Johnson stated improving facilities has always been an issue\nfor new businesses consolidating the Economic Development and\nCommunity Development Departments will help; time is money for\nbusinesses; that she hopes to see big improvements in the next\nseveral months.\nMr. Harrison thanked Economic Development staff for working so hard\non the report.\nMayor Johnson stated Economic Development seems to have a good line\nof communication with businesses; the street scaping project has\ndone great things for individual business as well as the entire\nbusiness district.\nMr. Harrison stated the Subcommittee heard good things about what\nEconomic Development does for businesses.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(09-393) Jean Sweeney, Alameda, submitted a handout discussed the\nAlameda Point Development Initiative; encourage the Initiative be\nthrown out.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the submitted Election Code page is in\nvery small print; inquired whether said page is from the City's\nwebsite, to which the City Clerk responded the page is from the\nState's website.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated concerns have been raised; inquired who\nwould be the staff point person to address the concerns.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 13, "text": "The Interim City Manager responded the initiative is not the City's\ninitiative.\nThe City Clerk stated the City Clerk's office verified that all\nElection Code requirements were met, verified that the proponent is\na registered voter, and followed the typical process before\naccepting the initiative petition.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Clerk saw the petition\nthat was circulated.\nThe City Clerk responded the format and every signature and\ndeclaration of circulation page was reviewed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there is a discrepancy in the\ntitle.\nThe City Attorney responded that she does not know the facts;\nstated the summary and title prepared by the City Attorney's office\nshould have been used.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired where an individual would go to discuss\nthe issue.\nThe City Clerk stated the title in the text of the initiative\ndiffers from the City Attorney's title; the same situation applies\nto the firefighter initiative; the City only has control over the\ntitle drafted by the City Attorney's office; the City Attorney's\ntitle was published and was on the front page and every signature\npage of the circulated petition.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there should be some\nconsistency, to which the City Attorney responded that she does not\nknow the facts.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether people could come to the City\nAttorney to discuss the matter.\nThe City Attorney responded that she is always willing to discuss\nthe matter stated the City Attorney's office cannot provide legal\nadvice to community members.\nMayor Johnson stated people could challenge the issue; the City is\nlimited and cannot be the resource for every question that comes\nup\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what process would need to be used\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 14, "text": "to challenge the issue further inquired whether someone would need\nto hire an attorney and file a lawsuit.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City\nAttorney's office cannot provide legal support services to the\ngeneral community.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-394) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Commission on Disability Issues, Library Board and Recreation\nand Park Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Nielsen Tam for the Commission on\nDisability Issues; Suzanne Whyte for the Library Board; and Michael\nB. Cooper and Terri Bertero Ogden for the Recreation and Park\nCommission.\n(09-395) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities Annual Conference along with Vice Mayor deHaan\nand Councilmember Gilmore; the voting delegates passed three\nresolutions; one dealt with encouraging local jurisdictions to\nenact ordinances or policies that would hold the host responsible\nfor under aged drinking that occurs at property under the host's\npossession, control, or authority; the voting delegates also passed\na resolution that requests the League to put forth a ballot measure\nfor the November 2010 election that would clean up the loopholes of\nProposition 1A; the League conducted a poll in May 2009 that showed\nthe level of public confidence with the State Legislature and\nGovernor declined to a historic low; it is the right time to demand\nreforms.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is glad people are paying attention\nto what the State is doing.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the League is eliciting the help of the\nlocal officials to try to gather at least 100 signatures from each\nCity.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Tam would get\nsignature forms.\nCouncilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated City\nresources cannot be used for political activity; further stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 15, "text": "last resolution passed by the voting delegates dealt specifically\nwith Southern California Edison and requested sending a letter of\nopposition to their desire to place some equipment above ground in\nunderground districts; some Southern California people are upset\nthat Southern California Edison is requesting exemptions; Southern\nCalifornia Edison feels the exemptions are necessary for worker\nsafety.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is important to ensure that the\nCity does not have issues that might be parallel to what Southern\nCalifornia Edison is attempting to do; the City has a major\nunderground effort the City has to ensure that workers are not put\nat risk and that the City does not run into the same problem.\n(09-396) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended an e-\nservices session at the League Conference; the City of West\nSacramento just instituted its first electronic service for\ncitizens; Cupertino has approximately twenty plus e-services; the\nCupertino technology person stated that instituting e-services is\nwonderfully convenient for residents and business people but does\nnot take the place of the old fashion way of doing things; certain\npeople will always like to interface with human beings versus\ncomputers.\nMayor Johnson stated providing more information on the website is\nimportant; court documents can be obtained on the website.\nThe City Clerk noted LaserFiche is now live on the website and the\nMunicipal Code is completely searchable and will be kept current.\n(09-397) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended a session\nregarding the economic situation at the League Conference; some\nmunicipalities will be flattening out in 2011; property taxes are a\nkey element the news is not good.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 9:49 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\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -OCTOBER 6, 2009- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(09-369) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation\n54956.9 (b) ; Number of cases One.\n(09-370) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators\nKaren Willis and Craig Jory; Employee organizations: All Bargaining\nUnits; and\n( 09 -370 - A) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency negotiator:\nCity Council Subcommittee; Employee: Interim City Manager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,\nCouncil received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided\ndirection to Legal Counsel. regarding All Bargaining Units, Council\nreceived a briefing on the status of labor negotiations no action\nwas taken; and regarding Interim City Manager, Council received a\nbriefing no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:40 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\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-06", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 6 , 2009- - -7:25 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the joint meeting at 7:47 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted\nare indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*09-371 CC/*09-36 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand CIC Meeting held on September 15, 2009. Approved.\n(*09-372 CC/*09-37 CIC) Recommendation to Award a Consultant\nAgreement to Hdl Coren & Cone for Review and Analysis of Property\nTax Revenues and Identification and Correction of Errors. Accepted.\n(*09-38 CIC) Resolution No. 09-162, \"Authorizing the Interim\nExecutive Director to Submit an Application to the Environmental\nProtection Agency for a Brownfield's Cleanup Grant Program for the\nAlameda Landing Residential Project. Adopted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\njoint meeting at 7:48 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 6, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf"}