{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA), ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTHURSDAY- -JUNE 24, 2010- - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Councilmember/Authority Member/\nBoard Member/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Authority Members / Board\nMembers\n/\nCommissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Resolutions Approving Revised Documents\n[paragraph no. 10-313 CC were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of\nthe Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*10-311 CC) Recommendation to Award Legal Ad Contract for fiscal year 2010-11.\nAccepted.\n(*10-312 CC) Resolution No. 14461 \"Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption\nof the Operating and Capital Budget for FY10-11.\" Adopted;\n(*ARRA) Resolution No. 47, \"Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption of the\nOperating and Capital Budget for FY10-11.\" Adopted; and\n(*10-48 CIC) Resolution No. 10-168, \"Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption\nof the Operating and Capital Budget for FY10-11.' Adopted.\n(10-313 CC) Resolution No. 14462, \"Approving Revised Documents Related to the\nIssuance of Refunding Bonds for the City's Community Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor\nBay) and Marina Village Assessment District 89-1, and Authorizing Actions in\nConnection Therewith.\" Adopted; and\n(10-05 APFA) Resolution No. 10-21, \"Approving Revised Documents Related to Local\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n1\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 2, "text": "Agency Refunding Revenue Bonds (Harbor Bay CFD and Marina Village AD), and\nAuthorizing Actions in Connection Therewith.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated two series of bonds would be issued\nbecause the bond rating did not come back favorably; one would be a senior series and\nthe other would be a subordinate series; inquired whether the cost would be more if two\nseries were issued; further inquired whether the subordinate series would be riskier and\nwhether someone would want to buy the bonds.\nMark Holmstedt, Westhoff, Cone & Holmstedt (WCH), responded that he is not happy\nwith the rating; stated the rating is BBB, which is not a bad rating for a land-secured\nbond; Harbor Bay Community Facilities District (CFD) No.1 has 630 homes; everyone\nhas been paying taxes; the area has been built out for a number of years; the senior\nbonds would correspond to the CFD; the subordinate bonds would correspond to\nMarina Village Assessment District 89-1 (AD); revenues come from both districts; a\ndefault would not hurt the other district; the CFD is rated A-; the AD bonds have four\nyears left; a debt service reserve fund has been established to ensure that if the top\nthree taxpayers all default for two years, the bonds would still be paid; a foreclosure\nproceeding could take place to ensure payment; that he thinks people should feel good\nabout both series; the AD district has never had a full payment delinquency for longer\nthan a year; one taxpayer had a small delinquency up until a week ago; the matter has\nbeen cured; that he would expect a little bit better rate on the A- bonds; the cost would\nnot be more for issuing two series.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the City might get a better rating by\nsplitting the bond.\nMr. Holmstedt stated last week, one bonding service rated the transaction BBB for one\nbond; Standard & Poor's (S&P) does not agree; the transaction was restructured; the\nCFD bonds are different than an assessment district in that more taxes pay the bonds,\nwhich is considered to be a higher credit quality; the Marina Village District has a very\nheavy ownership concentration; three of the highest taxpayers control 78% of all taxes;\nhaving the three taxpayers default would create a problem and is the reason for the\nlower rating.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the CFD fairs better and the AD\nfairs no worse by splitting the bond.\nMr. Holmstedt stated bidders would be allowed to bid on one or both bonds; a notice\nwas sent a week ago regarding the forthcoming transaction; a number of major Wall\nStreet firms are interested in bidding on the bonds; major insurance companies are\nlooking towards reinvesting the bonds; that he expects to receive strong bids next week.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether Marina Village brought down\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n2\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 3, "text": "the bond rating because of a past delinquency and resulted in a BBB between S&P and\nFitch, Inc.\nMr. Holmstedt responded S&P was a little more concerned about the initial Marina\nVillage delinquency than Fitch, Inc.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether the concern was because of\nthe three highest taxpayer's delinquencies.\nMr. Holmstedt responded only one of the top three taxpayers was delinquent; stated\nS&P was concerned about the delinquency.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether the delinquency is the reason\nfor dropping the rating from A- to BBB.\nMr. Holmstedt responded in the negative; stated the A- rating is a result of restructuring;\nlast week's single bond issue was rated BBB; having two ratings is the result of\nseparating the homeowner portion from the business portion.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether an A- rating is the result of\naggregating both bonds.\nMr. Holmstedt responded the higher rating is the result of separating the bonds and a\npledge of all revenues first for the senior bond.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether or not the CFD would be\ncarrying the AD because of AD's poorer rating.\nMr. Holmstedt responded in the affirmative; stated neither district would be supporting\nthe other.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam stated Council wanted to focus on refinancing\ndebt that would immediately affect the General Fund; however, the market was not that\ngreat at the time; tonight's recommendation is not in said category; inquired what would\nbe WCH's fee.\nMr. Holmstedt responded total financial advisory fees are estimated to be approximately\n$196,000.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether WCH would get 70%.\nMr. Holmstedt responded approximately; stated fees would go down if the transaction\ngoes down; fees would not exceed $196,000.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n3\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether fees would come out of bond\nrefunding, not the General Fund, to which Mr. Holmstedt responded in the affirmative.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated dirt bonds are pledged by land\ncollateral, not the General Fund; refunding would not help the General Fund but would\nhelp taxpayers.\nMr. Holmstedt stated Harbor Bay homeowners should expect a savings between $417\nand $761; Marina Village business owners would see taxes reduced by approximately\n10%.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore inquired what is the difference between\nrefinancing and refunding.\nMr. Holmstedt responded nothing; stated a lot of time was spent on the issue last week;\nthat he apologizes for having to bring the transaction back; the structure is superior;\nratings have been confirmed; the transaction is as good as possible.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember/Authority\nMember Tam - 1.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-49 CIC) Redevelopment Impacts on Alameda Unified School District\nDavid Doezema, Keyser Marston Associates, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCommissioner deHaan stated CIC payments to Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)\ntotal $1.8 million for capital and $3 million over ten years; inquired whether there are\nlimitations on how property tax revenue can be spent.\nMr. Doezema responded capital funds need to be spent on buildings and\nimprovements; housing funds need to be spent on housing consistent with various\nredevelopment law requirements; 40% needs to be spent for very low income housing\nand the balance needs to be spent on moderate income housing.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the split is through an agreement or State law.\nMr. Doezema responded through an agreement; stated most of the money included in\nthe $5 million is paid pursuant to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n4\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 5, "text": "(BWIP) Agreement; the Agreement was negotiated in 1991 when the project area was\nestablished; a small portion of the capital comes from another project area.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether Peralta Community College has a similar\nbreakdown, to which Mr. Doezema responded the split is unique to AUSD.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired how AUSD became the recipient of housing money\nand if so, what was the rational, to which Mr. Doezema responded that he does not\nknow the background.\nThe Economic Development Director stated staff has tried to piece together the story;\nnobody is around today to explain the issue; other redevelopment agencies were doing\nthe same thing because recruiting teachers was difficult due to California's high cost of\nliving; San Jose also did some teacher housing to deal with the issue in the late 1990's;\nthat she is not sure how and who decided that AUSD wanted to have a housing fund.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired how easy it would be to change the Agreement.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the Agreement cannot be altered;\nstated the contractual arrangements were made before State law changed to stop\nnegotiated agreements between redevelopment agencies and school districts; AB 1290\nrequires all contractual negotiations to stop and everyone has formulated pass\nthroughs.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether AUSD puts any money away for housing, to\nwhich the Economic Development Director responded not to her knowledge.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the situation is unique; 65% of the funds go to housing.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the Redevelopment Agency is obligated to\nensure that the money goes into housing.\nCommissioner Tam stated Former Assistant City Manager David Brandt explained to\nher that the Mastick Senior Center location belonged to the School District; an\nagreement was made which included providing housing for the School District.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the Agreement is separate; that she is not\nsure how the issue came about; the City agreed to take Mastick Senior Center in\nexchange for giving other things to the School District; the City pledged to provide cash\nand additional support for the construction of Ruby Bridges school and traded a lease at\nthe Encinal Terminal area; the School District collects revenue off the lease.\nChair Johnson stated the School District has leased property at the former Naval Base.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n5\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Tam inquired how the Island High School commitment turned into a need\nfor housing.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the City does not have a commitment\nfor Island High School; stated the City is interested in acquiring Island High School to\nbuild housing.\nCommissioner Tam stated Mr. Brandt explained to her that the City had to provide a\npass through for the School District and there was potential for working with the School\nDistrict to provide an advance when the School District has financial problems to see if\nthe City could provide some type of in-kind service for an Island High School trade.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the City has explored ways to make use of\nthe housing money for the School District; the School District has the property [Island\nHigh School] that the City is interested in as a location for affordable housing; over the\nlast couple of years, the City has discussed leasing the property long term, buying the\nproperty out right, or leasing the property and making some type of large payment\nupfront so that the School District could use the money for something other than\nhousing; now, there is a unique time window in the law for the next two years and two\nmonths in which the School District can use the money from land sales for operating\npurposes rather than being confined to capital.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether any money could have been designated for\noperation when the pass through was put together.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the State requires that a portion of the\npass through goes to capital and the balance goes to operating; stated the issue with\nthe 43.3% operating portion is that the School District needs to report the amount\nreceived to the State, and the State reduces funding for operation; school districts are\nfunded based upon an average daily attendance formula.\nChair Johnson stated the pass through is a liability to the State.\nCommissioner Gilmore requested an explanation of the Educational Revenue\nAugmentation Fund (ERAF) shift.\nMr. Doezema stated the ERAF take from the CIC and other redevelopment agencies\nacross the State goes into a special fund in each county within the State; the State uses\nthe money to pay what it is required to pay to schools; under Proposition 98, the State\nhas an obligation to get all school districts to a certain funding level.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether the $7.4 million [taken from Alameda] has not\ngone to AUSD, but to school districts statewide in the past ten years.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n6\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; stated the money is really going to the State;\nthe $7.4 million represents the different State takes over the last ten years through\nFiscal Year 2009-2010 not Fiscal Year 2010-2011; $4.6 was taken in Fiscal Year 2009-\n2010; the $7.4 million includes takes for Fiscal Years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-\n2005, 2005-2006; $4.6 million represents almost thirty percent of the City's\nredevelopment money.\nChair Johnson stated the money goes to schools and reduces the State's liability to\nschools; the schools are no better off.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether schools are any worse off.\nMr. Doezema responded in the negative; stated the matter is a budget solution for the\nState only; continued the presentation.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether pass through funds do not occur until tax\nincrement is produced, to which Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; continued\nthe presentation.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired when pass throughs started, to which Mr. Doezema\nresponded fiscal year 2005-2006.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Agreement could have been modified.\nMr. Doezema responded the payment requirement is dictated by a statutory formula in\nCalifornia redevelopment law.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the Agreement is not with the West End\nCommunity Improvement Project (WECIP), but with BWIP.\nMr. Doezema continued the presentation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the 2009-2010 decline is due to reassessments.\nMr. Doezema responded the decline represents downward adjustments from assessed\nhome values due to the decline in the market; stated the major factor is that one-time\nrevenues were received in Fiscal Year 2008-2009 that did not happen again in Fiscal\nYear 2009-2010; continued the presentation.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the fiscal year 2009-2010 Alameda Point\nImprovement Project (APIP) negative tax increment is accounted for in balancing the\nbudget for the redevelopment area and is not coming from the General Fund.\nMr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; stated the negative tax increment was paid\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n7\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 8, "text": "out of the APIP fund balance, including borrowing from the housing set aside which is a\npermitted method; continued the presentation.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the CIC has partnered with AUSD to fund a\nnumber of projects; the CIC developed the Ruby Bridges Park and Community Center;\nAUSD did not have to buy and maintain the required open space; the first right of use is\ngiven to the School District through a Joint Use Agreement; seven clean acres were\ndelivered to AUSD in addition to all the infrastructure for constructing Ruby Bridges\nSchool; a cash contribution was made for construction of the school, which was\nnegotiated in the Contract.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether additional property taxes would be $3.1 million\nif there were not a redevelopment agreement.\nMr. Doezema responded the $16 million generated would be split between the School\nDistrict, County and others if the CIC did not collect tax increment.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the State always lowers the allocation if AUSD receives\nmore from local taxes.\nMr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; stated AUSD gets $49 million regardless.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether AUSD always gets $49 million from the State.\nMr. Doezema responded the number changes from year to year; stated the amount is\nbased on enrollment and complicated State formulas.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether the $3.1 million amount would change if the State\ngives AUSD less.\nMr. Doezema responded in the negative; stated if the revenue limit was $45 million\ninstead of $49 million next year, the State would give AUSD $4 million less; the key\nvariable is what the State provides.\nChair Johnson stated local tax goes in first and the State makes up the difference of the\namount the State determines according to the formula; the school districts get less from\nthe State if more is received from local tax.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the difference from having a redevelopment\narea is that AUSD has an additional $776,000, to which Mr. Doezema responded in the\naffirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether a large amount goes for housing, to which\nMr. Doezema responded $480,000 goes to housing.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n8\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 9, "text": "Speakers: David Howard, Alameda, (provided handout); and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nFollowing Mr. Howard's comments, Mr. Doezema stated a parcel tax funds the potential\nof getting above the $49 million revenue limit; local property tax can only contribute to\noffsetting what State money would be available to get to the $49 million revenue limit; a\nparcel tax adds something new; the $3.1 million is not new to AUSD; the speaker was\ndrawing a connection between redevelopment, the CIC's tax increment collection, and\nthe State's budget situation; the State's budget situation is very complex; the estimated\nshortfall is $20 billion; that he does not think the $20 billion shortfall can be blamed on\nthe $3.1 million.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated both columns [on Chart 5] have a $49 million revenue\nlimit; inquired whether AUSD can spend the money however it wants.\nMr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; stated the money is operating money and is\nnot restricted to capital.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether the $3.1 million has no restrictions but does\nnot add to the operating budget in either column.\nMr. Doezema responded in the affirmative; stated the money is not new but is flexible.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the total amounts in both columns are operating\nmoney, to which Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative.\nChair Johnson stated the speaker thought that part of the money is restricted.\nMr. Doezema stated the only part that is restricted is the pink part at the top [$776,000];\nboth columns are unrestricted.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the $293,000 for capital can be freed up for\nteachers.\nChair Johnson stated the speaker thought that one column is better than the other; the\nEconomic Development Director is saying that the columns are the same.\nThe Economic Development Director stated both columns are the same except for the\npink part.\nChair Johnson inquired whether both columns are the same for AUSD, to which Mr.\nDoezema responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Tam stated last week, the City sent the State a little over $4 million in\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n9\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 10, "text": "redevelopment funds; inquired whether AUSD might not see any of the money because\nthe money could go to other school districts; further inquired whether the City's\nredevelopment funds going to the State and the School District's financial issues have\nno correlation.\nMr. Doezema responded that the $4.6 million paid into the ERAF can be spent\nanywhere in California.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether redevelopment areas pay the same tax, to\nwhich Mr. Doezema responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan stated all cities skim off a portion; the revenue is not going into\nthe State's pot.\nMr. Doezema stated that he qualifies Commissioner deHaan's comment; the CIC is\ncollecting tax increment generated by the Bayport project; some people would say that\nthe money would not exist if not for the CIC; the CIC funds itself.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated CIC generated projects keep money local; the State is\ncompelled by the 1970's Serrano vs. Priest decision; the decision was designed so that\nrich cities would not place poor schools at a disadvantage; the State is compelled to put\nevery California student on a level playing field; the City's redevelopment puts $293,000\ninto the School District's capital; rich cities that can afford a higher parcel tax have\nbetter schools than poor cities.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the issue is why the Robles-Wong case is so important;\nAUSD and other school districts sued California; the State is not living up to the Serrano\ndecision; people say that AUSD has other methods to raise money besides parcel taxes\nwhich is not true because the State takes the money; unfortunately, the matter will take\nyears [to correct] because of the how things wind through the legal system.\n(10-314 CC) Update on Measure P\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City would have lost approximately $1.8 million without\nMeasure P; the City stayed status quo.\nThe Interim City Manager stated approximately $2 million more was picked up in Fiscal\nYear 2008-2009 than would have been without Measure P.\n(10-315 CC) Citywide Asset Management Policy\nThe Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation; stated the Asset\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n10\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 11, "text": "Management Policy would be brought back at the July 20, 2010 or July 27, 2010\nCouncil meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated one maximization of return might be a contribution to\ninfrastructure; his preference would be to tilt to the hard asset if he had to choose\nbetween the General Fund versus something going into the ground, ensuring that the\nshoreline is shored up and streets and sewers are maintained at a high level; the hard\nasset has a longer life.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how the Veteran's Building and Meyer's House would\nbe classified.\nThe Interim City Manager responded today, the Veteran's Building would be considered\ncommunity use; stated the Veteran's Building could be considered operational if the City\nrehabilitated the building into office space; the Meyer's House is considered community\nuse.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a fair appraisal would be performed for long-term\nlease or sale.\nThe Interim City Manager responded an appraisal would be done for a sale; stated\nother criteria would be considered for other uses to determine how the City could get\nmanagement of the asset in terms of return.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the top priority of the asset management strategy\nshould be to maintain the asset; the Tidelands has very expensive maintenance;\nbringing the Veteran's Building back to the way it was would be very expensive.\nMayor Johnson stated a balance is required because maintenance funding is needed;\nthe City does not have a strategic plan for maintaining assets.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he understands the balance and need for\nrevenue; in hard times, revenue is always used for operations and maintenance is\ndeferred.\nMayor Johnson stated maintenance funding needs to be established; the Veteran's\nBuilding is not the only asset that has not been maintained; funds need to be set aside\nfor accumulated, deferred maintenance.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated properties need to get back to an original baseline; then,\nmaintenance can be done; many times, excess property is something to make money\non; the asset could be held onto for something that could be beneficial to the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n11\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 12, "text": "community.\nThe Interim City Manager stated last Saturday [at the June 19, 2010 meeting],\ndiscussions included considering development of a parking lot for housing; the goal is to\ncome up with a policy that has a criteria of interest against which to make a decision.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a policy for one-time revenue sources not being used\nfor operation was discussed on Saturday; the policy would include putting one-time\nrevenue sources into maintaining hard assets; the policy would need to be linked to\nother budgeting policies; unused assets could be sold to leverage other assets to create\nquality of life, jobs, or a tax stream.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she likes the idea of prioritizing; priorities are\nneeded when discussing maximizing value benefit; the balancing act is like a road map.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Interim City Manager would have a list of specific\nassets when the matter comes back.\nThe Interim City Manager responded assets would not be classified; stated staff would\ncome up with a streamline way of applying the policy; a report might be ready by\nSeptember.\nMayor Johnson stated an extra column is needed for funding when the matter comes\nback; the City needs to be honest about whether there are too many assets to maintain.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated most cities\nthat incorporated before 1962 are in the same situation as Alameda; assets have not\nbeen inventoried; cities that incorporated in the 1960's are now enjoying ten years of no\npayments out of the General Fund; City departments pay a proportionate amount of\nmoney on debt service; that she keeps charging departments once the debt is paid off\nand has been setting aside money for deferred maintenance; Alameda practically owns\neverything it has; the City's first challenge is to go back and recover other items in the\ninternal service fund; the next challenge is to continue to have departments absorb\nproportionate costs of putting a dollar amount into the internal service fund which would\nbe used for deferred maintenance reserve; the goal is to charge departments X amount\nof dollars in fixed charges in the facilities maintenance fund; the City was only able to\nput in $100,000 last year.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Interim City Manager is building a new model\nor whether a good model is out there.\nThe Interim City Manager responded older cities are not disciplined about putting\nmoney away for deferred maintenance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n12\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City is trying to establish some new ground.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Asset Management Policy is built on a privatization\nmodel.\nMayor Johnson stated the nation's bridges cannot be maintained.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Government Accounting Standard Board (GASB) 45\nrequires cities to count every asset; cities were not aware of the amount of public assets\nor values; continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a provision could be added regarding rent increases;\nstated two twenty-five year leases do not provide for any rent increase.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the justification would depend upon the use,\nutilization schedule, and measurement criteria; stated cities that foster a lot of incubator\nbusinesses often use the \"flat for five\" formula, which provides for no increases for five\nyears.\nMayor Johnson stated findings should be made for fifty-year leases.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed criteria checklist would include real\nproperty or other types as well.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the checklist would include anything defined as\nreal property such as land and buildings; stated cars would not be included; a ten\npercent deferred maintenance reserve would be approximately $22 million.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked staff for the report; stated the tie into disciplined\nfunding is critical.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated other cities must have plowed through the issue before.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the proposed charge back model would be very\ndifferent than what cities use.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the League of California Cities' Public Works Department\nhas an asset management template policy; however, the policy deals with the public\nworks angle for deferred maintenance and has been used to justify the gas tax; the\nAlameda County Planning Commission has an asset strategy that a community\ndevelopment group developed for all county assets; East Bay Municipal Utility District\n(EBMUD) has an asset management department that deals with declaration of surplus\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n13\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 14, "text": "property; a special district buys land and it changes hands because the property is not\nneeded, is land locked, or there is not public interest; then, the land is disposed; there is\na threshold measure to determine how much money is poured in for maintenance and\nhow long the asset should last.\nMayor Johnson stated newer cities do not have as much deferred maintenance as older\ncities; cities would be in a better position if money is set aside; Alameda is in a better\nsituation than other cities of a similar age.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a City-owned building is not free, but is a real cost for\nrunning the City; structural problems need to be fixed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter would come back to Council on July 20th or\nJuly 27th; staff is starting at the core of City-owned assets; a file would be created; staff\nwould look for every deed; Council would have the opportunity to apply the proposed\npolicy independently to expired leases and other assets that should be reviewed.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRAL\n(10-316 CC) Discussion of Reconsidering the Council Action to Refer the Campaign\nFinance Reform Ordinance to the Sunshine Task Force.\nMayor Johnson gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: Gretchen Lipow, Chair Sunshine Task Force; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Jean\nSweeney, Alameda; Karen Butter, League of Women Voters; Ashley Jones, Alameda;\nRosemary McNally, Alameda; Aidan Barry, Alameda; and Jim Sweeney, Alameda.\nFollowing Ms. Lipow's comments, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Ms. Lipow\nis speaking solely for herself.\nMs. Lipow responded in the affirmative; stated an Task Force meeting was held the next\nnight [after the June 15th Council meeting]; the issue [campaign financing] was not on\nthe agenda; the Sunshine Task Force discussed placing the issue on its July 17th\nagenda.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Ms. Lipow's email makes reference to Ms. Lipow\nconsidering stepping down from the Task Force; inquired whether the statement is\naccurate.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n14\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 15, "text": "Ms. Lipow responded the Sunshine Task Force signed on to work on an ordinance and\nnot campaign financing or lobbying; stated that she does not think she is qualified to\naddress campaign financing.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council wanted certain things to go forward immediately; the\nconfusion is that Council has remanded campaign financing back to the Sunshine Task\nForce; the confusion lies with Council.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is not confused; Council has discussed all the\nvarious issues; Councilmember Matarrese stated that he went to a Democratic Club\nmeeting and people were not aware of Alameda's issue; that she and Councilmember\nTam mentioned various issues within the ordinance specifically; she mentioned that the\nmatter is a conflict of interest for the majority of Council and the matter should not be\nvoted on and should not become effective until January 1, 2011; none of the issues\nhave changed; the only new item of evidence is that Ms. Lipow sent an email speaking\nfor herself and not speaking for the Sunshine Task Force; none of the underlining\nissues pointed out at the last meeting have changed; Ms. Lipow has the prerogative to\nstep down; the Sunshine Task Force facilitator is a former Hayward City Attorney; the\nSunshine Task Force has taken up the cause because the matter has been put on the\nJuly meeting agenda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he disagrees with Councilmember Gilmore; Council\ndiscussed holding the Sunshine Task Force to two or three meetings; now, Council\nneeds to give guidelines on what to do.\nMs. Lipow stated the Sunshine Task Force has never discussed the issue; that she\ndoes not know how other Task Force members feel about the issue; the Task Force is\nunclear about Council direction.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmembers considering a campaign finance\nreform ordinance would be a conflict of interest.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that she does not think there would be a conflict\nof interest under Fair Political Practices Commission rules.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated five Councilmembers would be asked to make a\ndecision that would potentially change rules in the middle of an election cycle; three\nCouncilmembers have already declared to run in this election; the proposed change\nwould affect everyone; people who have already declared to run and have raised\nmoney would have an advantage over people who enter the race after the ordinance\npasses but before the filing deadline; people would be running in the race under two\nseparate set of rules; having people give back money raised before the ordinance is a\ndifferent story.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n15\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the term \"conflict of interest\" has been thrown around loosely; the\npublic needs to understand what is and is not a technical conflict of interest.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the conflict of interest may not be technical, but the\nactuality is that if the ordinance passes midstream, incumbents would get a practical\nadvantage over non-incumbents in the upcoming election.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Ms. Lipow shared her email with Task Force\ncolleagues, to which Mr. Lipow responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Ms. Lipow was present at the June 16th Task\nForce Meeting, to which Ms. Lipow responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Sunshine Task Force Vice Chair stated \"as the Council\nreaffirmed, the Task Force operates under the Brown Act and because we do, the\ncampaign finance reform issue was not and could not be legally agendized at our\nmeeting of Wednesday, June 16, 2010; however, the item was unanimously, and\nwithout concern, added to our July public workshop for full participation and discussion\";\ninquired whether Ms. Lipow expressed concern, to which Ms. Lipow responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Ms. Lipow indicated to the Task Force that she\ndid not feel that she was qualified to take on the project.\nMs. Lipow stated generally, she tends to do things when she sees things in writing; that\nher concern was with what Council was really saying and what Council wanted the Task\nForce to do.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she understands the facilitator would be willing to step\nin and assume the responsibility of serving on the Task Force.\nMs. Lipow stated that she does not know how other Task Force members feel about the\nissue.\nMayor Johnson stated the intent of the Council Referral is not to debate the merits of\ncampaign finance reform but to discuss the process of handling the matter; Council\nvoted to send the matter to the Sunshine Task Force which might not be the right place;\nCouncil gave specific direction to the Sunshine Task Force; the Sunshine Task Force\nhas had certain expectations of the commitment; that she thinks the matter should be\nbrought back to Council for process discussion.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated discussions need to address whether the issue should be\nkept at Council level.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n16\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he voted for the first reading in order to get things\nstarted; a void has occurred between the first and second reading; Council has been\ntalking in a vacuum; that he does not see that anything has changed regarding setting\nmaximum contribution limits; that he would like to hear what the Task Force has to say;\nthe decision would be a Council vote; a broader hearing is needed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council can have a broader hearing; Council would be\nshrugging its responsibility [by sending the matter to the Task Force]; Council can air\nthe matter to the public; Council does not want a change in this election cycle; people\nwant to keep things status quo during this election; that he is not asking people to\nrefund money already raised; the contribution limit would be in effect once the ordinance\nis passed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated people who have already started raising money would\nbe able to keep the money; people jumping into the race now would have a different set\nof rules if the ordinance becomes effective now; historically, finance limits tend to favor\nincumbents; non-incumbents would be put at a disadvantage; Council is not abdicating\nresponsibility; Council needs to pass an ordinance; a lot of Councilmembers have\nvolunteer treasurers; a treasurer only has three hours to file on the Friday before the\nelection; the problem would be significant for a treasurer who has another job; that she\nis in favor of campaign reform and spending, but she thinks getting things right as\nopposed to fast is important; that she does not want the City to get sued and have to\nspend money defending a lawsuit.\nMayor Johnson stated the substance of campaign finance reform is not on the agenda;\nthe issue is whether to bring the matter back for Council discussion so that another\nprocess could be considered.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the only thing that prompted the Council\nReferral is the fact that the Sunshine Task Force Chair, speaking for herself, declared\nthat she did not feel that she would be able to take on the task.\nMayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated in addition, the original direction\ngiven to the Sunshine Task Force was a much narrower task; stated the Sunshine Task\nForce signed on for one job and now Council is giving it more jobs to do; the matter\nneeds to be reconsidered.\nFollowing Mr. Sweeny's comments, Councilmember Tam inquired whether Mayor\nJohnson's concern is that the June 15th Council action did not provide enough direction\nto the Sunshine Task Force.\nMayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the original Sunshine Task Force task\nhas been greatly expanded by direction given at the last Council meeting; the mater\nshould be reconsidered.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n17\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired why; stated the majority of the Council gave the\nSunshine Task Force a task.\nMayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force Chair has expressed that she does not\nfeel it is appropriate to send the matter to the Task Force.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council would have the ultimate authority to pass the\nordinance; that she polled the Task Force to get an understanding on whether the\nassignment was acceptable to the Task Force; the majority felt that the Task Force\nwould take direction from Council; the Task Force would help facilitate a forum if\nCouncil wanted the Task Force to review the matter; that she does not see that the\nSunshine Task Force is unwilling to accept the assignment.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Tam polling the Sunshine Task Force might be a\nviolation of the Brown Act since the matter is on the next Sunshine Task Force agenda;\npolling and developing a consensus of the majority of the Task Force is a violation of\nthe Brown Act.\nCouncilmember Tam requested an explanation of the violation.\nMayor Johnson stated developing a consensus of Task Force members on an issue\nthat would be on the next agenda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she asked an opinion of three members, two of which\nare on the Task Force and one is the facilitator; that she would like a City Attorney ruling\nif Mayor Johnson is accusing her of a Brown Act violation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she thinks Council is going beyond the intent of the referral;\nthe intent of the referral is whether the matter should be brought back to Council to\nexplore another avenue to review campaign reform.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think the matter should be brought\nback until Council hears from the Sunshine Task Force; that he does not want to go on\nhearsay; inquired whether the issue is out in the public.\nThe City Clerk responded after the last meeting, the Sunshine Task Force decided to\ncall a Special Meeting on June 14th; the Chair agreed to call the meeting; now, the Task\nForce will be having another meeting on July 14th, prior to the July 17th meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the matter would be discussion on July\n14th\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the July 14th meeting is\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n18\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 19, "text": "for organizational purposes.\nThe City Clerk stated the item could be added to the agenda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to hear back from the Sunshine Task\nForce with a recommendation.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired who places items on the agenda.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded staff placed matters on\nthe agenda at first; stated now, staff consults with the Chair to place items on the\nagenda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council needs to explain what it wants and be specific about\nthe change in direction; Council can choose to discuss the issue; the timeline should be\nput aside; feedback is needed from the public whether at a Council meeting or Sunshine\nTask Force meeting; the matter should be brought back for discussion and finalization\nand then figure out when the ordinance would go into effect; that he thinks accepting\nmore than $250 is unfair.\nMayor Johnson stated there is no reason not to continue to work in a diligent manner to\nget the job done; Council can choose to implement the ordinance when it chooses.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she understands Council told the Sunshine Task\nForce that the matter could be brought back at any time, but the ordinance would not be\neffective until at least January 1st.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not recall said direction; that she thinks the\ndirection was to bring the matter back no sooner than January 1st; the facts will be\nchecked.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he recalls that Council would not consider the matter\nuntil January.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion was to extend the period for public comment, including\nreview by the Sunshine Task Force and League of Women Voters and that the\nordinance not be effective until 2011.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the issue is whether Council wants to task the Task Force to\ngo forward; Council's obligation is to spell out what the Sunshine Task Force should do.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council's obligation is whether to reconsider the vote\ntaken last time; that his answer is no; he wants to hear back from the Sunshine Task\nForce; direction can be given if feedback warrants reconsidering the vote.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n19\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated consensus is to leave direction as is; that she is not sure how to\nget feedback from the Sunshine Task Force.\nMs. Lipow inquired whether Council wants the Task Force to use the ten-page on-line\ndocument, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded the document would be a start.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:26\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, APFA, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Ruse\n20\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 24, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 1, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, June 24, 2010\n1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.\nPresent were: Vice President Villareal, Soglin, James, Dailey, and Biggs. Absent was: Nielsen\nStaff: Franz\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nThe Minutes of the Regular March 25, 2010 meeting were\napproved as corrected (Biggs/Soglin) and the Minutes of the Regular April 15, 2010 were approved\nas presented (Dailey/Soglin)\n3.\n3-A. RESOLUTION COMMENDING OUTGOING MEMBER JONATHAN SOGLIN\nA Resolution commending member Soglin's service to the community as a SSHRB member was\nread by President Wasko and approved by the Board -M/S (Villareal/Dailey) Unanimous (Soglin\nabstained). The Resolution was presented to member Soglin, and Vice President Villareal expressed\nhis pleasure working on ATAH with member Soglin. President Wasko thanked him for his help with\nthe Dental Clinic.\nThe Board suspended business and held a brief reception in member Soglin's honor.\n3-B.\nA REQUEST FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A LETTER\nOF SUPPORT FOR THEIR SUBMITTAL OF A SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL\n(SRTS) GRANT\nStaff distributed sample letters of support for a SRTS Grant being applied for by City of Alameda\nPublic Works, and explained that they are requesting that the board provide a letter in support of their\neffort to secure the grant. The funds would be used for capital improvements in targeting Franklin\nand Wood. Some of the grant would be used to provide safety education.\nWhile the Youth Collaborative has already voted to provide a letter of support, they voiced concern\nthat similar improvements were needed at schools on the West End and that Public Works should be\nencouraged to apply for additional funds for these schools. They also hoped that the funds to provide\nsafety education from the current grant could be used for West End schools.\nThe Board voiced support for the current grant, but also had interest in a second letter regarding\nSRTS improvements for West End schools, after more information could be collected. Board\ndiscussion included a 2004 grant to create a study related to needs on the West End. Traffic issues at\nChipman were also discussed a should be considered in drafting a second letter.\nIt was agreed that the Board letter should include explanation of the Board's purpose/mission, and\nthat the educational component of the grant should be highlighted. Member Biggs noted that it might\nbe best to support this grant proposal as written rather than suggest changes that might adversely\nimpact the success of the grant.\nM/S (James/Soglin) to write a Letter of Support for the SRTS grant being submitted by Public\nWorks. Unanimous", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 2, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010\nPage 2\nIt was agreed to have staff gather additional information before a second letter is drafted.\nM/S (James/Villareal) to write a letter to Public Works (Ccing other departments as appropriate)\nencouraging them to use the current grant request as a model for improvements in other\nneighborhoods, and to add relevant information gathered from the 2004 Survey and any information\navailable regarding traffic surveys. Unanimous\n3-C.\nPARTICIPATION IN THE MAYOR'S 4TH OF JULY PARADE\nDiscussion regarding the Board's participation in the Parade included our need for a \"single drop\"\ntrailer to make it easier to get off and on, the need for people to help build the float, and people to\nride on the float.\nM/S (Villareal/James) for the Board to support and participate in the parade, and to authorize up to\n$250 for supplies. Unanimous\n3-D.\nNOMINATIONS OF OFFICERS\nStaff explained that while the Board can make nominations at this meeting, they will need to wait\nuntil there is a fully constituted Board before they can vote.\nMember Villareal nominated President Wasko for President and Member Biggs nominated Vice\nPresident Villareal for Vice President.\nM/S (James/Soglin) that nominations be closed. Unanimous\n3-E. WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS\nAlamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup - Villareal\nIt was suggested to write a letter to former Police Chief Tibbett thanking him for working with the\nBoard. ATAH can write a letter themselves rather than waiting for it to be agendized.\nSister City Workgroup - Wasko\nThere will be an Exhibit of sister City Photographs at the Free Library the entire month of August,\nwith a reception on August 12th. The group is still seeking a pro-bono / reasonable lawyer to apply\nfor tax exempt status.\nResource Sharing Workgroup - Biggs\nThe workgroup (Biggs & Dailey) met with member Nielsen to discuss how they could work in\npartnership with the A&AW. Ideas", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2010-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2010-06-24", "page": 3, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010\nPage 3\n4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n-\nStaff suggested: taking off either July or August, waiting until after the elections to meet with the\nnew Mayor and City Council, and having a \"meeting of the whole\" work session to discuss Board /\nWorkgroup plans for next year. The work session would include discussing the upcoming needs\nassessment.\nMember Biggs announced that a book vending machine in front of the APC offices would have its\nGrand Opening on June 30th It holds 900 books, and 300 new library cards have been issued on the\nWest End. This machine is the 1st of its kind in the country. He also mentioned that it would be good\nto encourage positive discourse during the upcoming election.\nPresident Wasko echoed Member Biggs concern.\nMember James announced that he and Member Biggs were present at the city council meeting\nrepresenting the Board's CDBG recommendations.\nMember Villareal voiced concern regarding the West End taking the brunt of cuts resulting from\nMeasure E not passing.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nM/S (James/Soglin) to adjourn. 8:50\nRespectfully submitted,\nJim Franz\nCommunity Development Coordinator", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2010-06-24.pdf"}