{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nUESDAY--OCTOBEF 18, 2011--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Councilmember Johnson led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(11-489) Mayor Gilmore announced that the introduction of ordinance [paragraph no.\n11-500 would be addressed after the resolutions of appointment.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-490) Receive the Annual Presentation on the Fa\u00e7ade Assistance Program for Fiscal\nYear 2010-2011.\nThe Development Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Fa\u00e7ade Assistance Program presentation is one of her\nfavorites; Park Street and Webster Street look a lot better because the program has\nbeen consistently funded over the last five years; the City has contributed $250,000 per\nyear; inquired how much has been leveraged through public sector investments.\nThe Development Coordinator responded $3 has been invested for every dollar\ninvested by the City; outlined next year's projects.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he is impressed with the program's ability to transform\nfacades; thanked staff for the good work.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated staff has done an excellent job; the City needs to\nensure that funding is preserved.\nThe Development Coordinator noted the program creates jobs.\nCouncilmember Tam echoed appreciation for the presentation; stated that she looks\nforward to future presentations; the program outlines how the City leverages limited\nresources and shows the visual, dramatic bang for the buck.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether most of the buildings are historical, to which\nthe Development Coordinator responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 2, "text": "Proponents: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA); and Judi Friedman,\nWest Alameda Business Association.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-491) Mary Anderson, Alameda, discussed the golf course land swap.\n(11-492) Ariane Paul, Alameda; Carol Fairweather, Alameda; Mary Elena Goodan,\nAlameda; Bonnie Petheram, Alameda; Gesine Lohr, Alameda; Willow Liroff, Alameda;\nTrish Spencer, Alameda; and Ruth Smiler, Alameda urged the Council to keep the\nanimal shelter open.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore made a correction to the September 20, 2011 Special Meeting Minutes\nand noted that she would abstain from voting since she was absent.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*11-493) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on September 13, 2011; the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings and Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting held on September 20, 2011; the Special City\nCouncil Meeting held on September 26, 2011, and the Special City Council Meeting\nheld on September 27, 2011. Approved.\n[Note: Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the September 20, 2011 minutes.]\n(*11-494) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,315,190.10.\n(*11-495) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to\nthe Associated Community Action Plan Joint Powers Authority. Accepted.\n(*11-496) Resolution No. 14624, \"Superseding and Rescinding Resolution 14537\nDesignating the Person to Perform the Duties of the City Manager in the Event of His or\nHer Absence or Disability.\" Adopted.\n(*11-497) Resolution No. 14625, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a FY11-12\nTransportation Fund for Clean Air Regional Fund Application to the Bay Area Air Quality\nManagement District for $200,000 to Continue an Estuary Crossing Shuttle, Provide\n$80,000 in Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management\nFunds for the Local Match, and Execute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 3, "text": "(*11-498) Resolution No. 14626, \"Amending the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association Salary Schedule.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-499) Resolution No. 14627, \"Appointing Emani Pollard as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted;\n(11-499A) Resolution No. 14628, \"Appointing Mackenzie Prince as a Member of the\nYouth Advisory Commission.\" Adopted;\n(11-499B) Resolution No. 14629, \"Appointing Angus Storm as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted; and\n(11-499C) Resolution No. 14630, \"Appointing Sonia W. Xu as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of\nappointment to Ms. Pollard, Ms. Prince, Mr. Storm and Ms. Xu.\n(11-500) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nArticle VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) to Chapter Il (Administration) Establishing Local\nStandards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records. Introduced.\nThe Acting City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nProponents: Gretchen Lipow, Sunshine Task Force Member; Jon Spangler, Alameda;\nand Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nProponents with suggestions to revise the ordinance: Tracy Jensen, League of Women\nVoters; John Knox White, Sunshine Task Force Member; and Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember Tam commended the Acting City Attorney, City Manager, and City\nClerk for helping with community efforts; stated finding ways to encourage people to be\ninformed and participate is important; encouraged people not to let perfect be the\nenemy of good.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked staff and community volunteers; applauded the City\nManager's efforts to implement items in the ordinance early.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the City Manager stated a twelve-day\nnoticing period is being practiced; the ordinance states eleven days.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 4, "text": "The Acting City Attorney stated the ordinance states having at least an eleven-day\nnoticing period.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he would prefer consistency in the noticing period and\nwould prefer twelve days.\nMayor Gilmore stated the proposed ordinance is historic for the City; efforts have been\nmonumental for all parties involved; the City owes the Sunshine Task Force and staff an\nincredible debt; that she looks forward to implementing the ordinance and making\ngovernment more transparent and accessible; putting things in plain language is\nimportant.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated other cities would be looking at the ordinance as a\nmodel; thanked staff for stepping up to the plate.\nCouncilmember Tam stated documents should not be limited; that she supports the\nLeague of Women Voters' recommendation to review the direct cost for duplication;\nthere seems to be some confusion with respect to special circumstances regarding an\nOpen Government Commission (OGC) member's term.\nThe Acting City Attorney suggested adding language to state no more than a four-year\nterm.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council should strive not to preclude public access to\nmeetings; Council is not always in the best state of mind to deliberate on issues after\n10:00 p.m.; that she does not think requiring a supermajority vote to go past 10:30 p.m.\nwould be a problem.\nMayor Gilmore stated limiting meetings to 10:30 p.m. would allow the public to attend\nand participate in a meaningful way; having Councilmembers put full effort and energy\ninto making decisions would be in the best interest of the City; that she does not see\nCouncil abusing a supermajority vote to go past 10: 30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she agrees with Mr. Knox White regarding ensuring\nthat a chosen electronic format could be viewed in a variety of mainstream computing\nplatforms and exhausting all remedies before a law suit is filed; the proposed schedule\nmakes a lot of sense; there was a question whether the OGC decision could be appeal\nable to the Council; having a Council watchdog group ask Council for permission on\ntheir decision seems odd.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Councilmember Tam is suggesting that there would\nbe no appeal to the Council.\nCouncilmember Tam responded Mr. Knox White commented that there is an avenue to\ngo through the Courts after exhausting the OGC process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 5, "text": "The Acting City Attorney suggested a sentence be added stating that the time limits of\nthe Brown Act shall not be tolled pending any action to cure an alleged violation of the\nSunshine Ordinance; stated there is a very short time window for curing and correcting\nan action under the Brown Act; the remedy would be to declare a decision null and void.\nThe City Manager stated most appeals would be from people unhappy with the OGC\nnot finding the City in violation; allowing an appeal to Council would not add value to the\nprocess; people need a venue to complain about lack of transparency, but\naccountability is also needed; urged that Council stay away from appeals.\nThe City Clerk noted Sections 2-91.8, 2-92.8(g), and 2-93.2 address appeals to the\nCouncil.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she does not think Council is the right body to hear appeals;\nsuggested striking all references regarding appeals to Council.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated there might be exceptions; that he does not think Council\nwould be inherently compelled to recuse itself; that he understands the discomfort in\nsome areas; other situations might make sense for Council to be an appellate body.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council would know the result of the OGC's finding if noticing was\nnot done correctly; noticing provisions could be changed; clerical errors have occurred\nin the past and re-noticing has been done.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about whether self-curing eliminates the\ndiscretion to issue a fine, the Acting City Attorney stated the OGC could have the\ndiscretion to order the matter null and void, cure and correct, and impose a fine.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated fines should go into a specific fund.\nMayor Gilmore stated as the ordinance is written now, a cure and correct action would\nbe placed on a subsequent meeting agenda; language should be clarified that the\nmatter should be placed on the next available meeting agenda; a subsequent meeting\nagenda could be three months out.\nCouncilmember Tam stated sometimes a body has difficulty getting a quorum.\nMayor Gilmore stated a special meeting could be called, if needed.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding appeals, the City Manager\nstated that he does not see the issue as a recusal problem; the courts could remedy the\nsituation if a person believes that the law has been violated; a swift and just process is\nimportant; that he does not think it is in the interest of Council to become an appeal\ncourt for the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta stated government needs to be held accountable; there could be\ninstances where Council could be the arbitrator enforcing the sunshine ordinance.\nThe City Manager stated Council could always require correction by giving direction to\nthe City Manager, who would direct staff to take care of the problem; that he does not\nwant Council to be tangled in formality.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated the ordinance could be amended from time to time;\ninquired whether Council does not want to hear appeals, to which Council responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there could be circumstances of an individual\nviolation but the City would be the entity in violation, to which the Acting City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated an individual could be subject to discipline if the individual has\na track record causing the City to be in violation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated staff is committed to the ordinance; a situation involving\nnon-compliance would most likely be a mistake.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated training would be needed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the copy fee should not be open to whatever Council\ndecides.\nMayor Gilmore stated the fee would be based upon cost recovery.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated cost recovery could be interpreted in different ways.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the cost would be in the fee scheduled adopted each\nyear; now, the cost is $0.10 per page.\nMayor Gilmore stated many documents are in electronic format and would be free.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated charges could be for copying only, not staff time.\nMayor Gilmore inquired where the fine would go.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded the fine could go toward acquiring the best\ntechnology for openness and transparency.\nThe City Manager stated the money could be given to the contestant or could be\ndirected to the records retention program.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired about training, education, and workshops.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 7, "text": "The City Manager stated Council could direct staff to utilize the funds for record\nretention or public training and outreach.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the records retention program is ideal; educational\nworkshops should occur regardless of generating fines.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a supermajority vote should be required for going past\n10:30 p.m. and there should be an absolute end time of midnight.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated an item not addressed could be brought up after\n10:30 p.m. subject to the supermajority vote of Council.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council and Oral Communications could still be addressed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a final end time should be set.\nCouncilmember Tam stated some items might have deadlines, which would require that\naction be taken.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated people do not think clearly when it is very late; the\npublic does not want to stay late; staff has already put in a full day and should not have\nto stay too late.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:21 p.m. and returned at 9:23 p.m.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated staff would be mindful to have Council address items\nthat have deadlines earlier in the meeting.\nMayor Gilmore stated the issue is agenda management; that she is in favor of the\nsupermajority vote; she does not see the need for a time limit because items that must\nbe done would be addressed early; the 10:30 p.m. time limit would be for only one item.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated one item could last several hours.\nMayor Gilmore suggested adopting the supermajority vote to go past 10:30 p.m. but not\nputting an end time yet.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she does not see how things would change from\nhow things are done now without an end time; that she does not recall Council ever\nvoting not to go past midnight.\nMayor Gilmore stated choosing to go past 10:30 p.m. would be for one item; that she\ncan remember meetings where there was only one item on the agenda and the item\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 8, "text": "caused a lot of community concern; questioned whether Council would like to tell the\ncommunity that a meeting would stop at midnight and be continued to another date.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the community has requested not going until 1:00 or\n2:00 a.m.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated the League of Women Voters has pointed out that\nSection 2-90.2(g) is redundant with Section 2-90.1; Section 2-90.2 addresses findings;\nSection 2.90.1 addresses definitions; that she feels the Sections are appropriate as is;\ninquired whether the Brown Act would be running concurrently on the cure and correct,\nto which Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about the statute of limitations introduced by\nMr. Knox White, the Acting City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance would have a\nseparate statute of limitations; stated the Brown Act timing provisions would not be\ntolled for the Sunshine Ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with revisions discussed and\nincluding the provision about the supermajority vote for considering items past 10:30\np.m.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-501) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Emergency\nMedical Services First Responder Advanced Life Support and Ambulance Transport\nService Agreement with the County of Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated the negotiating team has done a good job; the County has given\nthe City two additional first responder advanced life support unit credits and the\nexclusive right to provide first responder Advanced Life Support (ALS) services, which\nare both very important.\nThe Interim Fire Chief congratulated the negotiation team; stated the City has re-\nestablished a good working relationship with the County.\nMayor Gilmore stated a provision has been included for non-emergency ambulance\ntransport; having as many options as possible is nice.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated staff would be providing the City Manager and Acting City\nAttorney with the framework for a business plan to determine if there is an interest in\npursuing non-emergency ambulance transport.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired why the prior contract was missing some points important to\nthe City.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the County cannot provide a non-emergency\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 9, "text": "Exclusive Operating Area (EOA) for Basic Life Support (BLS); stated the ALS service is\ncontractual; BLS allows for free competition.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Contract is silent on not having an EOA for BLS\nservices, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City might consider offering BLS services.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the City could pursue the matter; stated the process\nwould be competitive.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether a pro forma would be done; stated that he\nunderstands revenue could be generated and the service could be profitable.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded a pro forma would be done.\nThe City Manager stated the matter would need to be reviewed; Council could make a\ndecision in sufficient time to impact next fiscal year.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the Interim Fire Chief stated Palo Alto and\nSouth San Francisco provide the [BLS] service in a competitive environment.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Contract has a lot of requirements for the City to\nmeet.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated requirements are no different than the last fourteen years.\nCouncilmember Tam expressed her appreciation to the negotiating team; thanked\nSupervisor Wilma Chan for her help; stated more ALS first responder credits would\naccelerate debt repayment; the City has worked with the Local Agency Formation\nCommission (LAFCO) on a funding stream to pay future Emergency Medical Services\n(EMS) via taxes; inquired whether the City would not have an obligation to transport a\npatient to a psychiatric facility if the patient does not require medical clearance at an\nemergency department.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded patients would need to self-transport; staff is drafting a\npolicy.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated supplying medications for ambulances is very\nexpensive; expired medications are thrown away; inquired whether the City could work\nwith the County to pool purchase of medications.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded staff is working on the issue; costs have been brought\ndown significantly; the new County ambulance provider has asked the City if there\nwould be interested in pooling to purchase medications; staff wants to ensure that the\nsame quality would be available.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 10, "text": "The City Manager thanked Supervisor Chan for her intervention; stated the City still has\nan obligation to repay the debt owed to the County; the debt payment plan was reduced\nand stretched; the City is on more collaborative footing with the County in a field that is\nconstantly changing; the most important takeaway is the establishment of a\ncollaborative relationship.\nVice Mayor Bonta echoed thanks to Supervisor Chan for her efforts; stated Supervisor\nChan has always looked out for the City's interest as well as the County in general.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-502) The City Manager encouraged the public to attend the budget workshop on\nOctober 25th and to take a survey regarding the City's website.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-503) Joyce Larrick, Alameda, discussed the animal shelter.\n(11-504) Jon Spangler, Alameda, encouraged attendance at a bike workshop.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-505) Vice Mayor Bonta discussed the animal shelter.\n(11-506) Mayor Gilmore reported on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)\ngeneral assembly; provided materials to the City Clerk for Councilmembers to review.\n(11-507) Mayor Gilmore requested that any Councilmember interested in serving on the\nOakland Airport Community Noise Forum contact her.\n(11-508) Councilmember Tam announced that Wastemanagement/Stopwaste.or\nwould be holding community workshops.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 11, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-10-18", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER 18, 2011-6:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-487) Public Employment; Title: City Attorney\n(11-488) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case:\nCity of Alameda V. Kaluris; Case number: 786763-1\nMayor Gilmore called a recess to convene the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. and\nreconvened the closed session at 10:00 p.m.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Public Employment, no action was taken and regarding\nExisting Litigation, Acting Legal Counsel informed the City Council of the status of the\nmatter.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 18, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-10-18.pdf"}