{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-261) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code Number of\ncases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action).\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:39 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2016- - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-262) Proclamation Declaring June as Elder Abuse Awareness Month and June 15,\n2016 as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Cheryl Poncini, Alameda\nCounty District Attorney's Office, and Vanessa Baker, Adult Protection Services.\nMs. Poncini and Ms. Baker made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if someone sees something that is not right, report\nit, requested literature on elder abuse from Ms. Poncini, which Ms. Poncini provided.\n(16-263) Proclamation Declaring June through August as Play Ball Summer.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to former Councilmember Lil\nArnerich, City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy, Kin Robles, and Adrienne Alexander.\nMr. Kennedy and Mr. Arnerich made brief comments.\n(16-264) Presentation by Alameda County Waste Management Authority: Recycled Bag\nOrdinance - Potential Changes.\nMeri Soll, Stopwaste.org, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Nancy and Mark Rodgers from Lola's Chicken Shack\nreceived an award for excellence in reducing disposable food service ware; noted there\nare good environmental champions in the community.\nMayor Spencer inquired why the ordinance has the money for the bags go to the stores.\nMs. Soll responded the money goes to offset the cost of the bags; bags are not free and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 3, "text": "stores are now being reimbursed.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-265) Alison Greene, Alameda, read statements from Heather Little and herself,\nurged the City to start building safety into development plans; stated conversations\nneed to be started around bicycle safety, daylighting street corners and marking\ncrosswalks; requested more resources go to Bike Walk Alameda; thanked the Police\nChief for discussions on community involvement in traffic safety; thanked everyone for\njoining their safety campaigns; encouraged everyone to keep working together.\nTara Etayo, Alameda, stated that she supports slowing down traffic in the City of\nAlameda; every street in Alameda is residential and traffic needs to slow down.\nAmy Rose, Alameda PEEPS, stated there used to be a lot of stories of people getting\nhit or almost hit; she appreciates the stepped up traffic enforcement; there is a need for\nmore traffic signs.\nKristen Welch, Alameda, stated she is scared her children will get hit on the way to\nschool; the City needs more stop signs and traffic signs.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*16-266) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on Tuesday,\nMay 3, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-267) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,913,446.48.\n(*16-268) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to\nan Agreement with Russell Resources, Inc. to Add the Amount of $121,900 for FY2016-\n17 for a Total Contract Amount of $677,400 for Environmental Consulting Services\nRelated to Alameda Point. Accepted.\n(*16-269) Recommendation to Approve Proposed Structure of the Mayor's Economic\nDevelopment Advisory Panel. Accepted.\n(*16-270) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $438,533.50,\nIncluding Contingencies, to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. for the Construction of the Park/Otis\nForce Main Replacement Project, No. P.W. 10-15-19. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 4, "text": "(*16-271) Resolution No. 15153, \"Terminating a Portion of an Existing Public Utility\nEasement Within Parcel Map 10086, 2650 Fifth Street, and Recordation of Quitclaim\nDeed.\" Adopted.\n(*16-272) Resolution No. 15154, \"Approving the Support Services Program Agreement\nwith the Northern California Power Agency and Alameda Municipal Power (AMP). \"\nAdopted.\n(*16-273) Resolution No. 15155, \"Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to\nLevy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter\nApproved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election\nHeld November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library.' Adopted.\n(*16-274) Ordinance No. 3153, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter 30 Clarifying Text Amendments to Sections 30-58 through 30-59.3 of the\nZoning Ordinance Related to Water Efficient Landscaping.' [The Proposed\nAmendments are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use\nLimitations]. Finally passed.\n(*16-275) Ordinance No. 3154, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nVarious Sections of Article IV (Contracts) and Article V (Administrative Procedures and\nPolicies) Concerning Conformance of Alameda's Bidding Procedures on Public Works\nProjects to Public Contract Code 22032 and California Uniform Public Construction Cost\nAccounting. Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-276) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Prepare a Ballot Measure for the November\n2016 Election to Update and Modernize the Existing City of Alameda Utility Users Tax\nOrdinance and Reaffirm Alameda Municipal Power's General Fund Transfer to Support\nthe Provision of Essential City Services.\nThe City Manager made brief introductory comments and the Assistant City Manager\ngave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff will be describing how modernizing the existing\nlaws and practices will be applied, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the Utility Users Tax (UUT) is paid when\nhomeowners pay their property tax.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the negative; stated the tax is on the cable\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 5, "text": "bill, phone bill, etc.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the tax is on cell phone bills and landline bills.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded it depends on the carrier; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the carriers have not been applying the tax; more\npeople are using cell phones but the revenue is dropping.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the ordinance is so old that some of the carriers\nare not applying the tax as consistently as some of the other carriers; stated\nmodernizing the language will provide clarity to every provider to apply the tax the same\nway; as a result, the City will increase the amount of revenue it collects.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether some cell phone users are paying the 7.5%\nUUT rate and others are not, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the\naffirmative; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City of Alameda is the only City Mr.\nGinsburg is suing, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the formula for deriving the contribution AMP\nprovides the City will change.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the formula is extremely confusing so there will\nnow be a flat rate, reflecting the current transfer of $2.8 million, plus the street light\ncomponent.\nThe City Manager stated the language includes a cost of living increase; the formula is\ncurrently how the Public Utilities Board (PUB) sets rates; the $2.8 and the street light\ncomponent are equivalent to the State franchise fee formula for Pacific Gas & Electric\n(PG&E).\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the senior exemption.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded there is currently a 2% exemption for seniors\nand low income people; stated the City is requesting to keep the exemption, but to\nchange the age of the senior exemption from 62 to 65 years of age.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if seniors can elect to have the money go\nelsewhere.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded seniors can elect to pay the 2% and instead of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 6, "text": "the 2% going to the General Fund, the money would go to Mastick Senior Center.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City has to take into account the net increase, not\njust the gross increase; the net increase would alter the UUT's contribution to the City's\nlabor agreements; the $1.5 million estimate will be less than the net basis.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there can be a slide next time referencing what\nCouncilmember Daysog's point.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the UUT comes to the City segregated already;\ninquired if Councilmember Daysog would like the UUT segregated.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the negative; stated residents should be informed\nthat the UUT will factor into employee raises, but he does not want to overstate or\nunderstate that there will be an on-slot of raises.\nThe City Manager stated the revenue is a replacement of lost funds.\nMayor Spencer stated the $1.5 million does not all go to the General Fund, part of the\nmoney would go to public safety.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded that the money is a factor in determining\nemployee raises; there are five categories of revenues in the General Fund that help\ndetermine the public safety contract raises; the UUT is one of the five revenue sources.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the $1.5 million will not be used to purchase a new set\nof staff; some portion of the $1.5 million will be used to give raises to the current staff.\nMayor Spencer stated the information should be shared with the public.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like a slide that addresses the issue of some cell\nphone carries being taxed and some not, and anticipated impacts on the payers.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the ballot measure fails, would the City be unsuccessful in the\nlawsuit.\nThe City Attorney responded that the Council should be careful in discussing pending\nlitigation; the Attorneys feel confident moving forward with the ballot measure.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to prepare the ordinance,\nincluding the background information as requested during the discussion regarding the\nBalance Revenue Index (BRI) contribution and the clarity of the reasons and methods of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 7, "text": "modernization.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the information on the BRI\nwould be in the staff report or in a slide.\nThe City Manager responded the information will be on a slide and on the Frequently\nAsked Questions (FAQ's) on the City website for the public.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the five funds could drop and there would be no\nincrease in revenue, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie stated the revenue could drop.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded there is a possibility that one of the five components\nof the BRI could decrease.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the BRI rising and falling could affect raises; directed staff\nto disclose the connection between the UUT and the BRI.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there could be a slide about the senior exemptions.\nThe City Manager stated that the AMP transfer is outside of the BRI.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the items can all be handled in one\nmotion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded the language is broad enough.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated in 1998, the residents affirmed the rate of 7.5%, he is\nconfident the residents will make the UUT fair and modernized.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess to hold the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission Meeting at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened the\nregular meeting at 8:39 p.m.\n(16-277) Recommendation to Adopt the Proposed Plan for Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal\nParking and Provide Direction on Amendments to Alameda Municipal Code Section 12-\n17 (Preferential Parking).\nStated he is very supportive of the ferry; the ferry parking spills over into the residential\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 8, "text": "area; he would like details added to the staff's recommendations; encouraged moving\nforward with the parking plan: George Kay, Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners Association.\nEncouraged Council to resolve the ferry terminal parking issues; stated increased ferry\nridership results in cars parked on the residential streets all day; encouraged people to\nuse public transportation; allowing residential parking permits would push people to use\nother modes of transportation; a solution is needed: Daniel Chin, Alameda.\nUrged Council to reconsider the residential parking permit program; stated the roads are\npaid for by all the citizens of Alameda and should be open to all, not just residents of the\nneighborhood; expressed support of citizens who ride the ferry: George Manning,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern about the parking permit program being proposed as all or nothing;\nstated the safety and security of riders and their vehicles needs to be a priority,\nespecially if the City is going to charge an extra fee to ferry riders: Patrick Clancy,\nAlameda.\nStated he is a ferry rider; the density of use has increased; he is strongly opposed to the\nparking permit program; to add more fees on top of what ferry riders already pay would\nbe a hardship; he would like to take the bus to the ferry but the bus schedules are not\nfeasible and he has to drive: Rafael Garcia, Alameda.\nStated the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) board is sensitive to\nprice for ferry riders; the parking fee program needs to pay for itself, be beneficial to\nferry riders in terms of offsetting future increases of fares and the money needs to have\na logical place for funds to go where passengers see the benefit; the period of\nadjustment will likely result in a loss of ferry ridership and an increase in traffic on local\nroads; he supports City staff recommendations; the WETA board will be considering\nparking charges in the fall: Kevin Connolly, WETA.\nUrged Council to vote for the parking permit program; stated cars parking on residential\nstreets are a nuisance and an obstacle course for trucks driving on the streets: Tom\nKrysiak, Alameda.\nStated the City needs to keep moving forward; there is finally momentum on the\nproposal; strongly urged Council approve the proposal: Chad Otten, Alameda.\nStated that he hopes the Council approves the proposal mainly for the safety reason;\ncars are speeding during a time when kids are on their way to school; WETA is going to\nhave more ferries arriving and departing, questioned where the cars are going to go:\nPaul Ravetti, Alameda.\nThe Base Reuse Director and Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired who pays for the free, reliable transit service.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the AC Transit Line 21 is currently free if you\ntransfer to the ferry.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the tax payers pay for the cost.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated if the City went with a private shuttle, the parking fees\nwould be one source of revenue for the shuttles; everything is not perfectly ironed out\nyet; the City has to work with WETA on the issues.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether WETA has made a decision to implement\nparking charges.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the negative.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the enforcement costs will be covered\nby the cost of the parking permit fees.\nThe Police Chief responded that he does not anticipate any increased cost to enforce\nthe parking permit program; the Police Department is down one part-time parking permit\ntechnician; the position will be filled by the end of summer; enforcement of the parking\npermit program can be handled with the routine enforcement the permit technicians\nalready do.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the statements made earlier by the\nPolice Chief regarding the vacancies on the Police Department or the comments from\nresidents regarding speeding drivers will affect the Police Department's ability to handle\nthe parking permit enforcement without increased costs.\nThe Police Chief responded the vacancies are Police Officer positions; stated the\nparking technicians are non-sworn positions; the only job of a parking technician is to\nwrite tickets; he does not anticipate the program pulling patrol officers away from their\nduties; typically, there is one patrol officer for the Bay Farm Island, which is enough\nnow.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her question is a matter of budget and personnel;\nother neighborhoods might be interested in a parking permit program; inquired if\nenforcement would be a problem if more neighborhoods partake in the parking permit\nprogram.\nThe Police Chief responded if, in the future, there are six to eight neighborhoods that\nwant to participate in the parking permit program, he will reevaluate the matter at that\ntime.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated there is currently a neighborhood parking ordinance,\nCouncil is just modifying it.\n***\n(16-278) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is need to consider remaining agenda items\nafter 10:30 p.m.; the ordinance [paragraph no. 16-279] is time sensitive and will be brief;\nthe Alameda Point Enterprise District [paragraph no. 16-280 is in response to Council\nrequesting the matter to return in six month, but can be delayed.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of considering the remaining items.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3.\nCouncil member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the ordinance\n[paragraph no. 16-279]. .\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\nThe Deputy Public Works Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Homeowners Association (HOA) would\nreceive the $75 per permit from the program or would the City receive the money.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director stated the City would not charge the $75 for the\nprogram; $75 is the cost to the City for administering the program; if the HOA is\nadministering the program the HOA's decides what to charge.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether HOA's that have the private streets\nwould be administering the program or all HOA's.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director stated the proposed amendments would cover\nHOA's where public streets are involved; where there are exclusively private streets, the\nHOA strictly regulates the parking.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why anyone would pay for a parking permit to\npark on the street when the houses have two and three car garages; inquired whether\nstaff believes residents will get permits to park on the street when they have driveways.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated when HOA's\nhave private streets under a parking permit program the problem, is going to be worse\nbecause vehicles need to park somewhere.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied that a lot of work has gone into the\nprogram and if changes need to be made, staff will do so accordingly; one suggestion\nfrom the public was to incentivize good behavior by offering carpool only or family\nfriendly parking spots.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she asked Public Works to look into the\nparking that is between the two child care centers by the ferry; she would like to try\nsatellite parking to see if the pressure on the neighborhoods can be alleviated; people\nshould have a place to pick up a reliable free shuttle; she would like to see the program\nimplemented in a gradual manner; people should be incentivized to take the ferry by\noffering free shuttle pick up spots.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is in favor of giving the HOA the authority to\napprove a parking permit program; Council does not have a lot of control over charging\nfor the parking at the ferry site.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the proposed plan for the Harbor Bay Ferry\nTerminal Parking and provide direction on amendments to Alameda Municipal Code\nSection 12-17.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she will support the motion; safety has to\nbe the number one priority.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated what staff proposes is incremental and the HOA will hold\nadditional meetings to flush out details; he is anxious to hear about the details given the\ncomments made by Councilmembers that should be taken into consideration.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated satellite parking is a great idea.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to bring back an ordinance with\nthe suggested recommendations for official hearing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he thought the first motion approved the staff\nrecommendation, and included everything, but if the Vice Mayor wants to have a\nsecond motion, he is fine with doing so.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog requested the motion be amended to include\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 12, "text": "the matter come back in one year and include that the entire package.\nVice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Oddie agreed to amend the motion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like a better assessment showing\nthe program is needed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-279) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Section 5-7.1 Penalty for Nonpayment of Annual, Quarterly or Semi-Annual\nBusiness License. Introduced.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the decline of $1 million in business\nlicense revenue is because of the penalty.\nThe Finance Director responded in the negative; stated the business license revenue is\ngoing down because the City does not have enforcement; continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he supports having someone other than Council have\nadministrative waiving rights for delinquent business licenses; stated Alameda has a low\nbusiness license fee; he is in favor of relieving Council from having to adjudicate when\nsomeone requests a waiver.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is in favor of making changes; the 100% increase for\nbeing late over a six month time period is too much; the proposal is a reasonable\ncompromise.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Mayor Spencer; she supports\nthe Finance Director adjudicating lenience in collecting the penalties.\nThe Finance Director clarified if someone does not pay the business license fees,\nplacing a lien on properties, will still come back to Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance: amending the\nAlameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 5-7.1 penalty for nonpayment of annual,\nquarterly or semi-annual business license.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, with an amendment to direct staff to return\nwith an adjustment to the business license tax.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed to amend the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 13, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Oddie - 1.\n(16-280) Recommendation to Accept the Alameda Point Enterprise District Marketing\nStrategy Document and a Six-Month Status Update. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-281) The City Manager stated the O' Club lot parking lot next to the Main Street\nferry has been opened; WETA will put signs out to encourage use of the lot.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated new signage is needed to inform riders about the\nlot.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-282) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service\nBoard, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Rent\nReview Advisory Committee, Social Service Human Relations Board, and\nTransportation Commission.\nMayor Spencer nominated to reappoint the incumbent, Cheryl Saxton to the Golf\nCommission; Lynn Jones and Thomas Saxby to the Historical Advisory Board;\nreappoint two incumbents for the members at large, the tenant seat, reappoint the\nincumbent, senior tenant seat, only one person applied so that person will be appointed,\nSandra Kay to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; appoint Ronald Curtis to\nthe Planning Board; Adam Gillitt and Sherman Lewis, reappoint the incumbent to the\nPublic Art Commission; reappoint the incumbent Mary Sutter to the Public Utilities\nBoard; Milton Freidman to the Homeowners seat on the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee; Christine Chilcott and Jennifer Hastings to the Social Service Human\nRelations Board; and Samantha Soules to the Transportation.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 14, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--JUNE 7, 2016- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nEzzy\nAshcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer\n- -5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*16-283 CC/16-023 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on May 17, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-284 CC/16-024 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending March 31, 2016. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(16-285 CC) Resolution No. 15156, \"Approving and Adopting the City of Alameda\nOperating and Capital Budget Mid-Cycle Update for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17.'\nAdopted;\n(16-025 SACIC) Resolution No. 16-03, \"Approving and Adopting the Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission Budget for FY 2016-17.' Adopted; and\n(16-285 A CC) Resolution No. 15157, \"Approving Workforce Changes in the City\nAttorney's Office, Finance Department, Information Technology Department, Public\nWorks Department and Police Department.\" Adopted.\nThe Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nof the City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 7, 2016\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated many cities' portion of the property tax\nrevenue is approximately 16 to 18%; the City of Alameda does have a high portion at\n25%, relative to other cities; he would like clarification of the difference.\nThe City Manager responded the percentage is related to Proposition 13.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired if staff would come back with more information on\nproperty tax revenue.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative and continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Matarrese inquired if the rate to the City goes up when\nCalPERS' returns are higher, to which the Finance Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Council set aside $3 million last year to offset the\nincrease.\nThe Finance Director continued the presentation.\nMayor/Chair Spencer stated that she would like clarification on the Police Department\nvacancies.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Matarrese stated the positions are funded; the Council is not\nwithholding funds; the money is available to fill the positions.\nThe Police Chief stated the vacancies in the Police Department do not represent a lack\nof funding from the Council.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if traffic safety is impacted\nbecause of the vacancies in the Police Department.\nThe Police Chief responded the Police Department went through a cut five years ago,\nreducing from 92 to 88 authorized officers; there are currently 9 vacancies, which is\nbeing addressed; his goal is to not have any vacancies a year from now.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired about the process for hiring a Police\nOfficer and why the positions cannot be filled immediately.\nThe Police Chief responded there are three separate levels of recruitment: recruit\nofficers with no training and no experience who must attend a police academy,\nacademy graduates who have no experience and lateral officers who have graduated\nfrom a police academy and currently work as a Police Officer in California; there are\nthree concurrent recruitments going on right now; for expediency sake, he would prefer\nto have lateral officers and academy graduates because they can be put into field\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 17, "text": "training; the hiring process is long; the positions are now open as continuous, which has\nincreased the number of applicants; only 1% make it through the process.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many shifts a day there are\nand if the shifts are fully staffed.\nThe Police Chief responded that the there are four shifts a day and they are not\ncurrently fully staffed; some Police Officers have been working overtime; personnel has\nbeen transferred from non-patrol assignments to patrol assignments because all of the\npatrol teams are not fully staffed.\nThe Finance Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the City gets to keep the Safer\nGrant money until the positions are filled.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired what item we have speakers on.\nThe City Clerk responded the speakers are on the ferry item.\nMayor Spencer stated some speakers are leaving; inquired why the budget item is\nbefore the ferry item.\nThe City Clerk responded the item is on before the ferry to get Council action before\nJuly 1st\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there is a steep drop in the reserve ratio;\ninquired what is driving the drop on the revenue side and the increase in expenditures.\nThe Finance Director responded the main component on the expenditure side is labor,\nnot necessarily raises; the revenue side is more in-line with projections.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the operating budget is in the red, but the\nCity is able to manage by using the reserves.\nThe Finance Director stated the money is in designated reserves to use in the future.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired if in FY 2016-17, the City will be\noverspending by $800,000.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated $500,000 of the amount may\nbe going away.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nof the City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 7, 2016\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated on the presentation the operating budget\ngrows in the negative each year.\nThe City Manager stated staff intends to close the gap when the 2-year budget is\nbrought back in one year.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether $3 million is set aside for PERS\nsmoothing; whether most of the expenses are due to PERS smoothing; and how $3\nmillion will be allocated to PERS smoothing.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City has to figure out how\nmuch money to draw from the $3 million for PERS smoothing in the next cycle.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired if there is still the possibility of a fee to\ncover rent expenses, the Utility Users Tax (UUT) and sales tax that staff will ask Council\nto approve, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the City is looking at new staff\npositions, which he feels compounds the problem; he will not support new staff\npositions, except for the Information Technology (IT) position because he feels the\nposition can save the City money with coming into the new century in IT infrastructure.\nMayor/Chair Spencer stated there should have been a separate meeting to discuss the\nissue separately instead of having it in one meeting; she did not approve it last time and\nwill not be supporting it again.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the estimates are conservative\nand the City has not factored in some revenues which have not come in yet, to which\nthe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nThe Human Resources Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees the parking lot\nitems should be deferred to the fall.\nMayor/Chair Spencer requested any motion be separated into three parts.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like the City to wait on the\nnew positions until there is some clarity, because some big revenue ticket items are\nunknown at this time; compounding the PERS cost takes the fund balance down to\n10%; the City needs to live within its means.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution approving and adopting\nthe City of Alameda operating and capital budget mid-cycle update for FY 2016-17.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, with the amendment to remove changes\nto the City Council benefits.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if the workforce changes are not approved, he would\naccept Councilmember Daysog's amendment.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft accepts the\namendments.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft withdrew the motion.\nCommissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution approving and adopting\nthe Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Budget for FY\n2016-17.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes:\nChair Spencer - 1.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the work force changes resolution, with the\nexception of the new positions.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he believes the net increase of 3 workers is\nsecondary to what is causing the widening budget deficit; he will support staff\nrecommendations, except the City Council increases.\nMayor Spencer stated the resolution only speaks to the workforce changes.\nThe City Manager stated there is one position in the City Attorney's Office, two in the\nFinance Department; one position in the Finance Department is replacing two part time\nemployees.\nThe motion failed due to lack of a second.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution approving workforce changes\nin the City Attorney's Office, Finance Department, Information Technology Department,\nPublic Works Department and Police Department.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the net increase is secondary to what\nis driving the budget deficit; he also feels the Police Chief is seeking to fill vacant\npositions to provide the quality of safety that is needed in Alameda.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nof the City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 7, 2016\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor Matarrese\nand Mayor Spencer - 2.\n***\nMayor/Chair Spencer called a recess at 9:32 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:39\np.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated as a result of the Balanced Revenue Index (BRI), as\nrevenues come in, labor gets a portion of the upside so the City is never ahead of the\ncurve; the deficit is not being driven by the addition of three new workers; Council's\nresponsibility to the residents of Alameda is to keep City Hall running and fill the\nvacancies.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation on the budget with\ntwo modifications: not include increases on the City Council side and if cuts are to be\nmade, General Fund and non-General Fund point of contact services, such as Library\nand Parks Departments, are prioritized.\nCouncilmember Daysog's motion failed for lack of second.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution approving and adopting the\noperating and capital budget mid-cycle update for FY 2016-17.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder Discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what amount public safety\nderives from the BRI as part of the labor negotiations.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the labor contracts were approved included\nincreases tied to the BRI for public safety; as part of the labor contract, public safety\nemployees are also contributing to an Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPED) Trust.\nMayor Spencer called the question.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded calling for the question.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmember\nDaysog and Matarrese - 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:49\np.m.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n6\nJune 7, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-06-07", "page": 21, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk and Secretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nof the City Council and the Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 7, 2016\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf"}