{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY FEBRUARY 5, 2018 7:00 P.M.\nChair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, and\nChair Dieter - 4.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Schwartz - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the October 2, 2017 Meeting\nCommissioner Henneberry moved approval of the minutes with a comment; noted that\nhe made comments about his experience on the Planning Board prior to the nomination\nof Chair and Vice Chair; requested the comment be included in the October 2, 2017\nminutes.\nVice Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCommissioners Henneberry, Little and Chair Dieter - 3. Abstention: Commissioner\nForeman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]\n3-B. Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey\nThe Public Information Officer gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Vice Chair Little's inquiry regarding local funding options, the Public\nInformation Officer stated nothing has been proposed at this point; a question was\nincluded in the telephone survey.\nVice Chair Little stated infrastructure improvements are dependent on development;\ninquired whether there are alterative ideas if development, such as the Del Monte or\nAlameda Point projects, are not able to acquire funding.\nThe Public Information Officer responded that she is not sure, but she would ask the\nPublic Works Director and provide a response.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired whether Alameda really has the third oldest park\nsystem in the nation, to which the Public Information Officer responded that she is sure\nit is true; stated the City should have more information about it online, which she would\nadd to the City's website.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nFebruary 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 2, "text": "Vice Chair Little noted Jean Sweeney Park will be one of the largest inner City Parks,\nwhich should also be honored as part of the process.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired why the survey is posted at two different online locations.\nThe Public Information Officer responded the survey is posted in a number of places;\nstated there are several versions of the Survey Monkey survey and links to the main\nsurvey have been posted on social media; outlined other users who have received\nsurveys, such as See Click Fix and Peak Democracy; stated a mailer was sent to\npeople across Alameda; the survey has also been publicized in the newspaper; the City\nhas tried to give access to as many people as possible and did not want to limit it to just\npeople who would take a survey on Survey Monkey; over 3,500 responses have been\nreceived.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired about the outreach online; stated the City's website\nsurvey has been discussed verbally, but there have only been tweets about Peak\nDemocracy.\nThe Public Information Officer responded some people like Peak Democracy and others\ndo not; stated whether people want to fill out the survey on Survey Monkey, Peak\nDemocracy or via the mail is a personal choice; the data is being collected in the exact\nsame way for everyone who responds.\nCommissioner Dieter stated there is also a telephone survey for an infrastructure parcel\ntax that would cost $23 per month per $100,000 of assessed valuation; inquired\nwhether the surveys are related.\nThe Public Information Officer responded in the affirmative; stated the telephone survey\njust started.\nCommissioner Dieter inquired whether the City is doing the survey in order to move\nforward in a campaign, to which the Public Information Officer responded not\nnecessarily; stated the City is trying to figure out options to pay for infrastructure needs;\nonce the City has collected the data from all of the surveys, the City will present the\nresults to Council for Council to decide if and how to move forward.\nCommissioner Dieter stated thoughts on infrastructure immediately go to sidewalks and\nstreets; when she took the survey, there was an option for affordable housing; inquired\nabout affordable housing being included in an infrastructure survey.\nThe Public Information Officer responded that she would have to talk to the Public\nWorks Director to specifically answer the question; stated that she thinks it has to do\nwith the original phone survey, which included housing and traffic; she believes it was\nincluded to see the public's priorities in total; she would want to provide a response after\nasking the Public Works Director.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 5, 2018\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Dieter stated that she would not recommend conflating affordable housing into an\ninfrastructure bond measure or future surveys; it dilutes the issues and is a little\nconfusing to the public.\n3-C. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nVice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should go through the list of items\nthat was provided by the Council subcommittee; stated that she has questions and\ncomments throughout the list; going through the list one item at a time might be easiest.\nChair Dieter stated that she has a motion that she would like to make which might clarify\nhow the Commission moves forward.\nIn response to Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding the agenda title, the City Clerk stated the\nCommission's feedback will be provided to the City Council; the review encompasses\nthe Commission's discussion, which will be passed onto the City Council.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the complete rules of order do not exist as one document,\nto which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution has been\namended.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the rules are posted on the City's website, to which the\nCity Clerk responded in the negative; stated the resolutions are all posted separately.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the rules of order and order of business are two separate\nthings, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nChair Dieter stated the Commission is discussing the rules of order tonight, which is\nhow to conduct meetings; inquired whether the Commission could also provide input on\nhow the public could easily access the rules in the future.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Foreman stated said matter is the first thing that should be addressed.\nStated that he had not paid attention to the details of running meetings or heard of\nRosenberg's Rules of Order; discussed the two methods for counting an abstention;\nstated one counts an abstention as a no; the other method, called present and voting,\ndoes not count abstaining as a no vote; he reviewed the rules and did not see the\nmethod used to count votes; custom has been an abstention is the same as a no vote; it\ndoes not happen often; discussed a recent example: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nFebruary 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Dieter stated that she would like to make a motion to repeal the original resolution\nand any resolution amending it altogether, introduce a new resolution that adopts\nRosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rule adopted by\nresolution of the City Council, and where Rosenberg is silent, provisions would be\nadded to the resolution; in other words, standard parliamentary rules would be adopted\nand special rules would be passed as needed; further stated to try to guide the\ndiscussion, she would share a handout with follow Commissioners because it is in\nwriting and will be made part of the public record.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the motion would be to make a recommendation to\nhave Council repeal the resolutions because Council has to repeal its resolutions, to\nwhich Chair Dieter responded correct.\nChair Dieter stated what she has handed out includes her outline of Rosenberg's Rules\nof Order, which is part of the staff report, and clauses needed in the new resolution; the\nitems Rosenberg's Rules is silent on and the City Council has taken a position on are in\nthe list of clauses; the first is counting votes, which the public speaker addressed; read\nthe proposed clauses; stated that she reviewed the daisy chain of resolutions and\nincluded what she considered to be important or missing and came up with the list of\nclauses that the Commission could consider adding to Rosenberg's Rules or Order;\nstated that is her motion.\nCommissioner Foreman requested the motion be read back.\nChair Dieter stated the motion is to consider suggesting that the City Council repeal the\noriginal resolution and any resolutions amending it and introduce a new resolution\nadopting Rosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rules adopted\nby resolution of the City Council; where Rosenberg's Rules is silent, add provisions to\nthe resolution which she specifically named.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the handout is simply an outline of how to attack the\nmatter and does not necessarily become part of the motion; leases and land sales are\ncovered under the Charter, which is kind of redundant; without going over everything\nsection by section, he does not know that everything has been covered; he is assuming\nthe motion is just how the Commission proceeds, not necessarily that the handout is\nwhere the Commission will end up; inquired whether or not his understanding is fair.\nChair Dieter respond a little of both; stated that she would like the Commission to end\nup here, but she thought maybe the Commission may have something to add if\nmembers feel there is something important she may have missed; Rosenberg's Rules\nof Order were part of the agenda packet; she decided to write an outline to help the\nCommission focus because it is too hard to read quite a few pages.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he likes the list, but may have an issue with closing\ndebate; he thinks it should be very difficult to close debate, not just a majority vote; he\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 5, 2018\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 5, "text": "might be able to support the general motion, which really does not include the outline;\nhowever, if voting for the motion is for the limited outline, he would have troubles.\nChair Dieter stated that she envisions Rosenberg's Rules of Order as part of the new\nresolution; the special rules would be at the bottom to add items which are applicable to\nthe City of Alameda; rather than reinvent the wheel, Rosenberg's entire text should be\nadopted; then, the special rules should be added to the end; it would all be one\nresolution.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether items which contradict Rosenberg's Rules\nwould be included, to which Chair Dieter responded correct.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether the motion is Rosenberg's Rules, plus\nwhatever the Commission decides as a group, not necessarily the list, to which Chair\nDieter responded correct.\nVice Chair Little stated something in Rosenberg's Rules that might not be applicable to\nwhat is happening could be scratched; she loves the spirit of Chair Dieter's proposal;\ntrying to figure out which version was the most current gave her a headache; she would\nlove to see a new version in one document; when she was doing her research,\nRosenberg's versus Robert's, she appreciates the more simplistic, user friendly\nRosenberg's Rules; however, the current City Council structure is run a little differently;\nif the Commission is going to make a recommendation tonight, she is not comfortable\nand would want to go through the finer points to ensure nothing is being missed; for\nexample, Rosenberg's Rules recommends that the presiding officer take a less active\nrole, defer to others and speak last, which is not necessarily how the City Council is\ncurrently being managed; she would want to make sure that the Commission goes\nthrough the provisions with a little more detail; her understanding was that the intent of\ngoing through the Rules of Order was to ensure that City Council meetings do not go\nuntil 3:19 a.m.; a wide gamut of recommendations could be proposed to the City\nCouncil that should be put on the table to consider.\nCommissioner Henneberry seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Chair Dieter stated when she read Rosenberg's Rules of Order, she\ndiscovered it is basically how things are run now; the Chair usually does wait to speak\nlast; the only thing that she saw different was that the Chair invites a motion after public\ncomment, which she thinks would be wonderful; it would focus the debate, rather than\nhaving an hour discussion with the public waiting for a motion; that is the only thing she\nsaw which was different.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he is in favor of repealing and staring all over; the\nCommission should start with the current rules of order and go through item by item to\ndecide what should be kept; then, wherever the City is silent, Rosenberg's Rules would\nbe followed; it is being flipped to say the rules are Rosenberg's Rules, which is not what\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nFebruary 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 6, "text": "the Council asked the Commission to do; that he does not think he will be able to\nsupport doing it the way proposed.\nChair Dieter inquired whether there is any special rule that she forgot to include, to\nwhich Commissioner Foreman responded that he cannot answer that because he did\nnot have an opportunity to compare; stated that he is worried something will be missed;\nhistory has to be respected; starting with the original document makes more sense; it\nshould be repealed and codified in one document.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired what was the genesis for the matter coming forward\nand what the City Council wanted out of it.\nThe City Clerk responded the matter was raised via a referral; Councilmember\nMatarrese brought it forward to have changes made.\nCommissioner Henneberry questioned whether Councilmember Matarrese thought\nmeetings were going too long; stated the rules are not the problem.\nChair Dieter stated the impetus was there was a question about public comments non-\nagenda.\nThe Assistant City Attorney outlined the public comment issue that lead to the referral.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated the entire issue came out of a specific arcane item;\nhe has been dealing with Robert's Rules of Order for 30 years; the rules are not the\nissue if there is concern about the length of meetings, which is due to the Chair and\nmeeting participants; he thinks Rosenberg's Rules look pretty good, clean and like a\nnice breath of fresh air compared to Robert's Rules; he does not want to go through\nevery resolution because there was a non-agenda comment issue.\nChair Dieter stated when looking at the issue, Councilmember Matarrese noticed there\nwere other rules which are not being followed because they are not clear, such as\nCouncilmembers are only allotted three minutes to speak; there was a whole host of\nthings; it is great that the Council subcommittee looked to Rosenberg's Rules of Order;\nthe League of California Cities (LCC) recommends Rosenberg's Rules; the City is pretty\nmuch following Rosenberg's Rules already and just needs to apply special rules; she\nspent hours and hours going through all the resolutions trying to find things that were\nnot covered by Rosenberg's Rules, which are the ones she added to the end; she felt\neverything else was covered.\nVice Chair Little stated going through her list, she is finding similarities between the\nnotes she took on the various resolution items and Chair Dieter's list; she just wants to\nbe cautious that the Commission is not missing something; she finds the City's rules\nterribly confusing; the language is circular and not understandable; she appreciates\nRosenberg's Rules; she would consider moving forward and not going through\neverything line by line as long as there is agreement that there is a comparison between\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 5, 2018\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 7, "text": "what Rosenberg is recommending and the current rules to make sure nothing missing;\nfor meeting hours, Chair Dieter's list recommends midnight; she saw it was 11:00 p.m.,\nthen midnight and back to 11:00 p.m.; she thought the current time is 11:00 p.m. now.\nThe City Clerk stated midnight is not reflected as the time in the Sunshine Ordinance;\namending the ending time and the 10:30 p.m. vote to consider remaining items would\nrequire an ordinance amendment.\nCommissioner Foreman stated it does not matter if the Commission proceeds as he is\nsuggesting or as the motion is suggesting, except he does not see a way to not go\nthrough article by article; he opposes adopting the proposal; the review needs to be\ndone as a group; he is willing to support the motion, but he is still going to want to go\nthrough every item.\nChair Dieter stated the Commissioners all like Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the\nCommission wants to make sure it has not missed anything for only the special rules;\nshe went line by line through it; suggested coming back again with the special rules to\ngive Commissioners an opportunity to study the resolutions to see if anything has been\nmissed.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the suggestion makes sense; that he would be more\ncomfortable and the Commission might save time.\nChair Dieter stated there is a motion and a second; perhaps the Commission should\ntake a vote.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated that he has a timing question; the Commission is\nscheduled to meet twice per year; the next meeting is October; however, the\nCommission can meet in the interim if there is a reason to meet; inquired whether a vote\nof the Commission decides scheduling.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Clerk stated the Commission's meetings are typically held the first Monday; in\nthe past, the Commission met the next month to continue review.\nCommissioner Foreman moved approval of tabling the motion until the next meeting in\nthe next 30 days.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the meeting would be held the first Monday, to which\nCommissioner Foreman responded that is fine with him.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that he will be gone the first Monday in March;\ninquired whether the Commission would agree to the first Monday in April.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether other days are available.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n7\nFebruary 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 8, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded perhaps later in February or mid-March.\nCommissioner Foreman rephrased the motion; moved approval of the same motion with\nthe meeting date being the first Monday in April.\nVice Chair Little seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a subcommittee would\ngo over the matter prior to the next meeting.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the Commissioners could all share their comments with\neach other prior to the next meeting, which cannot be done.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated each Commissioner can send comments to the City\nClerk for distribution, but the Commissioners cannot collectively discuss the matter until\nthe meeting.\nChair Dieter inquired whether she could have sent her list to the City Clerk after the\nagenda was posted, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nstated communications should be sent to the City Clerk to be sent out to everyone at\nthe same time; after communications are sent out, three members cannot discuss the\nmatter outside of a meeting.\nThe City Clerk noted communications are posted and made public.\nChair Dieter stated that she will withdraw her motion.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired why the motion is being withdrawn; stated that he is\ntabling Chair Dieter's motion.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired whether it would be permissible to have a two\nperson subcommittee of Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated the subcommittee could put something together for\ndistribution to the rest of the Commission prior to the next meeting.\nVice Chair Little and Chair Dieter both expressed a willingness to do so.\nChair Dieter stated there is a motion to table the matter until the next meeting.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nCommissioner Schwartz - 1.]\nChair Dieter inquired whether there is another motion to set up a subcommittee.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 5, 2018\n8", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 9, "text": "Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a motion is needed, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded a motion should be done to determine the subcommittee\nmembership and direction.\nCommissioner Henneberry moved approval of having a subcommittee comprised of the\nChair and Vice Chair Little to put together a proposal, provide it to the City Clerk and\nhave it distributed to the Commission prior to the next meeting.\nIn response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the meeting\npacket goes out seven days prior to the meeting, which would be March 26th.\nVice Chair Little stated that she thought the meeting would be in March.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the Assistant City Attorney is not available.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission would rather meet in March,\nsomeone else from the City Attorney's office could attend.\nCommissioners Henneberry and Little stated that they would prefer to meet in March.\nCommissioner Foreman noted the Commission already voted on the motion.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission is considering forming a\nsubcommittee and could direct the matter be brought back the first Monday in March.\nCommissioner Henneberry clarified the motion is to form the subcommittee and meet\nthe first Monday in March.\nCommissioner Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]\n3-D. Recommendation to Approve the Records Retention Schedule\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the retention schedule is considered the Public Records\nIndex (PRI).\nThe City Clerk responded the two were separated; stated the League of California Cities\n(LCC) index, which provides a general guide of the documents that are open or closed,\nwas adopted by the City Council; the retention schedule informs when records, which\nare listed by department, would be destroyed.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the City has two different retention schedules: the PRI\nand one by each department.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n9\nFebruary 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 10, "text": "The City Clerk responded the PRI is used to disclose whether documents are public or\npartially public.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the PRI does not include when to destroy records, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nChair Dieter inquired whether the schedule does not need to come before the Open\nGovernment Commission, to which the City Clerk responded the schedule was\npresented to the Commission in the past.\nChair Dieter stated the Sunshine Ordinance does not require the schedule to come\nbefore the Commission; inquired where the standards come from and whether there are\ndifferent types of records; stated the Secretary of State, with the LCC, came up with\nguidelines; the City Clerk's Association also has guidelines; inquired where the City's\nstandards for disposing of documents was formed.\nThe City Clerk responded the last column has the statutory reference and draws on\nmany different sources, such as the Government Code and Elections Code; stated each\ndepartment draws from different Codes; the citation of the statutory reference would be\nvery similar in the City's schedule versus the Secretary of State guidelines; the City tried\nto whittle down its list to inform the public what documents the City has and retains.\nChair Dieter stated the schedule is not arbitrary; inquired whether the department heads\nare not just deciding how long to keep something and actually turn to a statutory\nreference.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the City exceeds statutory reference\nin some instances, but it is never shorter.\nChair Dieter stated sidewalk repair requests would be deleted after five years, which\nmeans the records could be destroyed before the repair is done.\nThe City Clerk stated the clock starts ticking after the issue is resolved.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated citizens' complaints for Police Officers have a five\nyear retention period and start at the complaint date as opposed to resolved; the\ngeneral rule is what the City Clerk indicated, but there are some situations where the\nclock might start at occurrence.\nVice Chair Little inquired how someone could figure out which is the case.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded it is typically by statute; provided an example of\nhiring.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 5, 2018\n10", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 11, "text": "The City Clerk stated there are retention codes at the bottom of the page; provided an\nexample of current year end, which is very specific.\nChair Dieter stated the main thing is for the public to understand; suggested adding\nfootnotes for some about when the time starts.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether the Commission needs to approve the\nschedule.\nThe City Clerk responded the City Council will be informed if the Commission takes\naction.\nCommissioner Henneberry moved approval of approving the Records Retention\nSchedule.\nCommissioner Foreman seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Chair Dieter stated that she plans on voting no because she does not\nthink that technology should be driving public policy; if there were other reasons for\nwanting to change five years to three years, it would make more sense to her; just\nbecause the City does not have storage capacity is a bad precedent.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCommissioners Foreman, Henneberry and Little - 3. Noes: Chair Dieter - 1. [Absent:\nCommissioner Schwartz - 1.]\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether Municipal Code amendments prior language\ngoes away and the Code reflects the current law, to which the City Clerk responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether resolutions could be codified; stated the new\nrules of order will be neat, but could end up with the same mess.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the way to handle the matter would be to repeal\nthe entirety and adopt a new resolution with all changes; stated discrete pieces of the\noriginal resolution were changed by just amending the section; the point is well taken-it\nmakes it difficult to go to one document and figure out the rules.\nCommissioner Foreman inquired whether that is the only way, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded as a practical matter.\nChair Dieter stated the City Council current version could have a legislative history with\nprevious versions underneath.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n11\nFebruary 5, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 12, "text": "The City Clerk stated the issue can be discussed when the matter returns to the\nCommission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 5, 2018\n12", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 5, 2018\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, February 5, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members\nMurray and Friedman\nAbsent:\nMember Griffiths\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be\nheard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.\n3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,\nand mediation services.\n4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process\nfor participating in meeting.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the January 10, 2018 Regular Meeting\nMotion and second (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Murray\nabstaining.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 931.2 - 840 Oak St., Apt. A\nTenant: Jessica Lorega\nLandlord: Park Young\nProposed rent increase: $97.50 (5.0%) to a total rent of $2,047.50, effective\nJanuary 1, 2018\nPrior to the review, Program Staff provided the Committee and public two photographs\nof the front of the outside of the subject property that the landlord had submitted to\nthe Rent Program several days prior to the hearing.\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 5, 2018\nMr. Young, referencing the Craigslist ads submitted by the tenants of units renting for\nless than their rent, stated that the \"comparatives\" offered by the tenants were not\nrelevant since they signed a lease (in 2016) at the rate of $1,950.\nMs. Lorega informed the Committee that Program Staff had invalidated two previous\nrent increase attempts. She said she believed her rent was above market-rate\nconsidering the condition of the unit, lack of amenities, lack of maintenance and\nrepairs, and the fact that most utilities were not included. She said that the increased\nrent would comprise about 36% of their current income.\nMr. Young responded that the apartment was in fine condition and the tenants did not\ntake good care of the property. He told the Committee that the tenants had two pet\nrabbits when they told him they only had one, and that the unit smelled bad inside.\nReferencing the photographs submitted by the landlord, Ms. Lorega replied that most of\nthe items depicted belonged to her downstairs neighbors. She added that both rabbits\nwere disclosed to the landlord when they moved in and were in fact mentioned in the\nlease, and that she cleaned up after them as needed.\nMr. Young replied that the building was old and that he was not making money from it,\nadding that repairs were expensive. He said that the tenants did not inform him of any\nwork that needed to be done.\nMs. Lorega replied that they did not often ask for repairs because the landlord does\nrepairs himself and they had concerns about him making repairs to their unit because\nhe was not mindful of their personal property when doing repair work.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana asked the tenant if her household was single-income. She\nsaid that it was until her husband very recently found employment. She confirmed that\nwhen he starts bringing in money, the rent will comprise less of their income than the\npercentage she stated earlier.\nMember Murray asked the tenant to describe the interior of the unit. The tenant said\nthat she, her husband, and her daughter were the occupants, and that the interior had\nbroken floor tiles, and multiple different kinds of flooring in various parts of the unit.\nShe said that caulking was excessively used throughout the apartment in place of\nmaking needed repairs.\nMr. Young said that he was a general contractor and again stated that the tenants did\nnot ask him for repairs. He said he bought the property in 2013.\nMember Friedman asked the tenant how the landlord could help improve her living\nsituation. Ms. Lorega replied that the landlord was very adversarial, adding that he\ndrove past the property twice a day. She said that when the Rent Program informed the\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 5, 2018\nlandlord that an offer of a one-year lease was required along with the first rent increase\nsince enactment of the Ordinance, he came to her door at 8:45 p.m. (close to her\nchild's bed time) and tried to force her to sign a lease. She said that she did not want to\nsign it and does not see herself living there a long time. Member Friedman asked if\nimprovements to the property would encourage her to stay, and she said they would\nhave to be substantial.\nChair Cambra asked the landlord if any costs to run the property had increased and Mr.\nYoung replied that some costs had increased, without specifying which costs.\nMember Murray asked the landlord what it cost to pay the mortgage and insurance and\nMr. Young replied that it was about $3,100 per month. Mr. Young expressed that the\nrent from both units at the property barely covered the costs of running the property.\nChair Cambra asked the parties if they learned anything new that they did not know\nprior to the meeting. Mr. Young said that he did not know that the tiles needed repair.\nChair Cambra asked the tenant if she would be open to a rent increase if the landlord\ndid repairs. Ms. Lorega responded that the bedroom door would have to be repainted\nand made to fit properly and the floors would need to be repaired. Mr. Young said he\nwas open to fixing the broken floor tiles.\nChair Cambra clarified that the Committee did not have the authority to require repairs\nor maintenance in exchange for increased rent and that the parties would have to come\nto an agreement between themselves for this. Chair Cambra further clarified that any\nagreement is unenforceable by the City and that an agreement would waive the current\nright to a hearing. Ms. Lorega said she did not feel comfortable making an agreement\nwith the landlord.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana asked the landlord how much rent the tenants in the other\nunit paid, and Mr. Young replied that their rent was $2,586 per month.\nMember Friedman asked if the tenant was concerned about her deposit being returned\nand Ms. Lorega said she was. Member Friedman suggested she may seek outside\nassistance, referencing Angie Hajjem-Watson's earlier public comment on ECHO's\nhousing services.\nThe parties took their seats and the Committee members began deliberations. Member\nMurray said that she believed the rent to be high compared to comparable units in the\narea, but not high in relation to the landlord's costs of operation. She echoed that now\nthat the tenants would have two incomes, the rent increase did not appear to cause a\nfinancial hardship. She stated she believed the fundamental problem was a bad\nrelationship between the parties. She opined that a 5% increase was reasonable.\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 5, 2018\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana echoed Member Murray's comments, adding that the best\nsolution may be for the tenants to move to a less expensive unit, as Ms. Lorega\nexpressed little desire to remain in that apartment.\nMember Friedman stated that he did not believe the landlord's costs of operation have\nlikely increased 5%, but did not think that a lower increase would keep the tenant in\nher home considering the reservations she expressed during the meeting.\nChair Cambra reiterated that the main issue was a lack of trust between the parties and\na 5% increase would not displace the tenants. He added that a landlord cannot always\nexpect a property to generate cash flow.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Murray) made for a $97.50 (5%) increase.\nPassed 3-0, with Member Friedman abstaining.\n7-B. CASE 977 - 2027 Encinal Ave., Apt. C\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $150.00, a 9.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,800.00, effective March 1, 2018.\n7-C. CASE 958.1 - 2215 Central Ave., Apt. H\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $91.50, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,929.00, effective February 1, 2018.\nRoberta Borglum, the tenant in this case, was present at the meeting and made a\npublic comment at this time. She said that she was thankful for the RRAC and the\nOrdinance. She informed the Committee that several days prior to the meeting,\nher landlord came to her home and told her he would not negotiate the amount\nof the increase at the RRAC meeting and asked her to sign Form RP-05 agreeing\nto the increased amount. He told her that if she did not like the increase, she could\nmove out. She said she felt intimidated by the landlord and signed the form. She\nadded that she had lived in the home for 20 years, and suggested the City of\nAlameda consider adopting a stricter form of rent control where tenants did not\nhave to negotiate with their landlords to avoid situations where the tenant could\nfeel intimidated.\n7-D. CASE 982 - 958 Park St., Apt. B\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $72.60, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,524.60, effective February 1, 2018.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-02-05", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 5, 2018\n7-E. CASE 983 - 958 Park St., Apt. 1\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed\nto a rent increase of $75.63, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of\n$1,588.13, effective February 1, 2018.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Eric Strimling commented that\nthe current Ordinance's stipulations encouraging landlords and tenants to\nnegotiate the amount of rent increases leads to damaged relationships between\nthe parties. He opined that the City of Alameda should move toward adopting a\nstrict form of rent control in place of the current system to avoid situations where\na tenant could feel intimidated.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Member Friedman asked if\nProgram Staff could do anything to help tenants who feel intimidated. City Attorney\nStaff commented that Committee members could ask Program Staff to agendize\nitems for future discussion, but suggested it may be better to communicate with\nStaff directly on certain topics rather than agendizing them for discussion in public\nforums. He added that while matters like intimidation and coercion may not be\nappropriate topics for Committee discussion, Program Staff might provide\nresources to tenants facing those issues, such as by adding resources and\ninformation to the Rent Program's FAQ.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:36 PM.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 5, 2018\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf"}