{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 19, 2021-6:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via\nZoom. Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:19 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-638) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City\nInitiating Legal Action - Bond Validation Action); Potential Defendants: All Interested\nPersons.\n(21-639) WITHDRAWN - Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin,\nAssistant City Manager; and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee\nOrganization: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA); Under Negotiation: Salaries,\nEmployee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Not heard.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced\nthat regarding Litigation, staff provided information and Council did not take any action or\nvote.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:25 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\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER 19, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-640) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested City Manager Communications be moved up to allow\nthe new Fire Chief to be introduced.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-641) The City Manager introduced the new Fire Chief Nicholas Luby.\nThe Fire Chief made brief comments.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-642) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 Filipino American History Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nCouncilmember Daysog and Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments.\n(21-643) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.\n(21-644) Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness Month 2021.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-645) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about the City's Prosecution Unit pursuing\nlandlords, which is resulting in significant income for the City; he believes it would be\nappropriate for Council to include a summary of recent actions by the Prosecution Unit on the\nagenda; discussed concerns about the Prosecution Unit.\n(21-646) Marcus Holder, Alameda, stated a stadium at Howard Terminal would be crazy; traffic\nin and out of the Tube is already jammed; urged correspondence for the matter be read; stated\na stadium would take away 1/7th to 1/8th of the Port capacity; the Port is the economic engine for\nthe region; discussed condos being built; stated building the projects with infrastructure makes\nsense; expressed support for building the coliseum in the existing location.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 3, "text": "Expressed concern about the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652] ; stated the Planning,\nBuilding and Transportation Department has frequently advertised its expertise; he is not clear\nwhy the City should be spending so much money for an outside company: Jay Garfinkle,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested the Open Government Commission appointment\n[paragraph no. 21-649 be removed from the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652 be\nremoved from the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Cultivate agreement be heard at end of the regular agenda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the item at the end of the regular\nagenda.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(*21-647) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Joint City Council and Alameda\nPublic Financing Authority Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September\n21, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-648) Ratified bills in the amount of $27,860.48.\n(21-649) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open\nGovernment Commission.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Ms. Montgomery could not attend the meeting due to a last\nminute issue; Ms. Montgomery has shown herself to be interested in the business of the City\nand ensuring people are informed, involved, and engaged.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(*21-650) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Report for the City's Rent\nProgram. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 4, "text": "Alameda City Council\n3\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 5, "text": "(21-657 B) Resolution No. 15828, \"Appointing Dan Poritzky as a Member of the Mayor's\nEconomic Development Advisory Panel.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and Ms. Jennings made brief comments.\n(21-658) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff to Pursue One or More Options for\nReducing the Negative Impacts and Public Safety Challenges Associated with Automobile-\nOriented Events at Alameda Point.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the reason the chain link fence near the Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) does not extend to cover the area where people practice\nmotorcycle driving.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the USS Hornet (USSH) lease covers some of the\nareas; the City wants to ensure alignment of the fence is as inclusive as possible without\ninfringing on lease rights.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated sometimes the USSH has events with many people\ndriving; the USSH goes beyond the available area; inquired whether the area within the fencing\nwould be opened for USSH events.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded it could be; stated the current USSH lease does not\ncover the area; however, staff can coordinate with USSH representatives to address any\nadditional parking needs for large events; the fencing is temporary which can easily be\nrelocated or moved over time as needed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated many areas have installed raised Botts' dots to address\nissues; inquired why staff has not done other similar things to allow the space to be used by\nlaw-abiding citizens; stated she is hearing staff jump to cutting off areas, making them\ninaccessible to cars; the intention could be to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to use the areas.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Police Chief provide clarification of the problem being\naddressed.\nThe Police Chief stated the concern being addressed is the gathering of cars; the dots would\nactually deter people engaging in reckless driving of areas; noted many of the burnouts occur in\nthe entry chutes; vehicles can still go into the areas for people to enjoy scenery.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the entry chutes do not have speed bumps to slow\ntraffic; inquired why has staff not considered speed bumps or humps.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 6, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded both strategies work; stated staff\nis trying to make the area unattractive for people to do inappropriate activities with automobiles;\nBotts' dots or a barricade system can work; the dots will likely be a more expensive strategy to\nimplement and maintain.\nThe Public Works Director stated both speed bumps and Botts' dots are options; the use of\nfencing is due to the lack of travel lanes at Alameda Point; the intention is to safely focus travel\nin one area; if staff were to only utilize speed bumps or Botts' dots, safety issues are caused; an\noption to create travel lanes is possible; the approach staff has taken builds on existing\nconditions.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the safety plan; the comments\nreceived show that the approach does not seem to be working; inquired why staff is not\nconsidering adding speed bumps.\nThe Public Works Director responded speed bumps can be an option within the 40-foot lane;\nstaff is also trying to prevent large-scale congregations, not just reckless driving; a number of\nsafety issues arise from the large congregations; speed bumps will not necessarily prevent\nlarge-scale congregations from forming; staff can put in speed deterrents if the issue of\nspeeding becomes a factor within the 40-foot lane.\nStated the car congregation is two-fold; the USSH would like to grow its admission; the USSH\ntook a 90% revenue hit during COVID-19; the parking leased by the USSH is generally\nsufficient; the Enterprise Lot is sometimes used for overflow parking for larger events; the USSH\ndepends on car traffic for museum attendance; discussed USSH special events being attractive\nto transportation enthusiasts; stated specific car clubs have kicked people out due to poor\nbehavior; expressed concern about eliminating car clubs due to individual poor choices;\nexpressed support for wheel stops in the parking lot: Laura Fies, US H Museum.\nStated the City needs to do something; Option 2 shows a car show area that has been full the\npast two weeks; car shows have gotten very large with over 500 cars, over 1,000 people, food\nvendors and a vendor serving alcoholic beverages; the events' trash and sanitary mess are a\nproblem; it takes his customer 25 to 30 minutes to get to the building; expressed support for\nOption 2, which does not require a gate to be closed and provides a nice parking space in the\nmore scenic parts of Alameda Point: Steve Shaffer, Urban Legend Cellars.\nStated that he has noticed two to three car shows per month with hundreds of cars speeding\nand nearly hitting kids; he is speaking for the neighborhood safety of the West End; speed\nbumps could help, but might merely be quickly accelerated over; his neighborhood is impacted\nwhile car show participants leave the area; he agrees with the recommendations and has\ncompassion for the USSH; expressed support for fencing and maximum barriers to prevent\ncongregation and allowing permitted shows to continue: Victor Hsu, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the challenges Alameda Police Department\n(APD) Officers have face at Alameda Point.\nThe Police Chief stated enforcement becomes difficult when hundreds of people gather; the\narea has no lanes; getting emergency medical assistance through would be difficult; the mindset\nwith side shows is to draw a large enough audience to perform reckless stunts and driving;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 7, "text": "having a bunch of participants fuels the activity; much of the reckless driving occurs when\nparticipants leave an event; an approach that addresses and minimizes the number of\nparticipants provides a position of public safety; emergency response is possible when\naudiences are not as large.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter is complicated; DePave Park will not be driven on\nand instead will be accessed by walking and biking; he does not see any reason to encourage\npeople to drive within the area; he is saddened to learn about the impact of some of the\nactivities happening near Building 25; he would be very supportive of choosing Option 1; he\ndoes not know why the City would choose Option 2, which would create another long driveway\nfor people to race up and down; expressed support for the fence near the USSH; stated many\npeople have pointed fingers at the USSH; however, the issue is mainly due to people using the\nUSSH parking space; many people will head back to the large USSH parking area if the\nDePave Park area is closed down; sideshows were not the problem back in June; the problem\nis people racing through neighborhoods; the City can stop some of the sideshow behaviors by\nusing Botts' dots and barriers; however, neighbors will still call due to people racing through\nstreets; he would be more than happy to continue working with the USSH to figure out a way to\nsupport meaningful events which that have an auto-centric focus; the events should have a\nfocus toward the USSH business.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Dash Cellars and Building 25 will still be\npresent when DePave Park is created.\nThe Public Works Director responded the current Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) for Alameda\nPoint shows the perimeter levy saves Building 25; stated Building 2 is inland of the perimeter\nlevy, protected from sea level rise and not part of DePave Park.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the area already cordoned off by Dash\nCellars and the Air Tower will be part of DePave Park.\nThe Public Works Director responded the current MIP indicates the area will be a large\nstormwater retention basin, similar to the layout of Bayport; the area will collect storm water\nbefore discharge.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer displayed photos of current parking conditions at Alameda\nPoint; stated that she goes out to Alameda Point all the time; she does not think it is illegal to\ncongregate; staff has added cement barriers; the cement barriers are often filled with\nskateboarders; the area is a great place for adults, youths and families to congregate; the area\ndepicted will no longer be accessible to the public from what she understands; inquired whether\nthe cement barriers will remain for skateboarders to continue using or be removed and\ninaccessible.\nThe Public Works Director responded the intent with Option 2 is not to remove the cement\nbarriers; stated Option 2 has been presented to allow for access to the end of the area near\nBuilding 29; the space shown is exterior to the barriers.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated quite often, up to 50 young adults are skateboarding on\nthe barriers; skateboarding is a healthy activity; the area is similar to a playground; photos show\ncars parked with people coming out to fish and enjoy the view; inquired whether the area is part\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 8, "text": "of Option 2 and allows cars to come out for people to fish.\nThe Public Works Director responded Option 2 keeps the area accessible for vehicles.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not sure how wide the space is; the space\nwill often have multiple cars on the weekends; people use canopies for shade and have chairs\nto enjoy the shoreline; she would like to speak for the law-abiding citizens that hang out and\nenjoy the Bay; there will be less Bay access for cars; she supports DePave Park; however,\npeople should have access via cars in the meantime; accessing the area is very long to walk\nwhile carrying items; she would like Council to come up with a way to allow law-abiding citizens\nto congregate and enjoy the space; she thinks the area is insufficient; she would like a \"U\"\nshape large enough for cars; she is fine with blocking off more of the middle area; more speed\nbumps to slow traffic should be considered; she disagrees that people will perform doughnuts\nover speed bumps; she believes speed bumps work in deterring and slowing traffic; she has\nseen car shows down other long streets; the issue is present Citywide; she needs staff to be\nwilling to help figure out how to address the criminal behavior as well as support law-abiding\ncitizens who want to enjoy the bay; the \"U\" shape would be a better solution; expressed support\nfor the USSH; stated that she would like to work with the USSH on fencing to try and\naccommodate shows and events; the biggest event at Alameda Point is the Antiques Faire\nwhich has a lot of cars; expressed support trash cans and bathroom facilities in the area;\nexpressed concern about overreaching and not addressing the problem; stated the goal to slow\ndown cars is different from cordoning off large areas and not allowing access.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether Option 2 would provide vehicle access and\nparking for Building 25 customers and allow vehicle access to the southern-most shoreline;\ninquired whether the photos show the southern-most shoreline.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated Option 2 would continue to allow\nvehicle access to just the southern portion, but not the full length of the eastern portion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated for West Enders traumatized by sideshows and reckless driving,\nthe message that help is on the way is clear; he supports all of the staff recommendations; he\nthinks the issues of barriers and speed bumps raised by Councilmember Herrera Spencer might\nhelp slow down speeding in the area; speed bumps could be placed outside of the USSH as\nwell; the staff recommendation will go a long way in addressing the underlying causes of\nreckless driving; the large open areas allow people to hold massive sideshows.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the visuals from the presentation help the discussion; she wants to\npreserve bicycle and pedestrian access; more needs to be done to limit vehicle access; a\nnumber of areas are still left completely open; she does not think additional speed bumps will be\nhelpful; the City can add things in along the way; however, if the City does not block off larger\nspaces, problems of sideshows and large gatherings will still arise at Alameda Point; expressed\nsupport for Option 2, which will offer more protections for the City; many people call related to\nevents at Alameda Point; APD is doing what it can to enforce the area; it is difficult for APD to\nbe in all places at all times; mitigation efforts through design will make a difference.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has asked herself the advantages and disadvantages of\nauto-oriented events at Alameda Point; the Antiques by the Bay Faire is contributing to the City\nby way of sales tax and also causes traffic; the Antiques Faire coincides with the spontaneous,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 9, "text": "non-sanctioned events organized via social media which can create havoc for safety and trying\nto get on and off the Island; outlined correspondence and comments received from residents of\nthe area being terrorized by not being able to safely cross the street or ride a bicycle; stated\nunsanctioned gatherings of autos are not paying any revenue; many times litter and human\nwaste is left behind; cars also spew particulate matter into the atmosphere while the City is\nstruggling to get greenhouse gas emissions under control; the events interfere with existing\nbusinesses at Alameda Point; visitors cannot get to the buildings; she has been to many USSH\nevents; she struggles to see the connection to the USSH and permitting auto-related events of\nup to 1,000 autos; she thinks the events send the wrong message about Alameda Point being a\ngreat place for open space to perform reckless driving; she wants to support the USSH;\nhowever, she does not want to support it by allowing up to 1,000 autos; automobiles are\nclogging streets and causing traffic; she would like to work to help support and market different\nevents other than cars; expressed support for the staff recommendation of restricting or\neliminating Use Permits; stated that she would like to eliminate Use Permits authorizing large\nscale automobile oriented events in order to minimize noise, speeding and emission risks\nassociated with the events; expressed support for implementing Option 2, for implementing the\nWest Hornet fence option and for working with the USSH while events are occurring to ensure\nvisitors have good parking options; stated that she would like to leave the wheel stops in place;\nit is time to listen to residents and businesses being impacted at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the addition of\nhaving staff consider speed bumps as the situation warrants along the path towards the areas\ndepicted in the photos.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated Option 1 would restrict or eliminate Use\nPermits authorizing large-scale automobile or car events; he would be okay with eliminating Use\nPermits with the exception of maintaining the existing contract held with USSH which allows\nmaintaining a certain number of events.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is amenable to the additions to\nthe motion proposed by Councilmember Knox White.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he is okay with the addition; inquired whether the\naddition would affect Antiques by the Bay, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in\nthe negative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks a permit allowing up to 1,000 vehicles is too many\nand she would like to see the number reduced.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the reduction seems fair; inquired the amount desired.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that there has not been an issue with the USSH; he is\nconcerned about bumping up against the issue of the USSH trying to find ways to stay solid; he\nwould rather address the amount of vehicles later on if it becomes an issue; Council is taking a\nmajor steps; he does not see the need to limit the number when staff is working with USSH to\napprove appropriate auto-oriented shows to ensure events are thematic, not sideshow.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the impact of 1,000 vehicles is significant.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested staff provide input related to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's\ncomments.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation stated the current Use Permit for the USSH allows\nup to 4 car-oriented events per year and limits the events to 75 military and/or antique cars 50\nyears or older; the Use Permit is set up by treating the USSH as a museum and event space; a\nspecial event permit is only needed when 1,000 people or more are anticipated in order for staff\nto warn Police, Public Works and other departments as needed; an additional limitation is set\nwhen the special event is for a car show.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the information provided by staff and for the motion\non the table.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; it is unfortunate\nthat Council is doing an overreach and not doing more to slow down the problem; people have a\nright to park their cars and talk to other people; she is concerned about trying to eliminate\ncongregating.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his understanding of Option 2 is that people can still drive down\nthe road to the end where photos depicted people fishing.\nThe Public Works Director stated the understanding is correct; her use of the term congregate is\nrelated to the large number of vehicles, not shoreline access by individuals; the large,\nunpermitted events relate to the term congregate.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there is no prohibition on congregating; there are 846 acres\nwhere people can park their cars next to each other and congregate; the City is trying to\naddress some large areas that have attracted huge and illegal sideshows which are causing\nsignificant problems; he does not want people to think Council is keeping people from parking or\ndriving at Alameda Point.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-659) Recommendation to Adopt the City Facilities and Street Naming Policy.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Council will be involved with the development of\ncriteria.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated as-written, Council is not\ninvolved in determining the criteria; new facility names start at the Board or Commission level\nand Council determines the final, deciding vote; the process starts with the Council deciding\nwhether or not to rename; the criteria is determined at the Board or Commission level.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a Councilmember is prohibited from expressing hopes\nfor criteria during the renaming process.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the hopes for criteria\ncould be included in the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the recommendation includes maintaining the list of potential\nnames; and also includes not using the list; requested clarification for the rationale of having a\nlist which has no use.\nIn response to the Recreation and Parks Director's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated\nthat he thinks the reference was noted in the staff report and recommended by the Historical\nAdvisory Board (HAB).\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the HAB will no longer have a list and it is not\nincluded in the new policy; the Recreation and Parks Commission has expressed an interest in\nthe list of names established through the Chochenyo Park naming process; a lot of work has\nbeen put into the community process; the Recreation and Parks Commission did not want to\ndiscard the remaining names in the event another park naming process occurs; the list will be\nincluded in a community process once the criteria is determined; the staff report reflects an\nintention to not throw out any previous community work.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted page two of the staff report references keeping the list of names for\nfuture reference only.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the section was likely conflated with the list referenced by\nthe Recreation and Parks Director.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the proposed draft policy is that\nall costs associated with renaming such street shall be borne by the new property owner if a\nstreet is named after a business and the business leaves.\nThe City Planner stated the corporate street naming criteria is not being modified; a new\nbusiness or property owner will be responsible for naming the street if the prior business the\nstreet is names after leaves.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council should look at what can be done; inquired\nwhether public outreach meetings will be noticed to ensure members of the Council and public\ncan attend.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded all four of the steps are at the Board and\nCommission level and will be required to be noticed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the City knows that signers of a street name\npetition are actual residents of Alameda and whether all ages can sign the petition; further\ninquired what the process looks like.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded staff does not have a way to verify signers;\nemphasized the amount of public outreach; stated public hearings will ensure voices are heard.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are costs for homeowners to change legal\ndocuments to reflect the current name of the street; inquired whether the City would assist with\ncosts.\nThe City Planner responded there is a fee for filing the application; stated once Council\napproves the street naming, there will be time and logistic costs for residents of the street to\nchange their mailing address and work with the Post Office.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated legal documents must also be changed, not just the\nmailing address.\nThe City Planner stated some processes might involve costs; the costs are a key consideration;\nstaff has reached out to other cities with similar processes and received advice not to\nunderestimate the costs of changing a street name.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like more information about the legal\ndocument costs at some point.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Planning Board process includes applying a tiered system; two\nthirds of residents could veto a name change on their street; requested clarification.\nThe City Planner stated the idea behind the tiered system is for a relatively short street; there\nare streets in Alameda which only have 10 homes; a majority of homes would be 6 property\nowners; 500 signers on a long street might not be proportional to obtaining a majority; the\napproach is based on giving more weight to residents living on the street; the proposed\napproaches are variations on what Council might want to establish as a threshold.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report references an application process for renaming\nfacilities and streets; inquired whether the process will be criteria or subjective based or whether\nstaff will bring a report to Council.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the policy does not create criteria for whether or\nnot a facility will be renamed; stated staff will take the information from the application process,\nperform due diligence and bring the proposed change to Council; the process might be different\nfor any particular name.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the draft policy and procedures state: \"the intent of broad outreach\nand notification is to involve a more diverse group of stakeholders in the community, including\nresidents who are historically under-represented in City public discussions;\" inquired the\nresidents envisioned for the outlined section.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated more people are attending Council meetings now with\nZoom; there are many underrepresented people, including people of color, disadvantaged, low-\nincome and youth residents; the intent of the sentence is to include people who do not know\nhow to or choose not to be involved with the bureaucracy of public discussions; there is more\nthat can be done and learned about in performing outreach and getting information out to\npeople for active engagement on important issues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 13, "text": "Stated that he submitted a letter; expressed support for the work of the Recreation and Parks\nDepartment staff; stated costs should be subsidized; renaming Jackson Park was relatively\ninexpensive and was a moral imperative; discussed the City's participation in the Shuumi Land\nTax; stated the next step after acknowledging the role of colonialism and white supremacy is to\ntake substantive steps to start to materially repair the harm done to people in the community;\nthe issues are not fringe or boutique concerns; the decision between tacit acceptance or active\nrejection is fundamental to the collective conscience and the identity as a diverse, inclusive\ncommunity on the right side of history; the circle of concern extends beyond the residents of a\nstreet; the concern is for all in the community; actions taken should make people whole: Josh\nGeyer, Alameda.\nRecommended the City include a financial outlook plan as part of the consideration to allow\nhomeowners to understand potential financial impacts; the City can offer support if costs are\nmore than nominal: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nDiscussed the imposition of moral imperatives and justice; stated the issue is for the entire City;\nname changes are not urgent and should be placed on the ballot for a vote; the approach is\nmore equitable; he does not see why a handful of ideologues should be calling the shots: Jay\nGarfinkle, Alameda.\nStated the City is discussing a finite list of street and park names, which are concerning;\ndiscussed a Planning Board meeting discussion about renaming a long street, concerns about\nJackson Street and Jackson and Godfrey Parks and the process of naming Chochenyo Park;\nurged Council adopt the process to conduct renaming on an ongoing basis and focus on the\nthree potential renaming efforts as opportunities to address concerns: Drew Dara-Abrams,\nAlameda.\nStated a transition of a name change for someone includes the street name in their will, legal\ndocuments, driver license and mail; expressed concern about her elderly neighbor; stated that\nshe understands changing park names; renaming streets can be a large toll on individuals:\nMegan Larson, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella stated a lot of time has been spent discussing the naming and renaming\nprocesses; a process is being created to get street names on a list; not having enough names\nhas been an issue; the process has been bureaucratic, which is unnecessary and cumbersome;\nCouncil is also balancing having an accessible process; she has learned a lot about naming in\nher time on the City Council and HAB; much effort has been put into the matter; she is\ncomfortable with the process developed; she hears concerns about the expenses related to\nrenaming; however, the concerns are reasonably addressed by the public process.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council is not creating a new opportunity to rename streets;\nCouncil is clarifying a process; Council is deciding how to ensure people are plugged into the\nprocess; the item that jumps out to him is the focus on property owners, instead of residents;\nAlameda has 52% renters; renters voices are just as important as the people that live out of\ntown; the majority of rental units are owned by people who do not live in Alameda; ensuring\nlocal input should include renters, not just property owners; expressed support changing the\npolicy; stated the corporate naming makes the street essentially become a privately named\nroad; the business should pay for the maintenance to the named street; branding public streets\nshould not be City business; expressed concern about businesses named after a person;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 14, "text": "questioned whether Council will place a person's name on a street supporting the business, not\nthe individual person; stated Council should allow for wiggle room; the policy is great and carries\nforward a lot of discussions held at both the Council and Boards/Commissions levels; there are\nalready two requests for naming which have met the criteria set; the alternatives include\nproviding direction to form an ad hoc committee to discuss street names; expressed support for\nCouncil providing direction to move Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street renaming forward through\nthe process; stated the time is now; the change from Jackson Park to Chochenyo Park was a\ntwo and a half year process; Council should not have to wait for moments of community uproar\nto take on some issues; Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street are two good examples where the\ncommunity has stood up; after the new policy is adopted, he hopes Council can provide\ndirection to bring the names back for discussion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to include both residents and\nproperty owners in regards to collection of 50% plus one signature; she agrees with\nCouncilmember Knox White about the corporate street naming having the corporation maintain\nthe named street; she thinks the corporation should include enough money so that any\ndeparture on the business' part should not include costs borne by the new business entity to\nremove the former company name; Council has received an email about using the name of a\ndeceased person after three years; stated that she would prefer ten years; expressed support\nfor ways to reimburse property owners for costs of changing legal documents related to street\nname changes; stated owners could submit the actual costs to the City for reimbursement; the\nchanges could be expensive.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is struck by, and appreciative of, the importance\nof\nhaving Council start the conversation of renaming streets or facilities; the criteria for Chochenyo\nPark caused him to vote no on the matter; there could be other criteria to consider; a portion of\nthe criteria considered is racial diversity; expressed support for the community being more equal\nand representative; he feels as though staff has included responses to concerns previously\nraised; he sees the process in which ideologues on the far left, right or center cannot hijack it;\nexpressed support for Council being involved from the beginning to the end of the process in\nrenaming of streets; stated it is important to analyze the cost implications for property owners;\nhe would like to know the costs that will be borne to change mortgage and related documents;\nrenaming streets should include understanding and analyzing associated costs; expressed\nsupporting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes everything that has been recommended and laid out;\nCouncil needs to have more information about private companies naming a street; discussed a\nprior issue with the Penumbra request since the business is located on multiple streets; stated\nPostal Carriers were confused about where to deliver mail; the United States Postal Service\n(USPS) asked the City whether it would be possible to have the main corporate building be set\nas 1 Penumbra Way; she worked with the Building Official and the USPS Postmaster for\nAlameda to make the change; she does not know whether the address change should require\npaying for street maintenance; expressed support for staff looking into the implications; stated\nthe maintenance requirement might be a quantum leap above naming a street after a business;\nan effective process has been laid out; she would like to see the process adopted and followed;\nshe is hesitant to put together an ad hoc committee for renaming Jackson Street and Godfrey\nPark; Jackson Street and Godfrey Park can be moved to the top of the queue while using the\nadopted process; she does not think someone needs to be deceased for ten years to consider\nusing their name; three years seems like a reasonable time frame.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Knox White's street renaming\nrecommendation of having resident-only signatories gets rid of the option to have 50% plus 1 of\nproperty owners or 500 resident signatories; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is\namenable to the option of having either.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded that he is okay with having the option; stated there is\nbenefit to having 50% of the street concurring, which gets to the concern of people impacted by\nthe name change; people affected by the change can sign-off on beginning the process;\nexpressed concern about the requirement of 500 signatures approving the change when the\nsignatories might not live on the street.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like clarification that the 50% plus 1 signatories of\nproperty owners would not be eliminated; inquired whether 500 Alameda resident signatories\nmust include a certain percentage of street residents.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the 50% plus 1 signatories are not property owners, but\npeople who live on the street to be renamed; expressed concern about property owners living in\nSouthern California not knowing the City; stated there are large corporate land owners with\nhundreds of units in Alameda; questioned whether Council should allow large corporations to\nvote on the matter; stated that he would rather consider the residents of the street; the intention\nis to make sure that the people living on the street have an opportunity to say whether or not\nthey would like the change.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how Council will determine that the 500 Alameda signatories are\nactual residents.\nThe City Planner responded staff has looked into the issue; stated initially, staff's approach was\ndirected towards property owners due to having good property owner data; staff does not have\ngood data on tenants, especially new tenants; based on input from Boards, Commissions and\nmembers of the public, staff added the possibility of either 50% plus 1 of property owners and\nresidents or at least 500 Alameda resident signatures; petitions should include a name and\naddress; staff does not have very good data to verify all 500 signers are actual Alameda\nresidents or residents of the street in question; the signature requirements are a threshold to\ninitiate the conversation; when staff schedules the hearing before the City Council, staff will\nformally notify the residents and occupants of the street to be renamed.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is okay with either the 50% plus 1 resident property\nowners or 500 Alameda resident signatures; the corporate name issue can include the City\nwaiving fees in the future; Council should be careful not to start down a road where corporations\nname City streets.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the petition with 500 signatures will be required to be\na paper petition or whether the signatures can be electronic.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded there is no requirements for the signatures;\nstated the signatures can be paper, electronic or a combination of both.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the 500 signatures is there is no\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 16, "text": "way to verify signers are residents of Alameda; inquired whether staff will be asking for name\nand address within the City in order to verify and confirm residency.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the policy stipulates the signatures need to be\n500 Alameda residents; stated a petition turned in with 500 random names and no addresses\nwill be rejected due to non-compliance.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated when a company with a street named after it leaves,\nthe City could waive fees for the new company; she does not think it is appropriate for a new\ncompany to pay to change the street name; the City has companies of all sizes which come and\ngo.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the process for verification of the 500 signatures; noted some\ninstances only require a portion or sample of the signatures be verified.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the process is to be determined; stated staff does\nnot have a method outlined in the policy; the petition is not being considered on the same level\nas an election; the petition is the start of a conversation that would include a five-step publically\nnoticed discussion where the public can make their voices heard.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with a change to the\ncorporate street naming criteria to collect funds to pay for future renaming if the company moves\noff the street and direction to staff to work with the submitters of the two petitions having over\n500 signatures to begin the process to submit an application for Council consideration for\nGodfrey Park and Calhoun Street.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street would go through the\nprocess recommended by staff, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the 500 signatures should\nbe residents of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the signers need to make a best effort of having\nAlameda residents; stated the signatures are not for a ballot measure; City staff does not need\nto call and verify residency of the 500 people; he accepts at face value that the signers live in\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the reimbursement for costs on a street\nrenaming has been addressed.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the reimbursement is not part of the policy; stated\nreimbursement can be part of the discussion when the matter comes forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would rather not have the two renaming additions\nincluded in the motion; discussed qualifying signatures; stated a signature with no address is\nnot valid; he is still able to move support the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 17, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.\n***\n(21-660) Recommendation to Support County of Alameda Participation in an Enhanced\nInfrastructure Financing District in Support of the Oakland Athletics Stadium at Howard\nTerminal. Not heard.\n(21-661) Resolution No. 15829, \"Authorizing the Issuance of One or More Series of Pension\nObligation Bonds (POB) to Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City to the California\nPublic Employees' Retirement System, Authorizing the Initiation of a Judicial Validation Action\nby the City Attorney, and Approving and Directing Related Matters.\" Adopted.\nJulio Morales, Urban Futures, Inc. (UFI) gave a PowerPoint presentation.\n(21-662) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to allow additional time; inquired how\nmuch time is needed.\nMr. Morales responded 2 to 3 minutes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested 5 additional minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing 5 additional minutes.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nMr. Morales concluded the PowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that Mr. Morales is a consultant for the City; inquired\nhow much Mr. Morales has been paid to date, plus any issuance additional costs; questioned\nthe structure of payments to Mr. Morales.\nThe City Manager responded the pension analysis has cost $32,000.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a second portion to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's\ninquiry related to issuance.\nThe City Manager stated an issuance will require a financial advisor with a flat fee of $90,000 to\n$100,000.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $32,000 has been in full.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the cost does not include the financial\nplanning from earlier in the year.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be additional costs paid to Mr.\nMorales or UFI for the next step in approvals or whether the $32,000 covers the next step.\nThe City Attorney responded the validation action is a legal action; the associated legal fees\nhave been shared confidentially in Closed Session and is subject to attorney-client privilege with\nrespect to legal fees; the legal fees do not cover Mr. Morales' fees.\nMr. Morales stated the services provided to-date include what is needed to validate; fees are\ncovered in the quote provided by staff.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether multiple issuances of the bond over 20 years\ncould occur and whether additional costs will be paid to UFI.\nMr. Morales responded each time a bond financing occurs, fees are incurred; the City would pay\nfirm staff, lawyers, financial advisors and underwriters for each transaction.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many transactions are anticipated and the\nestimated total cost at the end of 20 years.\nMr. Morales responded typically, one bond is issued with a 20 year timeline; stated often there\nis an opportunity to refinance for cost savings within a 10 year period; the process is similar to a\nmortgage being refinanced in time; at least one transaction, possibly two, is a reasonable\nestimate.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the dollar amount for each transaction.\nMr. Morales responded the current market value is $90,000 to $100,000; stated that he\nanticipates the cost would go up in 10 years due to inflation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council will be hearing from the City's\nelected Auditor and Treasurer.\nThe City Manager responded that he has had discussion the with City Treasurer about\ninvolvement moving forward; noted the City Treasurer has his hand raised for public comment.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City Treasurer and Auditor are being\nallowed three minutes to speak or whether they will be treated as a paid consultant.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the meeting will proceed as usual, according to Council rules; stated\na vote to extend speaking time can occur; however, four affirmative votes are needed.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested each of the consultants provide personal background and\ncertification information.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 19, "text": "Mr. Morales stated that he is a Director at UFI; he has over 30 years of public and corporate\nfinancing experience; he has a degree from the University of Michigan, a Masters of Public\nPolicy from Harvard University, a Masters of Business Administration in Finance and Real\nEstate as a Dean's fellow from University of California Los Angeles; he has worked at\nTransamerica Corporation and abroad as a Technical Advisor for the United States Treasury\nand the Country of Paraguay; he has extensive derivative, mathematical and quantitative\nexperience doing complex financial transactions, including P3's, derivative transactions and\ncomplex valuations and workouts.\nJames Wawrzyniak stated that he is Bond Counsel from the law firm Jones Hall; Jones Hall is a\nbond counsel only firm which represents public agencies in public finance transactions including\nPOBs, lease revenue bonds and other kinds of municipal financing; the Jones Hall firm is\nlocated in San Francisco, has been a bond counsel firm for 50 years and has represented\nhundreds of cities and local agencies throughout the State; he has worked with multiple cities\naround the Bay Area for the past 5 years; he previously practiced corporate law and graduated\nfrom Harvard Law School.\nStated the idea has some merit and also carries a lot of risk; the City owes the public a thorough\nvetting of the matter before issuing any bonds; he and the City Auditor have not been involved\nin any discussions on the matter prior to tonight; he has not seen any public discussion; the\nappendix of the presentation includes a great outline of an outreach program, which includes\nCouncil workshops and community meetings; the City should follow the program outlined prior\nto taking any final action; expressed support for putting the matter on the ballot to have voters\nweigh-in; the resolution indicates the City is going for both judicial approval and approving an\nissuance; Section 4 of the resolution indicates hiring a finance team, which seems premature\nduring the process to seek judicial approval; he is in favor of getting judicial approval; the\napproval puts the City in a place to make an educated decision; the matter requires more\ndiscussion in public and among Council; the City needs to fully understand the matter and risks:\nKevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.\nQuestioned how the bond payments will be made, if payments are by property taxes if renters\nwould be charged and could landlords add the payments to rent if renters are not charged;\nstated the current residents ran up the bill and should be the ones to pay; payments can be\nmade with money already held, such as the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding;\nexpressed support for the idea of paying the cost over time: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nStated that he hopes the City can follow the plan on page 34 of the presentation; the decision is\nimportant; expressed support for a thorough analysis and considering the dollar amounts;\nexpressed concern about the effect and impact on possible future borrowings; discussed a\nfuture infrastructure bond; stated that he is concerned about how the allocation of funds is going\nto be amongst the two groups; expressed support for a pro-rata approach and for a discussion\non the possibility of involving voters; discussed the City of Oakland's similar experience not\nworking out; stated the timing of the market is a crucial element; he is not 100% sure where the\nCity is going; urged Council to consider the timing of the market; stated there is a long way to go\nbefore making the decision; the public needs to be involved; further communication is needed;\nfuture generations are stuck with the decision: Kevin Kearney, City Auditor.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how payments will be made and any\nimplications for property owners.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 20, "text": "Mr. Wawrzyniak stated the payment is through the General Fund which is the same as the\nunfunded CalPERS liability; the General Fund includes property and sales tax and is available\nfor all purposes; the General Fund is currently paying CalPERS; instead of paying CalPERS,\nthere will be debt service payments on the bond; no new additional taxes would be levied.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City is currently covering pensions or\nwhether the City is continuing to accrue more unfunded pension liabilities.\nThe City Manager responded the bond would pay for the unfunded liability; stated the payment\nis for unfunded liabilities, which accrued over time; moving forward CalPERS set out a schedule\nand cost per employee for current and future liabilities; the current format is set; however, there\nis no guarantee of payment; as more employees are hired, an extra percentage is paid per\nemployee.\nMr. Morales stated the normal costs are part of the current bill; the City has to pay its normal\ncost at a minimum; the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is a past due amount; the UAL is $300\nmillion; the City has a big mountain to climb; eventually $22 million will go to approximately $30\nmillion; as increases or other adjustments occur, the amount will fluctuate; as long as the City\nmakes the UAL payments, plus the $6.7 million, the City should be able to pay it off, with the\ncaveat of annual adjustments made by CalPERS; the liability is dynamic and ever-changing; if\nthe City keeps pace with the adjustments, the City should be able to keep pace with the\nliabilities; CalPERS is similar to a bank; whatever deposits are made to the system, investments\nare managed and trued up every year; the City could fall behind; the $30 million base liability\nnot being paid in cash at once would mean the $6.7 million, plus the $20 million UAL payment\nand the new base of $33 million could be spread out over a typical 20 year period; it is important\nto understand that the amount is not static; the liability is changing and dynamic.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has enough money in reserves to\npay as it goes for the next five to ten years; stated that when she looks at the numbers, she\ndoes not think the City has enough money to pay as it goes.\nThe Finance Director responded the normal cost is based on the percentage of payroll; each\nbudget cycle has to budget the costs; the City currently covers the normal costs as a\npercentage of payroll; the budget is sufficient to cover the current and next year.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated a chart shows the current payments as dropping at\nyear 10 or 15; inquired whether the City will be paying more in the last years.\nMr. Morales responded many cities have a similar profile; stated the payment schedule has a\npeak; almost every agency has the peak around $32 to $33 million; credits and liabilities are\nadded each year, so the structure of the UAL payment increase might change as it has in the\npast.\nThe City Manager stated the current annual UAL payments to the UAL total $557 million in\npayments without financing.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the drop from 2043 to 2044 occurs.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 21, "text": "Mr. Morales responded that he has structured the POBs to match the dollar amount of the final\nyears; stated bonds are done in $5,000 increments; the image shown is as close as possible\nmathematically.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether current interest rates were used to project\nthe amounts, to which Mr. Morales responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the number used.\nMr. Morales responded municipal bonds are a series of bonds; each year has a different interest\nrate; stated a coupon rate is included; the amounts are also priced as a spread to treasury,\nwhich is different from a tax-exemption; pricing the amount day-of, the City will have the two\nyear treasury rate; an underwriter who sells and buys the bonds to investors will explain the\nbonds as market rate for 25 basis points above the two year treasury rate; the pricing will be up\nto the 3, 5, 7, 20 and 30 year treasury rate; all rates are indexed off the spread; there is an\ninterest rate cushion; recent bonds have all been below 3% on the back end; a significant\ncushion has been given due to the required four to six month validation period.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens to numbers if fluctuation happens.\nMr. Morales responded interest rates going down result in the bottom number lowering; stated\none interest rate is not used in the calculation; multiple interest rates are used; a gross spread\nhas been presented, with an average rate of 3.33%; interest rates that increase, cause a\ndecrease in cushion or savings; a 0.75% point cushion from current market rates is considered\nconservative.\nThe City Manager stated UFI included rate a 0.75% higher than the current rate.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the cities that lost money on the same process\ndid wrong and why the recommendation is the right thing to do.\nMr. Morales responded other cities POBs were completed at much higher interest rate\nenvironments and had unideal timing; discussed case studies; stated bonds issued in 2008\nwere not done at a good time and had a 6% interest rate; the use of cab structures, or zero\ncoupon bonds, extended payments and took payment holidays; a number of different things are\neffecting other cities, including not using the most prudent financial practices; UFI does not\nguarantee the financial outcome; when cities study and understand the risk, the results are\nsubstantially different.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is mindful of the comments provided by the City Auditor\nand Treasurer; Council should make sure there is as much information and outreach as\npossible; further steps will be taken prior to a final decision to issue POBs; expressed support\nfor understanding the further steps; stated that she would like more flesh on the bones of the\nsection referring to the strategy to recommended setting 50% of the POB savings creating a\nsinking fund to stabilize any future risks and pension obligations; she would have liked more\ninformation about the sinking fund savings; she would like to know more about the option before\nvoting to authorize issuance of POBs; she is intrigued and has been preaching about how the\nCity needs to set aside a portion of all unanticipated revenues once debts are paid down; she\nwould like more information before Council embarks on the current step.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated that his understanding is Council needs to authorize staff to\nmove forward through the process laid out on page 41 of the presentation; the process is four to\nsix months; Council may provide direction during that time; he agrees and has questions which\nshould come back, including policy recommendations about the sinking fund; he would like to\nensure that Council is being asked to start the process and provide direction as to what should\ncome back for discussion as part of the process before voting to authorize any bonds.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, the City Manager stated the current matter is the first step;\nstaff will have to return to Council before bonds are issued; Council is not be able to issue\nbonds under the current action; the Official Statement has to return to Council as a step in the\nprocess; additional steps are included on page 34 of the presentation; this step is critical in the\nprocess and needs to be taken prior to other steps over the next four to six months; a delay is\nfine; however, an interest rate risk is associated.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether or not the City Auditor and Treasurer were consulted.\nThe City Manager responded there have been brief discussions; neither has been fully involved\nwith the matter.\nMr. Morales stated every day of delay is costing roughly $30,000; the current matter does not\nnecessarily approve anything; legally, staff has to come back to Council to approve the offering\ndocument, known as the Official Statement; approving the first step will save the City money;\nthere is time to put on workshops, ask questions and perform analysis; he has more than\nenough time and ability to answer almost every question raised.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can proceed on more than one front at the same time;\ninquired whether the City Attorney is in agreement about the four to six months court validation\nprocess.\nThe City Attorney responded it is difficult to predict litigation timelines; stated that he does not\nwant to predict timelines in open session; staff is happy to discuss the matter privately in Closed\nSession.\nThe City Manager outlined the current estimated debt service under the assumptions in the\npresentation; stated the debt service is projected under the interest rate of 3.3%; outlined\nbudgetary savings and UAL costs; stated his recommendation is not to spend all the savings\nand have Council set aside up to 50% of the money; staff will have to bring back a process to\nset aside any money; over two to three years, any volatility or risk associated would be solved\nthrough the sinking fund; if Council sets aside $4 to $5 million per year, the City would have\n$10 to $15 million in the first three to four years to mitigate against any downsides of investment\nrisk.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined rating agencies taking a neutral position on POBs; stated\nagencies are taking the time to study pension liabilities and understand the risk of POBs;\ninquired the risks Council should be aware of.\nMr. Morales stated most of the risks have been addressed through the systematic process; the\nrisk of investment is not germane to POBs; ARPA funds cannot be used on pension obligations;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 23, "text": "there is still the risk of whether or not now is the correct time to invest, regardless of the source\nof money; Council must decide whether now is the right time to invest; outlined various risk\nassessments; stated the most difficult part of POBs is that municipalities are not necessarily\ndesigned to take on the inherent equity risks; when all bonds changed over from fixed income\ninvestments to equities and fixed income, everyone was looking for gain to be received; equities\nare a rollercoaster ride; risk free options do not come with the gain of equities; the pension\ncomponent adds to the equity risks and occurs with CalPERS every day; the liability will be\nsomething to live with; the risk is difficult to address; however, Council can follow systematic\nmethods; the market timing is the primary risk to deal with.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated while considering the matter, Council must simultaneously be\nlooking at ways to keep the City's pension obligations from increasing unreasonably; discussed\nhiring contractors versus full-time benefitted employees and using Code Compliance Officers for\ninspections instead of Firefighters; stated that she looks to the City Manager to help manage\npension obligations; Council cannot keep digging out of a hole with one shovel while filling with\nanother; when staff are added, the City has to pay a long-term obligation long after the current\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council and residents need to understand the magnitude of the\ndecision; Council is considering issuing a POB for roughly $298 million to cover unfunded\nliabilities; when the interest is added, the actual amount comes out to roughly $420 million; he\nunderstands the net present value based on the discount rate; Council is considering the\npossibility of $420 million; he is focusing on four areas of the matter.\n(21-663) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first two referrals.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether Council Communications will still be able to be\nheard.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council must consider hearing new, regular,\nagenda items after 11:00 p.m., not the agenda sections of Oral, Council and City Manager\nCommunications.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would still hear Oral and Council\nCommunications, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the remaining regular agenda item being discussed does not\nneed a motion to continue.\nThe City Clerk stated the remaining Consent Calendar item related to the Cultivate agreement is\noutstanding due to being moved to the end of the Regular Agenda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. in order\nto hear the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which failed since it required four affirmative-votes, by\nthe following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the Cultivate agreement to Section 6 of the\nNovember 2, 2021 agenda.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the magnitude of the matter is beyond the initial $298 million\nPOB; when the interest is taken into account, the sum is $420 million; he understands the net\npresent value of the figure is different; Council should not take the Government Finance Officers\nAssociation (GFOA) insight related to POBs lightly; the GFOA are the people who certify the\nannual budget and are a reputable organization that the City turns to for validation; the GFOA's\nadvisory states that State and local governments should not issue POBs; Council should frame\nits discussion based on the vantage point of the GFOA; discussed how POBs previously worked\nfor cities; stated cities would invest the POB money into the market in the hopes that the Return\nOn Investment (ROI) would be above the 3.5% interest rate; Council is not attempting a\nprevious POB approach; the new approach would generate and issue a $298 million POB in\norder to pre-pay the City's unfunded liability; expressed support for the new POB approach;\nstated the new approach is not without risks; if the return rate from CalPERS is not be 7% in the\nnext year, the unfunded liability rate would recalibrate; the City will have to make up for the\nshortfall; the budgetary savings would be south of $2.7 million; CalPERS' return falling to the\nsame amount of or less than the interest being paid is a concern and eliminates the POB\nsavings; outlined employee hires eliminating the budgetary savings, which eliminates the\npurpose of the POB; stated the City Manager is correct in his recommendation for a strict, fiscal\nstrategy in order to ensure locking the budgetary savings; CalPERS might have a return rate\nhigher than 7% and will not issue a refund for any excess paid; the City will still pay the annual\ndebt service; he recommends going slow; he will not support the matter.\nMr. Morales stated the matter is complex; CalPERS returned 21.4% in the past fiscal year; the\nCity will get a credit of $74.3 million; CalPERS has announced that the discount rate has to go\ndown to 6.8%, which increases liability; the City will net $24 million; the $295 million liability will\nlikely be somewhere closer to $241 million; a demographic adjustment always comes into the\nprocess; there is a lot of estimation because the POB is a $300 million liability which changes\neach year; he recommends the $295 million amount because of the CalPERS adjustment; the\nCity does not have to borrow the full amount; there are a lot of mathematics and moving parts;\noutlined credits and cash flows; stated impacts would drive payments down; projections have\nbeen shared with City staff; the City should ask for the full amount and decide the amount,\nstructure and when to perform the POB in the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the GFOA advisory.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 25, "text": "Mr. Morales stated the GFOA has a warning on its website which states: \"Do not issue pension\nobligation bonds;\" a number of policies are designed to be written for the entire country; the\nCity's financial sophistication is different from anyone else; the GFOA policy is written with cities\nwhich might not have high financial sophistication; the information is important because each\nplan, State law and funding level is different; the CalPERS system is different from the County\nof Alameda, the State of New Jersey, Illinois or Minnesota; the GFOA writes one universal\npolicy to cover the nation; the financial circumstances of each agency in the country are\ndifferent; UFI believes a number of the circumstances have been addressed; the most\ndisconcerting part about the GFOA is the advisory not to issue POBs without any recommended\nalternative options provided outside of using reserves; Council should feel free to adhere to the\nGFOA advisory; however, the points and counterpoints mentioned by the GFOA should also be\nconsidered; the matter is complex and has some downsides, which include equity risks; the\nanswer is not easy; doing nothing has a detrimental impact on operations going forward; the\nprojected operating deficit has to do with increasing pension costs and a shortfall over the next\nfour to five years; the deficit is due to an increase in UAL payments.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the current economy, stock market and low interest rates are\nsustainable and factors into the matter.\nMr. Morales responded rates are at historic lows, which makes the matter compelling; stated the\ndiscount rate has lowered; he does not believe the growth will continue on a long-term basis; a\nsecond industrial revolution is causing some tremendous economic growth; cities cannot\ncontinue at 21.3% growth and outrun the problem; the orders are taking more measured steps\nand being realistic; outlined gains and downsides; stated Council must consider the downside;\nCouncilmember Daysog is correct in his statements about risk; there are things the City can do\nto prepare itself; the POB is not a panacea and is not without risk; Council should take the time\nto understand and think about alternative options; doing nothing is not ideal; a plan to address\nthe matter is needed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; she would\nhave liked the City Auditor and Treasurer to have had more time to speak; it is premature to\nproceed at this time; the City needs to look at both sides of the equation; she would like to hear\nfrom community members; expressed support for a workshop; stated the matter is a huge risk;\nexpressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments; stated the comments help provide\nfurther understanding; the City is rushing through a huge risk; expressed support for the matter\nreturning with more information; noted cities have lost a lot of money on POBs; the examples of\nlosses have been minimized in the report.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification from the City Manager on how he envisions the\nprocess going forward.\nThe City Manager stated the City will start the court process and simultaneously come back with\na Council work session and public meetings; the policies can be refined; staff will return to\nCouncil after the court decision and bring back a full recommendation; there is risk associated\nwith the matter; the risk of doing nothing will cost roughly $530 million; the POB solution helps.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated the timeline is about four\nto six months; court processes can cause delay; four to six months has been the average time\nin other communities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 26, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the matter would return to Council next.\nThe City Manager responded staff can hold a workshop in the following months to continue the\neducational period; staff will perform other steps during the four to six months in order to\nprepare Council to make a decision.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the validation process included in the presentation\nis accurate, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White noted sometime between now and next February, there will be a\nworkshop; inquired whether the matter will come to many meetings in March and April and\nCouncil approval is set for May or June.\nMr. Morales responded the assessment is correct.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has been doom and gloom on the economy for some\ntime; he is happy to be proven wrong; if Council wishes to take advantage of the POB, the\nadvantage should be taken earlier, rather than later; bond rates will likely only go up; every\nmonth of waiting is a month of increased rates; the concerns raised are reasonable; expressed\nsupport for Councilmember Daysog requesting UFI's staff bona fides; stated the City Auditor\nand Treasurer will provide input and recommendations; the City Auditor and Treasurer have\nboth expressed support for moving forward to start the conversation.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of\nthe resolution] with direction to ensure there are two workshops, not Council meetings, between\nnow and the first Council approval whereby the City can have Mr. Morales and City staff give\na\npresentation and have a deep discussion with Council and the community.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Council owes the City and constituents a\nconversation to explore the option; the experts have said now is the time to have the discussion\nbased on bond ratings; other jurisdictions have done so at less opportune moments; she does\nnot want to be in a situation where Council is making decisions out of desperation; she wants to\nbe in a position to make decisions based off the best possible set of facts, knowing that Council\nis acting in a fiscally responsible manner; doing nothing is fiscally irresponsible; expressed\nsupport for taking a step forward in giving direction to return to Council to look at POBs as an\noption, allowing for a vetting process, the chance for people to weigh-in to have a work session\nand for Council to make an informed decision about whether a POB is the right thing at the right\ntime for the City; the matter does not exclude the ability to look at other options and parallel\ntracks; Council must ensure the City is put in a financial position that is responsible; she has not\nheard the City Auditor or Treasurer oppose exploring the possibility of a POB; the timeline\nprovides the opportunity for full vetting; expressed support for moving forward; stated doing\nnothing will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will create an even bigger problem; she\nhopes the City can take a positive step forward.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important that Council considers steps to ensure the City is not\ncreating more liability in moving forward; expressed support for moving forward carefully; stated\nthat she would like staff to explore ways to minimize getting further into debt; inquired whether\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 27, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the resolution begins by stating for Council to authorize\nissuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds; the resolution contradicts the\ncurrent discussion; the resolution has more legal significance then being suggested.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification be provided by the City Attorney.\nThe City Attorney stated Section 1 of the resolution exists, so that staff can validate and bring a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 19, 2021\n26", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 28, "text": "judicial action for bonds; if Council approves filing a judicial validation action, bonds must exist\nas a requirement under State law; staff has provided assurances verbally and in Section 5 of the\nresolution that the matter will return to Council before finalization occurs; there will be nothing\nfor staff to validate if Section 1 of the resolution is removed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process has to take place in order to begin; checkpoints occur\nin the timeline.\nMr. Morales stated it is Council's legal and fiduciary duty to review the Authorizing Statement; a\nbond cannot be sold without Council authorizing the Authorizing Statement; the document has\nnot been generated; there is currently no way the City could legally issue or sell bonds without\ncoming back to Council.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-664) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about information not being released\nregarding the Mario Gonzales investigation.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-665) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-666) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-667) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-668) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting\nHousing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember\nDaysog). Not heard.\n(21-669) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to\nDevelop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-\n2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.\n(21-670) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers\nHerrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-671) Councilmember Knox White made an announcement regarding the AC Transit Inter-\nAgency Liaison meeting and an upcoming special meeting of the City Council and School Board\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-10-19", "page": 29, "text": "Subcommittee.\n(21-672) Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit will have cameras and be able to issue fines\nfor cars parked in bus stops; announced that he attended the First Tee event at the Chuck\nCorica Golf Course.\n(21-673) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she attended the Italian Heritage Festival\nparade in San Francisco; announced an upcoming Airport Noise Forum meeting; expressed\nconcern about the letter to the County supporting the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District\n[paragraph no. 21-660 being added to the agenda.\n(21-674) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended Walk and Roll to School Day at\nWood Middle School and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she also attended both the Walk and Roll to\nSchool Day and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony.\nADJOURNMENT\n(21-675) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:40\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nOctober 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf"}