{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 5, 2018- - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Vella was present via teleconference from the\nHilton at 10000 Beach Club Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina\n29572.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(18-314) Mayor Spencer announced the State of the City [paragraph no. 18-338 would\nnot be heard; inquired whether the Assessment Report [paragraph no. 18-340 could be\nheard after the Public Hearing [paragraph no. 18-339].\nThe Council concurred.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(18-315) Proclamation Declaring June 2018 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month and\nJune 15, 2018, as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Dena Aindow, District\nAttorney's Office, and Vanessa Baker, Adult Protective Services.\nMs. Aindow and Ms. Baker made brief comments.\n(18-316) Proclamation Declaring June 2018 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,\nand Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) Pride Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Niklas Ratzlaff and Dezaree\nDoroliat, NEA Community Learning Center.\nMr. Ratzlaff made brief comments.\n(18-317) The Public Works Director introduced the new City Engineer.\n(18-318) The City Clerk made a brief announcement about the new meeting Rules of\nOrder.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 2, "text": "(18-319) Rich Moskowitz, Alameda, expressed concern over cannabis businesses\nfailing to meet minimum requirements and there not being applicants for all categories;\nquestioned the process; suggested the process be reopened and remain rolling until\nopen slots are filled; suggested changes be made to sensitive sites.\n(18-320) Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda, submitted information;\nsuggested a revision to Council's salary be placed on the November ballot, and that\nCouncil have part-time staff and a $150 stipend per month; expressed concern over rent\nincreases at Independence Plaza.\n(18-321) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, discussed development and job creation.\n(18-322) Catherine Pauling, Alameda, expressed concern over progressives being\ntargeted by landlords and investors, the culture to of the community being in a fight to\nsurvive, high residential turnover; and funding to fight renters.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Alameda Point Transportation Demand\nManagement Plan [paragraph no. 18-326], the Library bond resolution [paragraph no.\n18-328], and the workforce change resolution [paragraph no. 18-329 were removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion; the inclusionary housing program [paragraph\nno. 18-330 would not be heard; Councilmember Oddie is abstaining from voting on the\nminutes [paragraph no. 18-323]; and that she would vote against the ordinance\namending the Sunshine Ordinance [paragraph no. 18-336].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(18-323) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on May 1, 2018. Approved.\n[Note: Councilmember Oddie abstained from voting on the minutes. The item carried by\nthe following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor\nSpencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.]\n(*18-324) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,613,439.81.\n(*18-325) Recommendation to Consent to the Public Utilities Board's Request to Solicit\nBids and Sell One Surplus Small Bucket Utility Vehicle. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 3, "text": "(*18-326) Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a Third\nAmendment with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., to Increase Compensation by\n$20,000 for a Total Not to Exceed $94,999, with the Option of Two One-Year\nExtensions with Compensation Not to Exceed $20,000 Per Year, for a Total Aggregate\nCompensation Not to Exceed $134,999, to Continue Providing Technical and Strategic\nEngineering Support for Major Transportation Projects. Accepted.\n(18-326) Summary Title: Approve Actions to Implement the Alameda Point\nTransportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan\nResolution No. 15383, \"Authorizing the City of Alameda to Ratify the TDM Fee Amount\nfor Existing Tenants in Alameda Point.\" Adopted;\n(18-326A) Recommendation to Allow a Pass Through of the TDM Fees from Existing\nTenants in Alameda Point to the Alameda Transportation Management Association\n(TMA); and\n(18-326B) Recommendation to Allow a Pass Through of the Special Taxes Generated\nfor Transportation Purposes from Property Owners within Community Facilities District\n17-1 (CFD 17-1) at Alameda Point to the Alameda TMA.\nExpressed concern over the assessments, which pose a serious financial challenge for\nthe Hornet; urged the plan be tabled until a comprehensive demand analysis can be\nreviewed to determine visitor and employee benefits for the Hornet: Michael McCarron,\nUSS Hornet.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a special category for non-profit\nbusinesses and whether concerns were raised during the process.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager responded there was a lot of discussion about\nwhether different uses fall into certain categories; stated there was one rate originally;\ndifferent rates were proposed because of the different uses and to try to address issues\nraised; due to the Hornet's square footage, work was done to reduce and minimize the\nrate; all businesses, including the Alameda Point Collaborative, are paying the fee;\nthere are many reasons employers would want to be exempt; exemptions would open\nthe door to having less than full participation and would undermine the program.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding possibly losing the Hornet, the Acting\nAssistant City Manager stated the rate was negotiated with the Hornet's previous\nExecutive Director; tonight is the first she heard the assessment would be a financial\nhardship.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding revising the assessment, the Acting\nAssistant City Manager stated the decision falls on the Council; other tenants also had\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 4, "text": "questions and have gotten on board; to start, the program was reduced to very minimal;\nthe rates were bifurcated; at the last meeting with many of the tenants, there was\ngeneral support for the more limited program, which is before Council and minimizes the\nimpacts and fees.\nMayor Spencer requested a list of the tenants in support and opposed.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager responded a tenant vote was not taken; stated there\nwere four community workshops; at the final workshop, there was general support for\nthe financial plan; the Project Area Committee (PAC) and the TMA Board recommend\nthe proposal.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiries, the Acting Assistant City Manager outlined\nthe committee membership, selection process and bylaw requirements.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter could have a more public process and\nwhether there is a time limitation.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager responded there was a very public process; stated if\nthere is interest, Council could ask the TMA Board and PAC to review the amount for\nthe Hornet.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether any other tenants voted no or expressed concern.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated initially, there was a lot of concern; staff\nasked tenants to provide input about what they wanted and worked with them to provide\na number of different options; the recommendation was generally supported at the last\nmeeting.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would feel more comfortable if there was an actual vote\nof each of the tenants.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Hornet receives a substantially lower\ncost for the berth than Maritime Administration (MARAD), to which the Acting Assistant\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation; stated the\nmatter can be reviewed if the fee becomes a hardship.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the employers are being asked\nto contribute to a fund to add to the bus line and provide free transit passes; the Hornet\ngenerates a lot of traffic; there is a responsibility to help support the mitigation of traffic\nto the Hornet and Alameda Point; the previous Executive Director was part of the\nnegotiation and agreed to the amount; something can be brought back if there are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 5, "text": "hardships.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding referencing Lime Bikes, the Acting\nAssistant City Manager stated the reference should have been to a bike share program.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Noe. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*18-327) Recommendation to Reject All Bids for the Krusi Park Recreation Center\nReplacement. Accepted.\n(18-328) Resolution No. 15384, \"Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to\nLevy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter\nApproved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election\nHeld November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library.\" Adopted.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nExpressed concern over passing the tax without discussion and releasing financial\ninformation regarding the bond; urged citizens be informed about the new obligation:\nJim Strehlow, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the obligation is not new; the voters approved a 30\nyear bond in 2000; the maximum assessed value was $15.98 per $100,000, but it has\nnever been that high and has gone down; the amount is now $4.50; inquired when the\ntax will be finished.\nMayor Spencer requested the speaker's questions be answered.\nThe Finance Director responded the City's debt is in the Comprehensive Annual\nFinancial Report; stated the outstanding balance as of June 30, 2017 was a little over\n$7.9 million; outlined payments; stated the bond would be repaid in 16 years.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Matarrese co-\nchaired the Library campaign, which passed by 78.8%; discussed the assessment;\nnoted the bond was used as a matching fund to apply for State money; the State put in\n$2 for every $1 of the local match.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about the assessment being the City's\nonly indebtedness, the Finance Director responded it is the only general obligation\nbond.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(18-329) Resolution No. 15385, \"Approving a Workforce Change at Alameda Municipal\nPower (AMP) to Add One Position, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System\nAdministrator and Amending the Salary Schedule of the Electric Utility Professionals of\nAlameda (EUPA) to Add the Classification of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)\nSystem Administrator, Effective June 5, 2018.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the AMP General Manager is making the\nrequest, to which the AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the position is an essential need, to which the\nAMP General Manager responded in the affirmative; stated 36,000 meters were just\nreplaced; AMP is dealing with a lot more data and launching a customer portal;\nsomeone with a high degree of expertise is needed to monitor the health of the system,\nincluding alarms and tamper validations; the amount of data justifies the position.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the position receives PERS, to which the AMP\nGeneral Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cost was considered when AMP switched the\nmeters.\nThe AMP General Manager responded a cost benefit analysis was done when AMP\nembarked on the AMI program; stated it was obvious some positions, such as meter\nreader, would be phased out; there was also recognition that AMP is moving to a more\ntechnology-focused platform with the smart meters; there are not any plans to add more\npositions related to the program; overall, there is a benefit to the utility in terms of cost\nreduction and other operational efficiencies, such as performing activities remotely.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether or not the position was factored in as part of\nswitching over to the AMI system, to which the AMP General Manager responded there\nwas a recognition that AMP would need a position of this nature as part of the original\nbusiness case assessment.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the analysis included the cost, to which the AMP\nGeneral Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the ongoing cost have been factored into the AMI\nprogram budget, to which the AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella noted there is an internal candidate; inquired whether the position\nwould be posted in the future.\nThe AMP General Manager responded there are some potential internal candidates;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 7, "text": "stated the recruitment will be open; the position is very technical, information technology\nfocused and requires a unique skill set.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired what happens if the Council does not\napprove the recommendation.\nThe AMP General Manager responded a consultant is currently performing the function\nalong with other parts of the workforce; stated using a third party has worked as AMP\nhas ramped up deployment of the meters; somebody in house day-to-day is needed;\nthe position will interface with staff working on the meters; having the position in house\nmakes more sense.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the overall net savings, the AMP\nGeneral Manager stated that he does not have the number; AMP had three meter\nreaders and is now down to one.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the pay, the Human Resources\nDirector stated there is a savings because the cost of two meter readers is closer to\n$150,000.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether AMP's rates recently increased, to which the AMP\nGeneral Manager responded the Public Utilities Board (PUB) recently approved a 1%\naverage rate increase, which will start in July; stated a 5% rate increase was projected\nlast year; the numbers were refined and the strong financial performance over the past\nyear allowed value to be returned to the rate payers in the form a lower than expected\nrate increase.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the majority of the Council previously voted against a\nposition in another department, which would have been covered from cost recovery,\nbecause it was under PERS; compared the staffing requests; noted there seems to be\ndifferent standards for different departments.\nMayor Spencer stated the position is different because other positions are being cut due\nto smart meters being installed.\nThe AMP General Manager noted AMP's staffing level has been reduced in the last four\nyears.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Fire Chief was instructed to bring the matter\nback to Council when the costs savings is known.\nThe Acting City Manager noted the position being approved does not come from the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 8, "text": "General Fund.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the position is under PERS and will be paid by the people\nin Alameda.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: No; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(18-330) Recommendation to Amend the Inclusionary Housing Program Preference\nPoint System, Program Guidelines, including Adopting Underwriting Standards, and\nPrepare Revisions to the Appeal Process via an Ordinance. Not heard.\n(*18-331) Ordinance No. 3214, \"Authorizing the Acting City Manager to: (I) Grant an\nApproximately 67-Acre Easement to CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC, a Delaware Limited\nLiability Company (\"Carmel\") for Softscape Improvements Within an Approximately 5.3-\nAcre Roadway Dedication in the North Housing Site (Generally Bounded by Main\nStreet, Singleton Avenue, Mosley Avenue and Bette Street) in Exchange for Fee Title to\nApproximately 29-Acre Parcel from Carmel Needed to Complete the Singleton Avenue\nExtension; and (II) Execute Any and All Ancillary Documents and to Perform Any and All\nActs Necessary or Desirable to Consummate the Transaction.\" Finally passed.\n(*18-332) Ordinance No. 3215, \"Authorizing the Acting City Manager to: (I) Accept at No\nCost an Approximately 5.3 Acre Roadway Dedication from the U.S. Navy; (II) Accept at\nNo Cost an Approximately 12-Acre Site from the U.S. Navy and Transfer by Quitclaim\nDeed a Portion Thereof at No Cost to the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda in\nthe North Housing Site (Generally Bounded by Main Street, Singleton Avenue, Mosley\nAvenue and Bette Street), and (III) Execute Any and All Ancillary Documents and to\nPerform Any and All Acts Necessary or Desirable to Consummate the Transaction.\"\nFinally passed.\n(*18-333) Ordinance No. 3216, \"Authorizing the Acting City Manager to: (I) Quitclaim\na\n.26-Acre of Real Property to CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability\nCompany (\"Carmel\") as Consideration for Demolition of the Existing Improvements on\nthe Future Singleton Avenue Extension; and (II) Execute Any and All Ancillary\nDocuments and to Perform Any and All Acts Necessary or Desirable to Consummate\nthe Transaction.\" Finally passed.\n(*18-334) Ordinance No. 3217, \"Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement\n(DDA) (and Related Documents) between the City of Alameda and MidPen Housing\nCorporation, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures with Women and Children,\nand Operation Dignity for the Rebuilding of the Existing Supportive Housing\nDevelopment at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*18-335) Ordinance No. 3218, \"Approving a Development Agreement (DA) between\nthe City of Alameda and MidPen Housing Corporation, Alameda Point Collaborative,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 9, "text": "Building Futures with Women and Children, and Operation Dignity for the Rebuilding of\nthe Existing Supportive Housing Development at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(18-336) Ordinance No. 3219, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Deleting\nSection 2-91.13.f of the Sunshine Ordinance Pertaining to Meeting Adjournment.\"\nFinally passed.\n[Note: Mayor Spencer voted no. The item carried by the following vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\n- 1.]\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(18-337) Resolution No. 15386, \"Appointing Chris Pondok as a Member of the\nRecreation and Parks Commission.\" Adopted; and\n(18-337A) Adoption of Reappointing Ruben Tilos as a Member of the Recreation and\nParks Commission. Not adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the votes be separate.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution appointing Chris\nPondok.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution appointing Ruben Tilos.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Abstained; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Abstained; Vice Mayor Vella: Abstained; and Mayor Spencer:\nAye. Ayes: 2. Abstentions: 3.\nThe City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented a certificate of appointment\nto Mr. Pondok.\n(18-338) Mayor's State of the City Address. Not heard.\n(18-339) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15387, \"Establishing Integrated\nWaste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.\n(ACI) for Rate Period 17 (July 2018 to June 2019). Adopted.\nThe Public Works Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted ACI's fleet was transitioned to alternative fuel\nvehicles; stated next time, ACI should convert the vehicles to electric, perhaps using\nWrightspeed, which installs battery operated drive trains; outlined vehicles Wrightspeed\nhas converted.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the contract length, the Public Works\nCoordinator stated the initial 10 year franchise has been extended for another 10 years;\nthe contract will end in 2022.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding replacing the vehicles, the Public\nWorks Coordinator noted ACI has been looking at Wrightspeed vehicles.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a sweetheart deal or Request for Proposals\nprocess would be appropriate.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded the type of equipment and advancements in\ntechnology is just being explored.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not use the term sweetheart deal and\ndid not mean to imply doing so; it was just her suggestion that ACI look to convert to\nelectric and she knows a company at Alameda Point happens to do the work; she was\nonly promoting an Alameda Business, not negotiating a contract.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council should be careful not to dictate who the City's\ncontractors select.\nChris Valbusa, ACI, stated ACI is about half way through the life cycle of its vehicles;\nACI is interested in all technologies and seeks out new technologies to stay on the\nforefront of what is available.\nMayor Spencer stated it is not appropriate for one Councilmember to ask ACI what to\ndo with its trucks, which cannot be considered direction to ACI.\nExpressed concern over the annual big pick up service, which went from dumpsters to\ncarts to fabric bags with restrictions about what can be deposited: Richard Bangert,\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer requested staff to address the matter; inquired who makes the decision\nabout the service; stated that she would agree the change is a reduction in the service.\nThe Public Works Director responded the service Mr. Bangert described is becoming\nmore standard in the industry; there is some cost savings; some customers appreciate\nthe bag form; there is a concern for the safety of workers; the bag can be collected by\nan automated hand, which helps reduced workers compensation claims.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City received a price reduction and where is the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 11, "text": "savings to the consumer.\nThe Public Works Director stated the savings might be seen looking at the historic rates.\nMayor Spencer stated people still have things that need to be disposed of, which have a\ncost; inquired how the change in the service is approved.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he cannot recall exactly when and how it\nchanged; staff would be happy to take a closer look at the matter and return sooner\nthan next year or next year if Council wishes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated looking at the changes against what is in the contract\nis\nimportant; the City should ensure the service is within the contract and peel back on\nthe other issues, such as the reduction in what can be put in the bulk container and the\nutility of the bulk versus solid side container; he would like the matter to return sooner\nrather than later.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would also like the matter to come back and include\nreview of the initial contract, which might have changed without Council or staff consent.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Stopwaste Board, which he serves on, has talked\nabout the policy change.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City should get out any information on changes in services\nthat impact constituents, but she also wants to be cognizant that the City is trying to\nreduce overall waste, which is a Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA)\ngoal.\nMayor Spencer stated that she and Councilmember Matarrese have requested review;\ninquired whether other Councilmembers are interested.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is fine with the Public Works Director\nreturning with more clarification; the Vice Mayor raises a good point; ACI and Alameda\nresidents are to be commended for reducing the amount of garbage that goes into the\nland fill, which is one reason rates are going down; noted ACI provides free pick up at\n12 events at no cost to the City.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution, with Councilmember\nMatarrese's or the Mayor's additional staff request [directing staff to review changes to\nthe bulky waste pick up].\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(18-340) Recommendation to Accept the Social Service Human Relations Board\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 12, "text": "(SSHRB) Community Needs Assessment Final Report.\nThe SSHRB Members Kale Jenks and Jennifer Hastings gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding housing discrimination, Mr.\nJenks stated 48% were renters and 22% were property owners.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed her appreciation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of accepting the SSHRB Community\nNeeds Assessment Final Report.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer expressed her appreciation.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern over housing discrimination.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Ms. Hastings stated the survey included links\nand contacts for finding help with housing discrimination.\nMayor Spencer stated the information should be on the City's website.\nVice Mayor Vella stated trends are continuing; expressed her appreciation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the SSHRB does some of the toughest work; the\nreport is extremely important to the Council.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:53 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:04 p.m.\n(18-341) Recommendation to Receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Rent Program\nRegulatory Fee Study; and\n(18-341A) Resolution No. 15388, \"Setting a Rent Program Fee for the City's Rent\nReview, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance and Implementing\nPolicies for Fiscal Year 2018-19.\" Adopted.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired what is being done to collect the 19% that did not pay\nthe fee.\nThe Community Development Director responded since this was the first year, staff is\nproposing writing off non-payment since only two notices were done; stated there will be\nmore time to do three notices and address delinquency this year.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the remedy for non-payment\ngoing forward, the Community Development Director stated a higher compliance rate is\nexpected; when the ordinance comes back after the election, late fee and penalties can\nbe added, which is not allowed under the current ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff knows if anyone who has not paid has\ngone through the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) process or done an\neviction, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like said information gathered if possible.\nThe Community Development Director stated the requirement was in the ordinance that\nwas rescinded and could go on the list of items to revisit.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding allocating $500,000 in\nattorney's fees to help tenants, the Community Development Director stated regarding\nthe ability to use the fee to pay for legal services for low income tenants, she is reaching\nout to other jurisdictions who fund legal services; the majority of jurisdictions use\nCommunity Development Block Grant or General Fund money, not the rent program\nfee; the legal conclusion was that the fee can be collected to administer the program;\nthere is a question about whether it is legal to use fees to serve one class of low income\ntenants; from staff's perspective, using surplus funds paid is the proper way to fund the\nlegal services.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the need and funding for a database, to which the\nCommunity Development Director stated Housing Authority is creating a database to\ntrack program activities, which is a different database than general information about\nthe City's rental market; some cities require an annual rent registration, which is very\nlabor intensive; perhaps money could be used to do a scientifically valid survey of rents\nand unit composition, which could be used to determine how well the program is\nworking and whether the ordinance achieves the Council's goals; the approach could be\nmore cost effective; the information would be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of\nthe ordinance, which could be included in the required annual report.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a rent registry could be a nexus to the fee.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance does not require a rent\nregistration process; the ordinance would have to be amended to allow a rent\nregistration process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Council can legally charge $119 or is\nrequired to set the fee at $106.\nThe Community Development Director stated Council can set the fee at $119; at some\npoint if costs continue to come in less than the amount collected, the fee will have to be\nlowered or money would have to be refunded.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned 19% of landlords are\ndelinquent in paying the fee; inquired whether delinquency can be carried over to the\nnext fiscal year.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the resolution before Council addresses\ndelinquency; stated that he does not recall the previous resolution doing so; the City\nprobably could carry it forward, but it will increase the surplus.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council expressed support for transferring\n$500,000 into a fund for legal services; a lot of staff time in the City Attorney's office and\nat the Housing Authority is spent answering questions; she would like a closer look at\nwhether some of the fee could be allocated to legal services; inquired whether staff can\ndo so.\nThe Community Development Director stated the legal analysis allowable under the fee\nstudy is the cost for the City Attorney's office providing legal counsel to the rent program\non the interpretation of the ordinance; the Council gave direction on a 3-year pilot\nprogram for low income tenants, which will return as part of the budget; civil actions are\nfar more broad than the scope of the City's ordinance; most issues that come up for\ntenants are for cause and no cause evictions and habitability issues; the kinds of legal\nservices and advice that would be given are broader than the ordinance and were not\ncontemplated in the fee study; if there is a desire to use the fee, the deeper dive would\nhave to be done next year when the nexus is determined.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance is to address the housing crisis.\nThe Community Development Director stated the issue is can the services be paid via a\nfee, as a tax or from the general fund; staff does not believe fees under Proposition 26\ncan withstand the test of linking the cost directly to implementing the program; providing\nlegal services is broader than the ordinance and was not in the current fee study.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated a regulatory fee is before Council, which are exempt\nfrom Proposition 26 analysis; the fee has to be reasonable and necessary because of\nthe services the government is providing; typically rent control jurisdictions do not get\ninvolved when it comes to the eviction process other than to set the ground for\nevictions; the concern is it has to be necessary for the government to provide services,\nsuch as eviction defense, which it is not; there is a clear distinction between the\nservices provided by the City Attorney's office in advising the Housing Authority\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 15, "text": "implanting the ordinance versus providing legal advice to private parties to defend\nagainst an eviction process; staff's analysis found one jurisdiction was challenged on\nthe matter and believes its opinion is correct.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the fee study found a reasonable relationship to\nbenefits received from the rent program.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the issue is really the reasonable and necessary cost\nof the services that the local jurisdiction is providing; the ordinance does not include the\nCity providing services to defend tenants in an eviction proceeding, which is the\ndistinction.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance does not deal with for-\ncause evictions; tenants would avail themselves of legal services for both for-cause and\nno cause evictions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there could be a distinction between which\nservices would receive legal advices; inquired whether the City can really rely on the\nreasons people are seeking legal advice; stated all renters' experiences are not being\ndocumented; cases of people who just leave their housing are not being captured in the\nsystem.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff concurs with the Council's direction\nto fund legal services for low income tenants; the beneficial service will be funded; the\nonly issue is having the funding come from the General Fund versus the fee.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was highlighting the need for better\ndocumentation and study.\nThe Community Development Director stated the City will have more data as more\nservices are provided.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how staff time is being tracked.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff is keeping track of time; stated\nsome departments do the calculation based on a Full Time Employee (FTE) equivalent;\nothers track hours; some of the fee study appendices have detailed flow charts which\ndelineate the Housing Authority processes; provided examples; stated adjustments\nwere made from the fee study last year versus this year.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether everyone seems to be keeping track of time\ndifferently.\nThe Community Development Director responded the Housing Authority program staff\nand the contract attorney keep very detailed track of their time, whereas she has a\nsense that she dedicates 10% of her time to rent; stated a 0.1% FTE is assumed for her\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 16, "text": "time.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Housing Authority is providing legal advice by telling\nlandlords whether or not notices are sufficient; however, there is not a nexus for\nproviding defense for tenants receiving defective notices; defective notice are gold for\ntenants; telling landlords how to fix notices is helping kick out renters, which is an issue.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Housing Authority would say they are\nnot providing legal advice; they are telling landlords what is required under the\nordinance to have an appropriate notice and that any notice that is not done property\nhas to be rescinded pursuant to the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated doing so is gaming the system and the fee is covering it;\nlandlords should go with their notice and let the chips fall where they may; the City\nshould not be paying for folks to be fixing their notices.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the fee study has the total billable hours; inquired whether the\nhours segregate whether advice is deficiencies of landlords versus tenants.\nThe Community Development Director responded the amount is the composite.\nVice Mayor Vella suggested tracking whether questions are coming from landlords or\ntenants.\nThe Community Development Director stated said information could be captured in the\nannual report.\nMelanie Guillory-Lee, SCI Consulting Group, stated the composite was based on the\ntotal information; the Housing Authority does have their own separate database and\ncould pull out additional information; that she did not feel said level of detail should be in\nthe fee study.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether it is possible to get the information.\nThe Rent Stabilization Program Director responded the Housing Authority does track\nthe data, which can be provided.\nVice Mayor Vella provided an example; stated the fee study has the breakdown of some\nactivities, but not others.\nThe Community Development Director stated the cost is the same whether serving a\nlandlord or tenant; suggested capturing the data either in the monthly or annual reports.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired why there is a line item for the Capital Improvement Project\n(CIP) process for landlords without the cost providing a related service for tenants being\nrelocated due to the CIP.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 17, "text": "The Community Development Director stated that she is assuming the amount captures\nconversations with both tenants and landlords.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like the matter clarified.\nThe City Attorney stated the relocation formula is in the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there have been issues with information from the landlord, such\nas actual rent rate; inquired whether the City would also be working with the tenant to\nverify the information.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff would have the opportunity to work\nwith the tenant; stated Appendix C of the fee study provides detail on the CIP cases;\noutlined the process.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is not questioning the process; she is questioning the\nlabel on page 13.\nThe Community Development Director stated it may just be a labeling issue; the\nAdministrator works with both parties; the table can be revised.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she just wants staff to confirm the work is not just with the\nlandlord and is also with the renters to ensure everything is being captured and the fee\nis not being reduced.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff would do so.\nStated Citywide data collection is needed; the database should be searchable; a\ndatabase of all the buildings in the City exists; the City is getting new financial software;\nthe systems need to be able to talk to each other; expressed concern over Airbnb and\ncondominium conversions; stated that she knows of three evictions for owner move-ins\nthat did not go through the system; some savings came from not having a director for\nsix months; there is a lack of education, training and coordination; she would not use\nthe system because it would create an adversarial relationship with her landlord; the\nsystem is not working, not limiting evictions and not creating sustainable rents; funds\nremaining should be used to get an adequate data system: Catherine Pauling,\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern over CIP amounts not adding up and being\ncomplete.\nMs. Guillory-Lee stated the hours were calculated using an outside spreadsheet.\nVice Mayor Vella requested the hours be added to Appendix C.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it should be under consideration; fines could be\nlayered on and still ignored.\nThe Community Development Director stated if the Council chooses to and has the\nability to amend the rent stabilization ordinance, it could be done.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has heard enough details of the fee study; all\nof the hours have been captured; the fees identified match the hours; how the hours\nwere spent has been questioned.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the fee of $106 per\nunit per year for the coming year.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot support the\nmotion because the Council needs to have more information about further expenditure\nof the fee, such as creation of a more extensive database.\nThe Community Development Director stated the cost of data collection was not\nincluded in the fee study; staff would have to do another fee study to capture said\nactivity.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over Council giving direction to do\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 19, "text": "so; stated having better data has been discussed before.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Housing Authority will be creating a\ndatabase that will cover the program administration, which will interface with other\ndepartments, including Finance; the database will have information on every action that\nis a result of the program and ordinance, which is a different database than\nunderstanding rents and the composition of the housing stock; said data is broader than\nthe ordinance; staff believes a statistically valid sample survey can be done to establish\nthe average rents and inventory; measuring said information could be used to measure\nand gage the success of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the survey would fall within the scope of\nthe fee study, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has a cost estimate, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the negative; stated the amount would\nbe less than the $160,000 that staff is recommending be retained; the sample survey\nwould create a baseline that could be compared year after year to measure the success\nof the rent program; the ordinance requires staff to prepare an annual report on the\nsuccess of the ordinance.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated the expense would be captured in the next year fee study if there are not\nsufficient funds; staff would not recommend using money from the General Fund.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City needs to see everything in order to determine if\nthe ordinance is working; the City does not know if off-book evictions are being done;\ntracking the information in a database would show changes; landlords and tenants\nagree about the need for a database; he would like to find a way to have\ncomprehensive, full, complete data; a new resolution or ordinance amendment is not\nneeded because the Council has requested staff to report the effectiveness annually,\nwhich requires full and complete data.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance would have to be amended because\nthere is not a requirement for landlords to provide the information, which is why staff is\nrecommending a survey; a rent registry would be a new requirement.\nThe Community Development Director stated the cost was not considered in the fee\nstudy since staff did not have the authority, but could happen in FY 2019-20 if the\nordinance is amended; there is a strong desire to have the information; therefore, staff\nis recommending a statistically valid survey to gather information about rent increases\nand the characterization of the City's housing stock; that she is not sure how off-book\nterminations could be tracked.\nCouncilmember Oddie outlined questions staff should ask about evictions if a landlord\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 20, "text": "indicates they no longer owe the fee.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff could do so and it would include the\nrent program fee.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would still like to give direction to have a more\nrobust database brought back to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a statistical sampling survey is fine at the moment,\nbut a real tracking mechanism is needed.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Council cannot ask for fees that are not justified by\nthe fee study; stated there is no discretion; the motion is to set the fee at $106 and\nCouncil cannot choose another number without doing another fee study; inquired\nwhether the fee could be set at $120 or $130.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the fee could not be $120 because the study\ncurrently reflects $119; stated the question is whether Council can go from $119 down\nto $106.\nMayor Spencer stated staff recommended $106.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated case law requires the fee not be charged for general\nrevenue purposes; staff is trying to reduce the fee to not have said effect; keeping the\nfull surplus would have to occur over more years.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the range is at most $119, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the fee cannot be done that does not follow the study,\nto which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff's\nrecommendation of $106 is defensible, in addition to the $119 that was originally\nrecommended by the fee study.\nThe Community Development Director stated recommending that half of the surplus be\ncredited brings the amount down to $106; the other half of the surplus would be kept as\na reserve for expenses, such as the survey.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the staff recommendation is $106 per unit, to which\nthe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to return to Council with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 21, "text": "whatever necessary to create a robust, full and complete rent registry discussed tonight\nand modify the fee study next year, if something is brought back and implemented.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the motion includes the survey; inquired what is meant\nby robust.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded that it means a complete inventory of every rental\nproperty and the rents in the City, which both the landlords and tenants are requesting.\nThe Acting City Manager inquired whether the rent registry would track increases in rent\nand evictions, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative; stated the\nregistry is the only way to get a true picture of how many people are getting rent\nincreases and by what percent.\nThe Community Development Director stated changes would be measured on an\nannual basis to provide a comparison of the status of individual units.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the registry would be public and anyone could look up\nrent history by address.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded legal staff would have to tell Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance would have to be modified to require\nthe landlord register the unit; there would have to be a Request for Proposals for a\nvendor; the ordinance requirement could possibly include provisions about\nconfidentiality; options would be provided.\nThe City Attorney stated the matter would not return to Council before November when\na decision is made about putting the rent provisions in the Charter.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a Charter initiative will\nbe on the November ballot, which was done by landlords, and puts the rent stabilization\nordinance in the Charter; if it passes, the Council could not make amendments and a\nvote of the people would be required; an amendment to the ordinance would not be\nbrought back until after the election in November.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the work would still be the same; either the Council could\nchange it or propose changes to go forward at an election.\nThe Community Development Director noted following the direction at the Council May\n18th study session, staff plans on coming back to Council in December with a\ncomprehensive list of items; the registry would be part of the work effort.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there would be another vote by Council before\nproceeding, to which Councilmember Oddie and the Acting City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 22, "text": "The Community Development Director inquired whether the Council would rather wait\nuntil the end of year to make a decision about the rent registry prior to spending money\non a survey.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a survey is good, but a database is needed; the City\nshould get statistically valid information now.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred.\nMayor Spencer stated the information is not a registry.\nThe Community Development Director stated a portion of the $160,000 retained would\nbe used on the survey.\nThe City Attorney stated the ordinance does not need to be amended to do the survey.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the survey information might inform staff about the type of\ndesired database.\nThe Community Development Director noted staff would work with the stakeholders to\ncraft the survey.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated direction should be given to staff to return with\noptions for dealing with landlords who are not paying the program fee, including\nconsidering a modification to the ordinance after November.\nMayor Spencer requested the first motion be repeated.\nThe Community Development Director stated the first motion was that City not write off\nthe 19% of folks who have not paid, which means that after the FY 2018-19 billings go\nout, Finance may follow up with a third notice for FY 2017-18; staff would continue the\neffort; currently, the ordinance does not include imposing penalties.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter is coming to Council on the 19th, to which\nthe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution\nfor FY 2018-19 includes delinquencies.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is recommending going beyond to look at\nhow the City would collect outstanding fees; penalties can be piled on, but there needs\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 23, "text": "to be a next step for non-payment; in other instances, a lien is placed on the property.\nThe Community Development Director stated the matter will be added to the list for\nDecember.\n(18-342) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to\nSubmit to Voters for the November 6, 2018 General Election.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Encinal Avenue repairs, the Public\nWorks Director responded the street is owned and maintained by Caltrans.\nMayor Spencer stated a plan is needed to get Caltrans to maintain the road; she will\nhave trouble supporting other requests until said plan is done.\nThe Public Works Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why the slide indicates emergency response rather\nthan seismic repair, to which the Public Works Director responded the wording could be\nchanged and continued the presentation.\n***\n(18-343) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the referrals.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the remaining items.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nExpressed support for the infrastructure bond; stated that he is not too keen on the\nsales tax measure; the infrastructure bond can specifically address climate change\nadaptation issues; expressed concern over the language \"other;\" stated there is already\na long list that adds up to about $200 million; Council is not going to need flexibility to\ndeal with other things; as far as Alameda Point, the potable water upgrade should be\nfunded; money can be recouped through Developer Impact Fees at a later time without\nconflicting with the fiscal neutrality policy; the priority should be streets and sidewalks;\nthe word potholes is not needed; storm drain pumping stations should be called out; sea\nlevel rise is not going to be the City's first problem; the Houston area flooding was not\nsea level rise; climate change and parks should be prioritized: Richard Bangert,\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification regarding the bond measure timeline.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 24, "text": "The Public Works Director responded the infrastructure bond ordinance requires two\nreadings; stated approval would be needed July 10th with a second reading on July 24th\nto make the deadline.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff can come up with the specific language, do\ncommunity engagement, and be ready for a first reading on July 10th. further inquired\nwhether staff would do all of the community engagement between now and July 10th.\nThe Public Works Director responded the community engagement has already\noccurred.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he disagrees.\nThe Acting City Manager stated more work needs to be done on the General Obligation\n(GO) bond; staff's preference is to do the sales tax measure which has less lead time; a\nlot more work needs to be done on the GO bond; staff wants to do more outreach; the\nmatter was before Council in February; a lot of work has been done, but Council wants\nstaff to do more; staff is suggesting going with the sales tax measure and doing the GO\nbond in the future.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would disagree with the Acting City\nManager; her preference would be to go forward with the infrastructure bond; the City's\ninfrastructure is deteriorating; repair costs increase the longer maintenance is deferred;\nthe City is leaving itself vulnerable to a Houston situation; polling was done and it did\nquite well; the polling should determine the right amount; concurred with Mr. Bangert\nabout Alameda Point potable water; questioned whether the sales tax increase can wait\nuntil a future election; the decision is not easy; expressed concern over putting off\ninfrastructure.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to pursue the infrastructure\nbond taking into account the comments on removing the word \"pothole\" and \"other\" to\nmake it specific to the list presented.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not prepared to support the\ninfrastructure bond right now; adding and removing things changes the analysis; the\nCity does not know what people are supporting; issues remain with including items,\nsuch as potholes, and actually having the funds to do the repairs; more outreach needs\nto be done; the fiscal neutrality issue needs to be raised with the voters; the measure\nneeds to be fully transparent; the City needs to be clear.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is suggesting cleaning up the proposed ballot\nlanguage and use what the Public Works Director presented tonight, which did not\ninclude Alameda Point water system.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the City has discussed a storm water proposal; there has\nbeen extensive polling, but not extensive public outreach; the City does not have a\nclimate plan so sea level rise is not clear; public safety infrastructure at the former Base\nis not being addressed; the public has not provided input at public meetings; he will not\nsupport a bond at this time.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated\nthere is $35 million for the first bond draw down.\nMayor Spencer stated said amount is the first draw down, not the entire bond.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the other $60 million is going for.\nThe Public Works Director responded there is certainty around the maximum spending\nin each of the three categories over the course of the entire $95 million.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Acting Assistant City Manager\nstated a slide shows where staff is proposing where the funds go under each category.\nMayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie is asking for specificity.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated the percentages are shown.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated specificity, such as paving five miles, is only within the\nfirst $35 million.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated staff does not have a list of the projects.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated projects are not known for two-thirds of the bond.\nMayor Spencer inquired regarding which five miles would be paved, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded there is a five year paving plan; projects planned for later\nyears would be advanced.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether voters could go and see specific projects which are\nbeing funded for duration of the bond.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he would be hesitant to specify which roads\nwould be paved in a specific year because any plan changes would have to go back to\nvoters.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the bond requires two-thirds to pass, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Council would have to\napprove the ordinance by four affirmative votes.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is not planning to support the bond; the City has not had\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 26, "text": "sufficient community discussion to reach two-thirds; the community demands specificity;\nprovided a School District example; two-thirds is a high threshold; inquired whether the\nlibrary bond required two-thirds vote.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the\nmeasure passed by 78.8%.\nMayor Spencer stated the library measure is a great example of being very specific; she\ndoes not think there are sufficient meetings; inquired how much was spent on polling\nand mailers.\nThe Public Works Director responded around $50,000 to $60,000 was spent; stated\n$25,000 was for the tracking survey; $25,000 was for financial calculations and legal\nanalysis; mailers were around $10,000 or $15,000.\nMayor Spencer stated that she did not get answers from the consultant the last time\nbond measure was presented; there should be real community meetings with\ndiscussions about community priorities; inquired about the polling for the $95 million.\nThe Public Works Director stated the last tracking survey showed support in the 70% to\n73% range.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the original polling for the library measure showed\nsupport was in the low 60s prior to any community education; the ballot measure was\nbased on the priories from the poll; it is doable.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the County Measure A was polling in the 70s and is\ngetting 63%.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the polling was for different things than the new priorities being\nput forward; not fully funding projects is very different than a library bond; paving five\nmiles of City streets is only a fraction of the miles of streets in the City; a lot of work\nneeds to be done, including how the projects will be fully funded; the polling being used\ndoes not reflect what is being proposed now.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: No; Vice Mayor Vella: No; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nThe Acting City Manager requested the Council address sales tax; stated there is a\nlimited amount of time to proceed with a sales tax measure; the economic cycle is\nrelatively good, which has proven to be the time to actually put a measure on the ballot;\nthe five year forecast is not a great picture; in addition to reducing expenditures, help is\nneeded on the revenue side.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 27, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the sales tax measure requires three or four votes, to\nwhich the Acting City Manager responded three.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a majority of Council does not feel there is enough\ntime to do community outreach and education to place an infrastructure bond on the\nballot; inquired how the bond measure differs from the outreach and community\neducation for the sales tax measure; stated she would have liked to do both measures.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the sales tax issue is primarily operational, which has\nbeen discussed over the last two years; forecasts are known; there have been\nconversations about future gaps; the sales tax measure is a way to help bridge the gap.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the sales tax measure is not his preferred option, but\nhe is going to make a motion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval directing staff to go forward with the sales\ntax measure.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when Council needs to\ndecide if the sales tax measure should address both operations and capital needs;\ninquired what the motion includes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the motion is to get the discussion going; part of the\ndiscussion is whether Council wants to modify the measure to include some capital;\nCouncil needs to determine if and how the funds should be sliced up.\nThe Public Works Director stated dedicating the funds too specifically to a project or\nprogram could cause the measure to require a two-thirds threshold.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the measure may require a two-thirds vote if a\nStatewide measure qualifies and passes in November.\n(18-344) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n***\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is to adopt the draft\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 28, "text": "language, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the\nmotion is to instruct staff to move forward with the sales tax measure.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would return to Council about how\nthe money would be apportioned without being too specific, to which the Public Works\nDirector responded having the Council provide the general sense about including\noperational and capital needs would be helpful; he has concern about getting into\nspecial tax territory.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the presentation posed the question for the\nCouncil to answer; that she can support leaving it open.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the sales tax measure would not indicate what the tax\nwould be used for at all.\nThe Public Works Director responded the ballot would have language roughly similar to\nExhibit 2.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the language reflects the output of a poll, to\nwhich the Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer read the draft language; inquired whether there would be no end date\nand there would have to be a vote of the people to end the sales tax.\nThe Public Works Director responded voters would have to vote to end the tax.\nMayor Spencer noted the proposal is similar to the hospital tax with no termination date\nand would go on for ever and ever unless the voters end it.\nThe City Manager stated the issue was polled.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want to wordsmith the language because it\nwas polled; additional conversations are needed to discuss priorities and uses; as\ncurrently written, the City can spend the funds for both operations and capital projects.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to include that there is no end\ndate and would require a vote of the people to end the tax.\nVice Mayor Vella stated said information will come out in the ballot arguments.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated going against the polling would be foolish.\nMayor Spencer stated being transparent and honest with the public is critical; she will\ndo her utmost to make sure the voters are aware there is no end date; further\nsuggested adding \"in perpetuity.\"\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 29, "text": "The Acting City Manager inquired what Mayor Spencer is asking for an end date.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would prefer an end date or transparency by adding \"in\nperpetuity.\"\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated the language includes: \"until ended by\nvoters.\"\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said language is pretty clear to him.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of calling the question.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there has been a call for the question and a second.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nOn the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4.\nNoes: 1.\nFollowing Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, Mayor Spencer inquired whether\nCouncilmembers cannot continue speaking after a motion to call the question is\napproved.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the vote must be taken and\nCouncil has to move on.\nMayor Spencer inquired what should be done and whether she should hit the gavel\nwhen a Councilmember continues to speak, to which the City Attorney responded the\nMayor should do so.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-345) The Acting City Manager reviewed the list of Council's priorities from the work\nplan discussion held on May 18th; made an announcement regarding recent power\noutages, Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP's) new customer portal, AMP being\nrecognized for its buy green program, and AMP cohosting a meeting on solar on June\n13th\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n29\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 30, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(18-346) Richard Bangert, Alameda, stated clear direction was not provided to staff\nabout what to do to get a bond measure on the ballot; there seems to be a trend in the\nBay Area of admiring the problem of climate change; the only way anything is going to\nget done is if money is appropriated; thinking the Federal Emergency Management\nAgency (FEMA) will help is dreaming; the City has to pay for climate adaptation itself;\nstaff should be given direction at a future meeting; the matter should go to the voters.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the matter can be discussed when the Climate Action\nPlan is addressed in March or sooner if Council wishes.\nCouncilmembers expressed support for the matter returning sooner.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nMayor Spencer stated that she would call Councilmember Oddie's referral next since\nthere are two speakers.\n(18-347) Resolution No. 15389, \"Supporting Alameda Rank-and-File Employees Post a\nJanus V. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees)\nSupreme Court Decision.\" Adopted. (Councilmember Oddie)\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments.\nExpressed support for the resolution; discussed the positive working relationship with\nthe City; stated the resolution confirms meet and confer rights: Al Fortier, International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245.\nDiscussed the me too and the civil rights movements; stated labor is also being\nattacked; outlined jurisdictions which have taken action or will take action on the matter;\nasked Council to support the resolution: Josie Camacho, Alameda Labor Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the timing is apropos; he does not have any issue\nwith the resolution; the City has used collective bargaining and good faith negotiations,\nwhich has provided a good framework; direction should be given to staff ensure the City\nis prepared to address the changes in the law should the ruling come down as\nexpected; staff is not directly involved in membership cards; assurance should be\nprovided that the City will keep the principle of collective bargaining and good faith\nnegotiations, which is a standard that has served the City well.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council should be careful not to step out of its\nlane; that she would support the resolution if the further resolved language is revised.\nVice Mayor Vella stated removing any of the further resolved language would\nundermine the spirit of the resolution; noted Emeryville, Alameda County and San\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 31, "text": "Francisco adopted the resolution; the new law is going to create a number of issue that\nstaff will have difficulty figuring out; not having a process in place could cause issues for\nstaff; she understands staff's intent is to engage in good faith negotiations around the\nissue and to adhere to the current contract language in line with the provision; enacting\nthe resolution tonight is imperative.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted many cities adopted the same provisions while negotiating\nnew contracts; the resolution does not say how to mitigate impact and only prescribes\ngood faith discussions.\nMayor Spencer stated the City Charter is very clear that the Council hires the City\nManager, City Attorney and City Clerk; the City Manager works with the employees; the\nCity ended up paying $900,000 to resolve an investigation about staying in appropriate\nlanes; Council hires the City Manager and the City Manager works with the employees,\nunion or not; Human Resources handles contracts; raising the matter during\nnegotiations is appropriate; she is comfortable with a broad statement, not directing the\nCity Manager how to implement employee contracts; other cities do not have the same\nCharter provisions; she does not support the second resolved statement because she\nwants to honor the Charter; she does not want to support anything that suggests the\nCity does not operate in good faith already.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the amendment to the\nfurther resolved statement to read: \"that the Alameda City Council urges the City\nManager and appropriate staff to work with the public sector unions at the City of\nAlameda post a Janus V. AFSCME Supreme Court case by cooperating to mitigate\nimpacts and by engaging in good faith discussions to explain and mitigate the negative\nimpacts of the Janus decision.'\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Acting City Manager and City\nAttorney would propose any draft language.\nThe City Attorney responded the matter could come back on June 19th; discussed\nchanges that could be made.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the resolution does not need to be wordsmithed and is saying\nthe City will engage in good faith discussions on the matters, which specially deal with\nimplementing membership cards and release time; she does not know how the City\ncould engage in good faith negotiations without having a release time; the City is\nnegotiating future contracts, but has current contracts; the resolution deals with an\nimpact that would go into effect right away; sitting down and figuring out whether new\nmembership cards will be required is within the City's best interest; Council gives\ndirection about general values and policies being enacted related to staff; the resolution\ntakes a policy stance and should be adopted as written otherwise it is just making a\nmeaningless statement; she would like to adopt the resolution as written tonight.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a second to the motion; there was no second\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n31\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 32, "text": "so original motion failed due to a lack of second.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution with modifying the\nlanguage to: \"that the Alameda City Council urges the Acting City Manager and\nappropriate staff to work with the public sector unions at the City of Alameda post a\nJanus V. AFSCME Supreme Court case decision by cooperating to mitigate impacts and\nby engaging in good faith discussions, which could include implementing membership\ncards and release time for rank and file union leaders to explain the implications of a\nJanus decision,\" which is a little less specific direction and leave open the possibility\nthat there could be more items that could be addressed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion and in response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft stated by changing the language, the Council is not providing specific direction\nto staff, but is suggesting the topics; there could be other issues that have not been\ncontemplated because the decision has not been seen.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the intent is include the specific things, to which\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the word negative was removed, to which\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she did not mean to remove the word\nnegative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language could be changed to \"which could\ninclude, but not be limited to stated that she is trying to understand the intent.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that is the intent.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she\nprefers the language in the motion because it is not as directive and leaves the door\nopen to other things that will support the unions' position.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her motion stands.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether saying \"could include\" means it does not have to\ninclude the specific items listed, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nstated the intent is clear that the motion is the City trying to work with and support the\nunion in spite of the expected negative decision, but Council is not directing what\nexactly has to be done.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested changing \"to explain. to \"depending on the\nimplications of a negative Janus decision.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes the Alameda Labor Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n32\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 33, "text": "provided assistance with drafting the resolution; the wording is different than others.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language could be changed from \"could include\"\nto \"include,\" to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer's inquired whether release time means the employees would get paid,\nto which the Acting City Manager and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the number of union leaders, the\nHuman Resources Director stated release time for union leaders is done now for union\nleaders to go meet with employees; IBEW has two and the Alameda City Employees\nAssociation (ACEA) has three.\nMayor Spencer inquired how release time is determine, to which the Human Resources\nDirector responded there are certain items that allow release time, such as meet and\nconfer, time to negotiate.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether release time is already allowed under the current\ncontract, to which the Human Resources Director responded the contract is probably a\nlittle more specific and the resolution is broader; stated staff works with labor to mitigate\nimpacts.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the resolution changes what is currently done; stated\nthat she is concerned the City Manager or Human Resources Director would normally\nwork out the matter with labor without direction from Council.\nThe City Attorney stated the language \"which could include\" does not specifically direct\nthat it has to happen and gives the flexibility.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of calling the question.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nOn the call for the original motion, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nThe Acting City Manager inquired whether the language is clear, to which the City Clerk\nresponded in the affirmative and outlined the changes.\n(18-348) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Background Information on the Crab Cove\nProperty Prior to Any Council Actions on the Property. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer)\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n33\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 34, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that she does not plan on hearing her referrals as a professional\ncourtesy to the Vice Mayor who is in a time zone three hours later; both matters would\ncome back at the next Council meeting.\n(18-349) Consider Directing Staff to Prioritize Efforts to Increase Safety and Reduce\nCrime. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer)\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-350) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Civil Service\nBoard (CSB), Commission on Disabilities (CD), Golf Commission (GC), Historical\nAdvisory Board (HAB), Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), Library\nBoard (LB), Planning Board (PB), Public Utilities Board (PUB), Recreation and Parks\nCommission (RPC), Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and\nTransportation Commission (TC).\nMayor Spencer nominated Robert Barde and Marguerite Malloy for appointment to the\nCSB; Elizabeth Kenny and Leslie Morrison to the CD; Edward Downing to the GC; Alvin\nLau to the HAB; Bachi Hadid, Sandra Kay, and Stuart Rickard to the (HABOC); Amber\nBales to the LB; and Audrey Hyman and Sherice Youngblood to the SSHRB.\n(18-351) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding a community\ndiscussion on guns; noted that everyone did well with the timing system.\n(18-352) Councilmember Oddie announced that he and the Mayor participated in a gun\nviolence rally at Lincoln Middle School.\n(18-353) Councilmember Matarrese made an announcement regarding attending the\nAssociation of Bay Area Government general assembly.\nMayor Spencer noted that she was also in attendance.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:58 p.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\n34\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 35, "text": "237\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 5, 2018- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Vella was present via teleconference from\nthe Hilton at 10000 Beach Club Drive, Myrtle Beach, South\nCarolina 29572.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(18-310) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(1) of Government Code Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n(18-311) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section\n54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Elizabeth D.\nWarmerdam, Acting City Manager; and Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse &\nTransportation Planning; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue Under\nNegotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment. Not heard.\n(18-312) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: Acting City Manager and City Manager\n(18-313 ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\ncases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Public Employee Appointment/Hiring and Initiating Legal\nAction, the City Council gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5; and regarding\nExposure to Legal Action, the City Council gave direction to staff by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: No; Councilmember Matarrese: No;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Ayes. Ayes:\n3. Noes: 2.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 36, "text": "238\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}