pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 10 | The Public Works Director stated the County needs to figure out funding. Mayor Johnson stated that she attended two meetings; one meeting was with Coast Guard and County staff; the other meeting was with County staff; the first meeting was after the newspaper noticed that the County was proposing to lock the bridges; the County did not answer economic questions regarding operations and maintenance; the County should have come back and worked with the community; the County will not meet or discuss the matter with people who would be most impacted with the proposed change; the County did not outreach to the City regarding the 4:30 p.m. closure; the County has not fulfilled its responsibility. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the Interim City Manager to send a letter rejecting the County's proposal; stated a solution is out there somewhere; there is a chance to reset the issue. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion includes that the City does not support any changes to the current schedule, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the community was willing explore other ways at an Aeolian Club meeting in February or March. The Public Works Director stated staff met with the County and reviewed options with the County Public Works Director; she was not interested; the solution would be her way or no way. Mayor Johnson encouraged people to continue communicating with the Coast Guard and Supervisor Lai-Bitker; inquired whether proposed language regarding no changes to the current schedule is acceptable to Councilmember Tam, to which Councilmember Tam responded, said language is what the letter currently states. Mayor Johnson requested the language be made stronger. The Interim City Manager stated language would be firmed up. Councilmember Matarrese stated the letter can start with the City not wanting any changes. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 10 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |