pages: CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 4 | (14-321) Ordinance No. 3102, "Adopting Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda General Plan Including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to Classify Approximately 3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to Mckay Avenue to Open Space." Finally passed. Mayor Gilmore proposed striking Section b) of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance to ensure the General Fund is not at risk; stated Section b) makes reference to the use of the General Fund to pay for any judgments against the City in the event of a lawsuit. Councilmember Daysog stated there are limited resources and the Council needs to prioritize; that he developed Section b) as a third approach; raising property taxes does not adequately reflect the will of the voters; there may have to be cuts in services to cover any outstanding fiscal issues; fulfilling the people's wishes is a challenge. Councilmember Chen inquired how the City would pay for a lawsuit settlement if Section b) is deleted. Councilmember Tam noted the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance states a vote of the electorate could authorize any new revenues to pay for a judgment associated with a lawsuit; there are options, including selling the property to a third party, which includes the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD); in 2008, EBRPD raised funds under Measure WW to pay for the property and to pay for any judgment. Councilmember Chen stated he likes the proposed options; inquired whether there is enough Measure WW money to cover potential liability if the City is sued. The City Manager responded the City does not know and the question should be posed to the EBRPD; stated Measure WW has approximately $4.4 million allocated to Alameda. Councilmember Chen stated that he would like to ensure there is enough funds in Measure WW to pay for a judgment in the event of a lawsuit; inquired whether Election Code Section 9217 directly conflicts with the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance. The City Attorney responded a conflict of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would have to be determined in Court; stated Election Code 9217 provides that the Council cannot modify or repeal a measure that is put in place by a voter initiative; if the Council finally approves the initiative tonight, it retains the flavor of being a voter initiative; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a repeal or modification of the initiative, it is intended specifically as a companion measure and to be consistent; the companion measure does not do anything and only goes into effect if a lawsuit is brought within 120 days of its effectiveness; at which time the Council would have the ability to take certain actions; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not require the Council to take action, nor does it automatically put provisions into effect; therefore, the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not inconsistent. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 15, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |