pages: CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 5 | The City Manager noted the EBRPD website for Measure WW lists $6.5 million for Alameda. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance was created to deal with potential costs associated with a lawsuit without decimating the budget; there are three possible sources set forth in Sections a), b), and c); Section d) allows any combination of a), b), and c); the Council needs to be able to rely on all the possibilities. Councilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is about full disclosure and letting the public know the Council's intent, how priorities are set, and how Council deals with tradeoffs; that she is comfortable eliminating Section b) as proposed by the Mayor; the companion measure protects the City and nothing changes by virtue of providing mitigation in the event of a lawsuit. The City Manager concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated there have been many emails claiming that a Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would make it more likely for the City to be sued; there would be no changes for the federal government or developers as a result of approval of the companion measure. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the threat is related to items in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance; the City could be sued for inverse condemnation. Councilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a contingency; a lawsuit is highly unlikely because the developer that has the option to purchase the property has other interests in town and the federal government is not bound by the City's zoning ordinance and can allow anything built on the site without City approval; the risk of being sued by virtue of having a contingency plan is unlikely. Stated she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance; stated the ordinance encourages a lawsuit from the developer: Lynn O'Connor, Alameda. Stated anything Council does to affect a citizen's initiative could be construed as a violation of Elections Code 9217; that she is against including the stay or suspend language in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and removing Section b): Jane Sullwold, Alameda. Stated that she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and considers it condescending to the citizens; urged Council to end the lawsuit with EBRPD: Irene Dieter, Alameda. In response to the City Manager's inquiry, Ms. Dieter stated if the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is enacted, EBRPD and the voters would not know when the open space would be realized; a lawsuit could linger for a decade; the "stay or suspend" option goes against the voter's intent. Mayor Gilmore stated neither the EBRPD or the City own the property; the federal Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 15, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |