pages: CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 8 | carry on the lawsuit with EBRPD: former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda. Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not support the citizen's initiative and is perceived as provocative: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda. Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a political and strategic signal which discourages cooperation: Alison Greene, Plan! Alameda. Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a solution; urged Council to support the will of the voters: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda. *** Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:15 p.m. and returned at 9:17 p.m. Mayor Gilmore stated the Council's goal is to make sure Alameda Residents do not pay for the property twice. Councilmember Chen stated that he supports the Mayor's proposal to remove Section b), as long as Measure WW is the single revenue source; inquired whether Council could still suspend the open space initiative without the language in Section b). The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a measure of transparency and openness; if Section b) language is removed, Council still has the ability to mitigate to find funds in the event the City is saddled with a judgment. In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the City Attorney stated theoretically, the Council would still have the option outlined in Section b) even if the language is removed from the Ordinance, but that the Council would have to overcome the fact that the option was removed. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Chen is suggesting the Council be less clear with the public, to which Councilmember Chen responded in the negative; stated that he agrees with a speaker who inquired why the language is included if the Council has the ability to suspend the initiative regardless. In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Councilmember Chen stated the companion measure causes more incentive for the City to be sued because the measure opens the door to show an escape clause and a loop hole; that he is not comfortable with the language. Councilmember Daysog stated his approach is a reflection of the will of the people; to include the phrase "suspension or stay" goes against the will of the people; how removal of the phrase will be interpreted is up to the people; the City has to have a companion measure. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 15, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |