pages
2 rows where "date" is on date 2017-10-02 and page = 2
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf,2 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2017-10-02 | 2 | Commissioner Henneberry nominated Vice Chair Dieter as Chair and Commissioner Little as Vice Chair. Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.] COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Schwartz stated there was a recent California Supreme Court case that directly addresses the California Public Records Request Act; inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney could share more information on the case. The Assistant City Attorney stated the California Supreme Court ruled on whether or not an email on a personal electronic device is considered public record; the California Supreme Court stated public records requests need to involve factual findings and materials from a personal device may be reviewed so long as it is relevant to the inquiry; further stated that Alameda has not had such a request since the Supreme Court ruling. Commissioner Schwartz stated a balancing test would eventually be developed so requests are not overly invasive, especially for public officials and volunteer commissioners/board members. Chair Dieter inquired the time frame of the annual report, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the report will be provided at the next meeting. Chair Dieter stated the City Council discussed bringing its Rules of Order to the Open Government Commission for feedback; inquired the status. The Assistant City Attorney responded a Council subcommittee will review the Rules of Order and plans to do so in conjunction with the Open Government Commission; stated it has not happened due to the current Council workload; the City Manager placed the item on the referral status spreadsheet; he will provide a status update to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on the time frame, the Assistant City Attorney stated he will have a better idea of the time frame once the Council is able to begin addressing the items on the spreadsheet; hopefully, it will be reviewed and placed on the next Open Government Commission meetin… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-10-02 | 2 | Draft Minutes October 2, 2017 Mr. Sullivan stated the purpose of the rent increase is related to a need for additional income because the landlords are retired and have a fixed income. Mr. Sullivan stated that Ms. Adams has been a good tenant for 13 years. The landlords are requesting this increase due to the property's operating costs and the landlord's interest in a return on the investment. He stated that market rate for a comparable unit would be near $4,500 and the rent increase is an effort to raise the rent closer to market value. Mr. Sullivan explained that $7,500 has been spent to repair the roof. Additional expenses are anticipated for further repairs. Ms. Adams stated that she had resided at the unit for 13 years and has completed many repairs herself. She raised concerns over current maintenance issues and stated code enforcement is currently reviewing the property. She explained that there have not been repairs or improvements that would justify the requested rent increase. Committee members asked to review supporting documents related to the maintenance issues. The parties discussed issues the timeline and nature of roof repairs. Staff clarified that the Building Department resolves concerns regarding code violations. Ms. Adams stated she would be willing to pay a $250 increase if repairs were completed. Mr. Sullivan was not willing to accept less than the proposed increase. Motion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Cambra and Friedman). The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to render an advisory recommendation. Member Friedman identified three considerations for this case: 1). what is reasonable rent for this property; 2). what is the landlord's reasonable return; 3). how does the housing services and condition of the maintenance issues impact the reasonable rent. Friedman noted that had the rent increased around 3% each year over the 13 years of tenanc… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );