Loading...
1998-08-04 Joint ARRA and Special and Regular CC Minutes4.t MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -AUGUST 4, 1998- -6:15 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None® The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (98-416) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Titles: City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that the City Council discussed evaluation of the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk; and said matter will be scheduled for further discussion at a future closed session. There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Re pectfully submitted, ! Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The public notice for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 4, 1998 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -AUGUST 4, 1998- -7:15 P.M. Mayor/Chair Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Councilmembers/Board Members Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor/Chair Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (98-417) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of Case: Creative Artists Network, Inc. dba Cool World Productions v. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, City of Alameda, et. al. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor/Chair announced that instructions were given to the City Attorney/General Counsel. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council/Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Mayor/Chair Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, G-'2W Diane B. Fe sch, C C City Clerk The public notice for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 4, 1998 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -AUGUST 4, 1998- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:46 p.m. and announced that Council met in Closed Session; Council gave instructions to the City Attorney regarding Creative Artists Network v. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the City; Council discussed the evaluation of the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk; said matter will be scheduled for further discussion at a future Closed Session. Councilmember Lucas led the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend Jack Buckley, Invocation. ROLL CALL - None. PRESENT: ABSENT: First Presbyterian Church, gave the Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. " (98-418) Presentation by the Foreman of the Alameda County Grand Jury. Neil Goodhue, Prior Foreman of Alameda County Grand Jury, stated that he wanted to appear before Council in response to discussions with the Mayor as to mis-statements or conclusions made in regard to the Grand Jury Report which were erroneous or inaccurate; the Grand Jury made a recommendation to municipalities throughout the County, and to the County itself, recommending that Closed Sessions be taped and maintained in secrecy; should citizen disputes arise, tapes could be reviewed by the Superior Court; the Grand Jury arrived at the recommendation as a result of three or four letters from people throughout Alameda County raising concerns which had occurred in prior years; it was impractical for the Grand Jury to look into the three or four jurisdictions because if a violation had occurred, individuals in the meeting would have to admit to a violation; it was virtually beyond ability of the Grand Jury to investigate these complaints; by putting in place the recommendation [to tape Closed Sessions], in the future, if any citizen of any jurisdiction in Alameda County were to contend that a violation occurred, it would be very simple and expeditious for the Court to determine whether a violation had occurred; Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 [investigations] could be done without jeopardizing the confidentiality that the public agencies need on occasion; that he is present tonight to confirm that the Grand Jury did not investigate the City of Alameda, the City Council or the Mayor; no conclusion was drawn from any complaint received in this jurisdiction or anywhere in Alameda County as to alleged violations of the Brown Act. Mayor Appezzato stated any conclusions by anyone to the contrary are inaccurate and untruthful. Mr. Goodhue stated the Grand Jury made a recommendation to eliminate concerns like this in the future; the Grand Jury did not find fault or wrongdoing by any jurisdiction throughout Alameda County, including the City of Alameda. Mayor Appezzato presented a hypothetical situation and inquired whether it would be difficult to intentionally violate the Brown Act with staff present in Closed Sessions. Mr. Goodhue stated from his own experience serving on a Civil Service Commission in the City of Oakland, the Deputy City Attorney is always present in Closed Sessions and will intervene if the Commission gets off the subject. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the composition and selection of the Grand Jury, Mr. Goodhue stated that the Grand Jury is composed of 19 members; Superior Court Judges in the County nominate individuals; that from a pool of approximately 30 nominees, there is a random draw to select members; the presiding Judge selects the Foreman; the Grand Jury meets at least once a week and the agenda is set by its members. Councilmember Daysog further inquired whether any Alamedans serve on the Grand Jury, to which Mr. Goodhue responded that Judge Bartalini served on the Grand Jury this past year; stated there have been a number of Alamedans on the Grand Jury over the years. Mayor Appezzato stated the City Attorney responded to every alleged Brown Act violation. Mr. Goodhue stated the Grand Jury made a decision not to investigate; the Grand Jury came up a workable recommendation to put said complaints to rest should they occur in the future. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that in November, 1997, he submitted a request [letter] to the Grand Jury to consider his recommendation to have audio tape recordings of Closed Meetings of the Alameda City Council; the letter did not include a request for the Grand Jury to make an investigation of any alleged violations of the Brown Act; in a letter to the Council and to the Editor of the Regular Meeting Alameda Ccuncil Meeting August 4, 1998 g7/4-4 Paper, there was no reference to any findings of any wrongdoing by the City Council; any conclusions to the contrary are inaccurate and untruthful; there are some untruths: an article by Tom Tuttle [Alameda Times Star] this week falsely states that he [Roberts] possibly committed a Brown Act violation; the Brown Act only applies to elected officials and their appointees. Don Roberts further stated Mayor Appezzato submitted a required form to the Fair Political Practices Commission in which he certified under penalty of perjury that he had no financial investment in any company doing business in the City of Alameda; after he [Roberts] confronted the Mayor about said matter, the Mayor filed another form in which he stated that he had invested between $10,000 and $100,000 in the Bank of Alameda. Mayor Appezzato responded that Mr. Roberts had mentioned his [Appezzato's] name in both letters to the Editor; stated that he will respond to Roberts' attempt to not tell the truth; Mr. Roberts did not inquire Ilrior to his submitting an amended return; that said return was submitted before Mr. Roberts' inquiry; that he told Roberts over the telephone to check with the City Clerk and to the pick the form up; the issue was raised long before Roberts made the telephone call; filers have until April 1 to file said forms; he submitted his form approximately March 1; two weeks prior to the deadline, he made an amended return; he was informed by the FPPC in Sacramento that an amended return would be most appropriate; that he had the option of withdrawing the form; however, with the FPPC 's recommendation, he submitted an amended return two weeks prior the deadline; and Mr. Roberts is inaccurate in stating that he committed an act of perjury. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not accuse the Mayor of committing perjury; the original submission was false. Mayor Appezzato stated amended returns are commonplace, and that he had the option of withdrawing said return [in lieu of submitting an amendment]. Councilmember Lucas stated Mr. Roberts was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation during a previous Council, when she was not on the Council, for improperly taking documents from a Councilmember. Councilmember Lucas commented that the July 17th letter from Mr. Goodhue to the City Council states: "it should be noted that the Grand Jury made no investigation as to possible wrongdoing by any city from which a complaint was received; the Grand Jury believed that such an investigation would be difficult at best, since the only testimony that could be provided would be from members attending such a meeting and it would be unlikely such individuals would incriminate themselves." Councilmember Lucas stated that in the City of Alameda, Closed Sessions are attended by the Mayor, Councilmembers, City Attorney and the City Manager at minimum; that Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 4 she has served as a Councilmember for twelve years; and inquired whether Mr. Goodhue was saying that if [she was] asked, she would not tell the truth. Mr. Goodhue responded "no"; stated that he was sorry if his statement was misinterpreted; there are circumstances where public bodies meet in Executive Sessions without City Attorneys; in those situations, you may not have any individuals [in attendance] choosing to be forthright; also, if the Grand Jury conducted an investigation through the District Attorney's Office, someone could not be compelled to incriminate themselves; if there are two or three members of a Council who choose to meet in violation of the Brown Act and they are investigated, you cannot even compel their testimony if such would incriminate them; the Grand Jury chose not to delve into these matters, and chose to put into place a mechanism to prevent complaints in the future. Councilmember Lucas stated that she did *--)t appreciate Mr. Goodhue's comments in his letter and this evening; that she tells the truth; Mr. Goodhue is stating that she does not tell the truth and that her fellow Councilmembers would not tell the truth; Mr. Goodhue is also stating that staff might not tell the truth; Mr. Goodhue is not qualifying his statement [in his letter] at all; that she does not accept Mr. Goodhue's insult. Mr. Goodhue responded that his statement is not an insult; stated the Grand Jury did not believe that if it undertook an investigation of either Alameda or the other two or three cities where complaints were raised, the issue would be put to rest; that he is not impugning Councilmember Lucas's integrity or anyone else's integrity; that if he brought in an investigator from the District Attorney's Office and all members of the City Council stated there was no violation and the Grand Jury issued a statement that nothing illegal occurred, the complainants would not believe it; if the Grand Jury had done an investigation, he assumes everyone on the Council would say nothing illegal had occurred. Councilmember Lucas stated Mr. Goodhue should not make any assumptions; he made no investigation; questioned how he could make assumptions; and stated if there is no investigation, conclusions should not be made about what people will do. Mr. Goodhue stated that the Grand Jury has limited time and has priorities; the Grand Jury took the position that an investigation would not put the issue to rest; if everyone said nothing occurred, complainants would still not be satisfied. Councilmember Lucas stated Mr. Goodhue is lumping everyone together and saying that they would not tell the truth, which is not acceptable. Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 Mr. Goodhue explained that his letter stated an investigation would not necessarily resolve the issue; commented that there certainly was no attempt to insult anyone; and if he was not concerned about the dedication public officials make, he would not be in attendance this evening clarifying the Grand Jury's position for the Mayor. Mayor Appezzato thanked Mr. Goodhue for attending the Council Meeting; stated sometimes Councilmembers cannot respond to misinformation and personal attacks. Mr. Goodhue stated that he is always happy to clarify any of the business of the Grand Jury. *** Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened the Meeting at 8:26 p.m. * * * 04i Mayor Appezzato announced that the amendment to the Curbside Recycling Contract [Paragraph No. 98-424] was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so encated or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceind the paragraph number.] (*98-419) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 21, 1998. Approved. [Note: Councilmember Kerr was not in attendance at the July 21, 1998 Council Meeting.] (*98-420) Recommendation to award Consultant Contract in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to Dyett & Bhatia for the General Plan Amendment Update and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements and documents. Accepted. (*98-421) Recommendation to approve letter of support for Assembly Bill 726, Sexually Oriented Businesses: Local Regulation. Accepted. (*98-422) Recommendation to accept the work of Bay Hawk, Inc. for Godfrey Park Playground Improvements Project, No. P.W. 07-97-14. Accepted. (*98-423) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize calling for Bids for Main Street Pump Station, No. P.W. 06-98-16. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 471,0 - 44, (98-424) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Curbside Recycling Contract by modifying the rate structure to include a new multi-plex category and authorize the City Manager to execute an amended Agreement. Councilmember Kerr thanked staff; stated this schedule is much better than the previous, however, the charge for a Multi-Plex with 2 - 4 units is $2.14 per unit regardless of the number of carts; questioned why charge per unit rather than per cart; stated another concern is that the cost for weekly pick up for apartment houses with more than 5 units is the same as a Multi-Plex pays for bi- weekly service; Section 4.1.1 of the amended Agreement should be simplified to make the charge per bill; if an owner of an apartment house is paying for all units on one bill, the billing cost should be for one individual bill; if tenants are paying [separate] bills, they should [each] pay the billing cost; it does not make sense to charge [billing fee] per unit if only one bill is sent to the apartment house. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether staff could review Councilmember Kerr's request to make it simpler and bring said matter back to Council; inquired whether Council could accept this [staff recommendation] while staff tries to further simplify [billing procedure]. The City's Waste Management Specialist Barbara Frierson stated billing Multi-Plex buildings by cart is difficult; often the landlord does not want to pay the bill; if the landlord does pay the bill, $2.14 per unit is the lowest rate. Councilmember Kerr stated the cost is the same per unit for larger apartment houses which have carts picked up every week; that she is trying to make it as consistent and user-friendly as possible; the rates may have to change a bit, however, it seems that the owners should be billed by carts rather than units; there should be a minimum number of carts or some people might try to get out of recycling. Councilmember Kerr further stated charge whoever is billed--an individual tenant, a single-family residential unit, or an owner of 500 units--if only billing one person why charge [billing fee based on number of units]; inquired why there is not a standard charge for billing. Ms. Frierson responded staff attempted to do so; and stated the standard charge would be $2.14 per unit. Councilmember Kerr clarified that she is not discussing the cost for the recycling service, she is talking about the billing surcharge as outlined in Section 4.1.1 which pertains to billing the customer rather than placing on property tax; there is a real mixture of charges; the billing charge should not focus on whether someone is in a Multi-Plex, single-family dwelling, rather whoever Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 gets the bill; a tenant, owner of an apartment building, or a single-family dwelling should all pay the same charge for the cost of billing. Ms. Frierson stated that was staff' 3 intention; perhaps it could be further clarified. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry whether or not Council should take action this evening, Ms. Frierson stated staff tried to reduce rates and would like to do so as quickly as possible. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated changes would have to be reviewed with the company [San Leandro Recycling, Inc.]. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding how difficult it would be to reach an amended Agreement on the cost per envelope mailed; Ms. Frierson stated the $1.04 surcharge was intended to cover the cost of mailings; perhaps that can be made more clear. Ms. Frierson gave a brief background on the billing system; and stated the City tried to reduce the cost for Multi-Plex buildings without tearing the Contract open. The City Manager suggested Council to approve the staff recommendation and also delegate authority to the City Manager to negotiate any amendments thereto; said matter can be moved forward without needing to return to Council unless so desired by a Councilmember. Mayor Appezzato stated staff should offset concerns without making new concerns; recycling is now mandatory. Councilmember Kerr moved acceptance of the staff recommendation with the addition that the City Manager be delegated the authority to negotiate any further amendments. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*98-425) ,14 ks "Authorizing Execution of Cooperative Agreement No. 4-1744C between the State and the City of Alameda Consisting of Widening the Off-Ramp on Route 1-880 at 23rd Avenue." Adopted. (*98-426) z- • of 4,11 "Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Joint Powers Agreement Creating A.B.A.G. Power and the Natural Gas Sales and Aggregation Agreement for Fiscal Year 1998-99 and Appointing a City Representative to A.B.A.G. Power as the Core Transport Agent for the City of Alameda in Procuring the Purchase and Transportation of Natural Gas and Related Services and Appointing a City Representative to the A.B.A.G. Power Board of Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 Directors." Adopted. (*98-427) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,357,917.80., (98-428) Resolution No. 13029, "Reappointing Gabriel Longoria as a Member of the City Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board." Adopted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Mr. Longoria with a certificate of reappointment. (98-429) Recommendation that Council join the Cities of San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley in supporting the capability for Passenger Rail Service as part of the redesign of the Bay Bridge in order to reduce regional traffic congestion, promote regional mass transit use and protect the environment and forward that position to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Caltrans. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated strengthening the eastern portion of the Bridge will be expensive; in addition, it will require major changes to traffic patterns on the western portion of the Bridge and additional rail services to be built leading up to, and going away from, the Bridge; rail transportation is notoriously inefficient and expensive; any monies that could be expended for this Project would be better spent on ferry service, buses, or engineering attempts to narrow the spacing between BART Trains. Robert Todd, Alameda, stated recently the Council voted to put a signal at the corner of Blanding and Park Street, which slows traffic in Alameda; most of the pollution takes place while cars are at stop lights or sitting in traffic; he supports the rail system; hopefully, system will be electric and non-polluting; Council should reconsider their decision to put the signal at the corner of Blanding and Park Street; and funding for signal could go toward a Skate Park and other social services. Councilmember Kerr stated that she brought said matter to the City Council agenda; it is true that the other cities--San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville and possibly one other--are recommending that the MTC study the possibility of putting rail on the Bridge; press coverage was on the visual design of the Bridge, and not on the fact that the eastern span would be designed with less load carrying capability than the existing western span; the eastern span should not be constructed with less weight capability Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 than the western span; a lot of people are talking about BART, but the existing underground stations on both sides of the Bay--Oakland and San Francisco--are only so long, and cars cannot be continually added to the trains; the length of trains is limited by the length of the stations, and there is a limitation on the frequency with which trains can be sent through the Tube--it is a single rail system; BART is not a wonderful system that is permanently expandable in its present state; if BART is ever expanded, it will cost an enormous amount of money, e.g. another Tube; the eastern span of the Bridge should not be built weaker than the western span; that she is willing to consider a change in language; that she included "the capability for passenger rail service" [in the language], rather than voting for passenger rail service; and if someone wants to put in language that Council supports building the eastern span so that it can carry the same load as the existing western span, she would approve it. Councilmember Daysog thanked Councilmember Ke-- for bringing the matter to the City's attention; stated Alameda's fate is tied to mass transportation; rail on the Bridge should be considered because it affects everyone; however, staff has not had the opportunity to review the full range of information; that he does not know the implications of proposal, e.g. impact on ferry and bus services. Councilmember Lucas stated that she fully supports the proposal to preserve the capability of rail service on the Bridge; the question is how useful and how important is it for Alameda to vote on the issue; the large cities are already committed to voting [placing matter on the ballot] on it. Mayor Appezzato stated Council could merely support the policy until more information is provided, e.g. costs; putting a third ballot measure on the ballot while trying to educate the public on the initial two City measures would concern him. Councilmember Kerr stated that she shares Mayor Appezzato's concern; Council action should be a policy decision; that she had advised the Mayor of Emeryville that she did not want to confuse Alameda's voters by placing another measure on the City ballot, or expend additional City funds; policy wording could be phrased to include the capability [for rail service]; extra cost item(s), as discussed by the MTC Task Force, would be increased tolls--not decreasing funds for existing ferry and bus services; extra costs would be handled by floating Bonds to be paid for by extending the number of years of [increased] tolls; that she would like to support the other cities by setting a policy for making the new eastern span just as strong as the existing western span. Mayor Appezzato stated the City has been very supportive of the East Bay; there are critics on both sides of the issue; and that he Regular Meeting Alameda Ccuncil Meeting August 4, 1998 can go on record as supporting the principle until Council is better informed. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he would support Councilmember Kerr's proposal. Councilmember Kerr moved "It shall be the policy of the City of Alameda to request the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Caltrans to include the capability for passenger rail services as part of the redesign of the Bay Bridge, in order to reduce regional traffic congestion, promote regional mass transit use and protect the environment." Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember Kerr would substitute the word "include" with the word "study." Councilmember Kerr agreed to amend her motion accordingly. Mayor Appezzato stated Council could provide its full support if and when all of the details are available and brought to Council. Councilmember Daysog expressed satisfaction. Councilmember Kerr moved to amend her original motion by substituting the word "include" with the word "study." Councilmember DeWitt seconded the amendment. Councilmember Daysog also expressed support for said amendment. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-430) Resolution No. 13030, "Amending Resolution No. 12121 Setting Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council Meetings." Adopted; and (98-430A) Resolution No. 13031, "Amending Resolution No. 12567 Establishing the Rules of Order Governing the Proceedings and Order of Business of City Council Meetings by Adding Section 1(1) Pertaining to Announcements at City Council Meetings." Adopted. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated making announcements at the beginning of Meetings is a good idea, however, the public should also have the opportunity to comment at said time; public speakers should be able to choose whether they would like to speak at the beginning or the end; [Council] could consider limiting public comment at the beginning to one minute and at the end to three minutes; said proposal would be fair. Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he requested said item be placed on the agenda because meetings can run late and there are items of public interest that need to be presented to the public before a late hour; announcement should not be a platform for political debate or comments from everyone, rather it should be restricted to specific announcements of public concern. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry regarding who would make announcements, Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the Mayor and Council would be permitted to make announcements. Councilmember Lucas further questioned whether members of the public would be permitted to speak, to which Vice Mayor DeWitt responded in the negative. Councilmember Kerr stated Council has the right to move Council Communications forward; that she is perfectly agreeable to vote to move Council Communications forward [during a Council Meeting]; said practice has been a practical method of handling this legally in the past. Councilmember Daysog stated this might open a can of worms; for example, items that are of general community concern should be clarified; perhaps the Mayor could ask to have Council Communications moved forward. Councilmember Lucas stated [announcements] would need to be short and should not include public input to keep from delaying people in the audience who would like to address agenda items; that she has appreciated the Mayor's comments of general interest in the past; that she has no problem with brief announcements, however, does not want to expand it into lengthy agenda item. Mayor Appezzato stated that he is the ceremonial head of the City and meets with various delegations visiting Alameda; that he discussed placing announcements on the agenda with the City Attorney in June; that he decided not to do it until after the election; the Mayor or Council should be able to make announcement to inform residents about exciting events in the City. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in favor of said matter as long as a future report clarifies uitems of general community concern"; lack of specified elements might lead to lengthy discussions. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that definitions could be established to keep announcements from becoming an open affair; that he could work with the City Attorney to narrow down what he is trying to accomplish; to move Council Communications forward would not solve the unique situation; there are other matters which are addressed under Council Communications. Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 The City Attorney stated the Resolution Amending Resolution No. 12567 [Resolution No. 13031] could me amended to read: "Announcements is a non-discussion item intended to inform the public of upcoming events of community interest and the community activities of the City's elected officials." Councilmember Lucas stated that she would like to limit it to Mayor and Councilmembers. The City Attorney stated the Resolution could be revised to "Announcements is a non-discussion item intended to provide the opportunity to the Mayor and Council to inform..." which would clarify it is not intended for the public. Mayor Appezzato gave examples of announcement of public interest. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether a time limit could be placed on announcements. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated he would prefer not to place a time limit. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution "Amending Resolution No. 12567 Establishing the Rules of Order Governing the Proceedings and Order of Business of City Council Meetings by Adding Section 1(1) Pertaining to Announcements at City Council Meetings" with revisions presented [by the City Attorney]. Councilmember Daysog clarified that the motion was to include the changes suggested by the City Attorney. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. The City Attorney further clarified that the motion was also to adopt the other Resolution "Amending Resolution No. 12121" [Resolution No. 13030]. Vice Mayor DeWitt and Councilmember Daysog agreed to include adoption of said Resolution [Resolution No. 13030]. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt and Lucas - 3. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Abstentions: Mayor Appezzato - 1. (98-431) Resolution No. 13032, "Rescinding Resolution No. 13025 and Calling a Consolidated Special Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 3, 1998 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors the Question of Whether the 2% Portion of the Utility Users Tax, Adopted Via Ordinance No. 2691 on May 2, 1995, is to be Continued. Adopted. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated the Resolution [Resolution No. 13025] Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 passed at the last meeting [July 21, 1998] provides the voters the full information as to what is being proposed; the ballot question [adopted via Resolution No. 13025] indicates that it is continuation of the 2% portion of the tax, however, it also provides the information that was raised from 5.5% to 7.5%; the proposal to change said language would not provide the voters with the full information; the voters should be informed in the ballot question that the tax was increased to 7.5% from 5.5%. Gerhard Degemann, Chairman of the Committee for the Passage of 2% Utility Continuous User Tax Ratification, stated the Alameda Journal. Newspaper stated a simple majority of the voters is required to pass the Measure and inquired whether said information is correct. In response the Mr. Degemann's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that Proposition 218 requires a 2/3 vote on all new taxes, however, this is continuation of an existing tax which was passed in 1995 and only requires a simple majority. Mayor Appezzato stated the tax goes into the General Fund. Mr. Degemann requested that the ballot argument in favor be sent to the Committee for review. Mayor Appezzato stated that he has no problem with having the Committee review and inquired the timeline. The City Clerk stated the deadline for submitting direct arguments will be Wednesday, August 12, 1998 by 5:00 p.m. Mayor Appezzato stated Council will go forward, but will try to accommodate the Committee. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Council was voting to allow the Committee to come up with language. Mayor Appezzato clarified that the Committee would review the ballot argument not the language of the ballot question. Councilmember Kerr stated this [tax] has an urgency; an article in the San Francisco Chronicle Newspaper stated that Governor Wilson prevailed over the legislature regarding the Vehicle License Fee (VLF); the proceeds from the VLF were guaranteed to local government by a Constitutional Amendment; there is posturing in Sacramento that they will save the voters taxes; they are cutting a tax that is guaranteed to local communities and are not taking a dime from the State budget; the article said Governor Wilson prevailed; the legislature sold out Cities once again; the City will be facing the loss of $3.4 Million per year which increases the urgency and the necessity for continuation of the 2% portion of Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 the Utility Users Tax (UUT); what is being considered should be crystal clear to the voters; to throw 5.5% or 7.5% in the short language would be confusing; the City Attorney is providing an [Impartial] Analysis of the UUT in the ballot; the information will be available to all the voters in their voter pamphlet. Mayor Appezzato stated the VLF will be eliminated over 5 years; the legislature has promised to reimburse Cities the first year. Councilmember Kerr stated the miscellaneous promise is not Constitutionally guaranteed. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he requested to change the language at the July 7, 1998 Council Meeting; the matter returned to Council at the last meeting [July 21, 1998] at which time Council passed an amended Resolution [Resolution No. 13025]; upon review, the wording [adopted in Resolution 13025] seemed more confusing than the original wording presented on July 7th; language was revised in haste and would be confusing to the voters; the City Attorney informed him Council would need to: 1) reconsider the wording adopted on July 21st; and 2) vote to adopt the Resolution being considered this evening. The City Attorney stated in order to adopt this language [before Council tonight] three Councilmembers would need to vote in support: 1) to reconsider the adoption of the Resolution [Resolution No. 13025] on July 21st; and 2) assuming that passes, to adopt the Resolution before Council [Resolution No. 13032]. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved that Council reconsider the Council action of July 21st [Resolution No. 13025]. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Kerr and Lucas - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Appezzato - 2. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would rather keep the 5.5% to 7.5% [adopted in Resolution No. 13025]. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution with the ballot question: "Shall the existing 2% portion of the utility users tax on telephone users, electricity users, gas users, and cable television users, adopted via Ordinance No. 2691, May 5, 1995, be continued?". Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Kerr and Lucas - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Appezzato - 2. Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) (98-432) Robert Todd, Alameda, commented on moving the dog park back to its original location and staff's efforts to work with East Bay Regional Park District. (98-433) Edmond Agbemadon, Hertz Electric, stated his company completed the project of upgrading the traffic signal at Park and Clement for the City; problems were encountered during construction; the company was requested to repaint the poles; the company has tried to get the job signed off [by the City] and has tried to schedule meetings with City staff; meetings have been cancelled without notification; it appears that somebody does not want to sign off on this job. Mayor Appezzato requested the City Manager to take said matter under advisement. (Communications from Council) (98-434) Mayor's appointment of David L. Needle as the Fernside Homeowners' Association representative to the Airport Operations Committee. Mayor Appezzato nominated David Needle. (98-435) Mayor's appointment to the Mayors Committee for the Disabled. Mayor Appezzato nominated Stephen Fort. (98-436) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Planning Board. Mayor Appezzato nominated John H. Teetsov. (98-437) Councilmember Daysog stated big rigs are being parked along the Atlantic Avenue at Third Street; taxi cabs are also congregating in the area; directed the City Manager's Office to determine whether rules are being broken. (98-438) Councilmember Lucas stated the City of Seaside, which has also had to cope with a closed military base, has adopted an arts in public places program; directed staff to review a similar program for Alameda. Mayor Appezzato stated there is public art in Marina Village; the City should try to get Catellus, the developer, to include public art [at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Alameda Point]. Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998 (98-439) Councilmember Lucas stated people do not know where to put florescent tube light bulbs for recycling and must make an appointment to drop off said bulbs at the hazardous waste facility; inquired whether the City could advise citizens how to handle florescent bulbs. There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Di ne B. elsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda Council Meeting August 4, 1998